Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 119 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 12 post(s) |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
384
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 01:50:00 -
[1] - Quote
Well played, CCP. Your DEVs/balancing team apparently have the reasoning ability of small children so I'll put this in terms they will understand.
********** "Once upon a time there were three little miners. They ventured into the big wide world to earn their fortunes.
The First Little Miner went to Jita and fit his Hulk with Cargo Expanders. This way, he could AFK mine with a minimum of effort and fuss. It left the miner plenty of freetime to daydream, jerk off, and watch Japanese Anime while earning ISK.
....Then along came the Big Bad Ganker in a Catalyst, saying "Little miner, little miner, I'm going to ******* do you in." The first miner, predictably, was tabbed out and said nothing. So the Ganker loaded and overheated and blew the Hulk in, and splattered the pod, too.
The Second Little Miner went to Jita, bought MLU's and a hauler. This way, he could mine faster than anyone else - and become quite wealthy in no time. It was a bit more work, of course, but he kept himself entertained chatting in local with his neighbors.
...Then along came the Big Bad Ganker, in a Tornado, saying "Little miner, little miner, I'm going to ******* do you in." The second miner, said "Not by the hair of my chinny, chin chin," aligns, and turned on his Small Booster II. So the Ganker loaded and overheated and blew the Hulk in. The frightened miner flees in his pod, broke, but alive.
The Third Little Miner went to Jita and fit his Hulk with a DCII, MSE, Invulnerability Fields, and Shield Extender Rigs. Wisely, he sets his Hulk to orbit a nearby asteroid, and always kept an wary eye on his surroundings.
...Then along came the Big Bad Ganker, in a T2 Talos, saying "Little miner, little miner, I'm going to ******* do you in." The Third miner chuckles to himself, overheats his Invulnerability Fields and aligns to the nearest station. So the Ganker loaded, and overheated, and simply CANNOT blow the Hulk in.
Defeated, the ganker slinks off in his pod, and the smart little Miner scoops the Talos wreckage and sells it for a tidy profit."
THE END **********
Cargo Hulk, Yield Hulk, Tank Hulk, those were the choices - all with drawbacks.
Cargo - for a Hybrid Exhumer/Hauler, with a risky AFK 'cruise control' option. Yield - to maximize returns with friends providing transport. Tank - 30-40K EHP to discourage/thwart gankers. (and really, one could still put up a reasonable tank on either Cargo or Yield fit Hulks, if they used the mid-slots....)
But choices are dangerous things. Given the choice, miners will take cargo/yield every time - and then throw a tantrum when they are ganked. The rare, clever miner who tanked his Hulk; well, he weathered the storm - and reaped the benefits as mineral prices rose.
But throw that out the window, just give the whining miners all three. Notice how CCP put quite a bit of care into saving miners from their own bad choices.
This is more than a buff - this is CCP acknowledging that miners, as a group, are too stupid to make the correct fitting choices.[
Step 1: Idiot miners don't even use the slots they have - so slap stupid amounts of EHP directly to the hull, rather than give them additional slots/PG or CPU. Frigate-size Skiff, Orca EHP. Really?
Step 2: Idiot miners keep sacking their EHP with Cargo Expanders - so make Cargo Expanders pointless with the Ore Bay. (And I doubt the DEVs will get around to fixing the 'special cargo bays don't drop loot' bug, either - simply because fixing THAT bug would benefit the wrong kinds of players, I suppose.....)
So, good game, CCP. Good to know we are still steaming, full speed ahead! - towards Hello-Kitty highsec, a paradise for bots and stupidass gameplay. Hard to hear myself say it, but I'm now officially nostalgic for the days of Incarna and WiS development. At least back then, the DEVs were merely wasting their own time. |
Marconus Orion
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
325
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 01:55:00 -
[2] - Quote
Oh he mad. |
Pipa Porto
494
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 01:58:00 -
[3] - Quote
Marconus Orion wrote:Oh he mad.
But is he wrong?
Nope.
Fitted properly, a Hulk cannot be profitably ganked. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1217
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 01:58:00 -
[4] - Quote
Nice to see the miner knows to overheat his invuls. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Adalynne Rohks
Tax Evasion Anonymous
79
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 01:59:00 -
[5] - Quote
Oh Yayah! This is the stuff that general discussion was made for! Keep the tears flowing. They're delicious! |
Mallak Azaria
385
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 02:06:00 -
[6] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Marconus Orion wrote:Oh he mad. But is he wrong? Nope. Fitted properly, a Hulk cannot be profitably ganked.
Happy miner is happy because CCP is acknowledging that miners, as a group, are too stupid to make the correct fitting choices.. Happy miner is now glad that he is stupid. Mining Barge buff: CCP-áhas acknowledged that miners in general-áare too stupid to make the correct fitting choices to make ganking them unprofitable. |
Sam Ruger
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 02:09:00 -
[7] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Marconus Orion wrote:Oh he mad. But is he wrong? Nope. Fitted properly, a Hulk cannot be profitably ganked. Happy miner is happy because CCP is acknowledging that miners, as a group, are too stupid to make the correct fitting choices.. Happy miner is now glad that he is stupid.
And Ganker is too stupid to bring some friends along to help.
No matter what change is made someone is gonna whine about it not being fair or making something to hard. Acknowledge and move on. I am sick of the whining on both sides of the issue. |
Surfin's PlunderBunny
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1721
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 02:09:00 -
[8] - Quote
I believe I was promised bacon? |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1218
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 02:10:00 -
[9] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:But is he wrong?
Nope.
Fitted properly, a Hulk cannot be profitably ganked. Happy miner is happy because CCP is acknowledging that miners, as a group, are too stupid to make the correct fitting choices.. Happy miner is now glad that he is stupid. ( ^___^)/
It's as if they had been asking for it over and over. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Pipa Porto
494
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 02:11:00 -
[10] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Marconus Orion wrote:Oh he mad. But is he wrong? Nope. Fitted properly, a Hulk cannot be profitably ganked. Happy miner is happy because CCP is acknowledging that miners, as a group, are too stupid to make the correct fitting choices.. Happy miner is now glad that he is stupid.
Yep. Happy Miner is proud that he's too stupid to survive without CCP holding his hand and leading him to water. Bet you that in 6 months we're gonna hear Happy Miner turn into Sad Miner complaining that CCP hasn't forced him to drink. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
|
Pipa Porto
494
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 02:14:00 -
[11] - Quote
Sam Ruger wrote: And Ganker is too stupid to bring some friends along to help.
Fitted Properly, a Hulk cannot be profitably ganked right now.
After the buff, a Hulk's going to be tankier, and the Skiff will be impossible to screw up the tank on. A Skiff could fit 2 500m Aeode MLUs and still not be anywhere near profitable to gank. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Mallak Azaria
385
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 02:14:00 -
[12] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Marconus Orion wrote:Oh he mad. But is he wrong? Nope. Fitted properly, a Hulk cannot be profitably ganked. Happy miner is happy because CCP is acknowledging that miners, as a group, are too stupid to make the correct fitting choices.. Happy miner is now glad that he is stupid. Yep. Happy Miner is proud that he's too stupid to survive without CCP holding his hand and leading him to water. Bet you that in 6 months we're gonna hear Happy Miner turn into Sad Miner complaining that CCP hasn't forced him to drink.
You can lead a horse to water... Mining Barge buff: CCP-áhas acknowledged that miners in general-áare too stupid to make the correct fitting choices to make ganking them unprofitable. |
MinefieldS
1 Sick Duck Standss on something
73
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 02:20:00 -
[13] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Marconus Orion wrote:Oh he mad. But is he wrong? Nope. Fitted properly, a Hulk cannot be profitably ganked. How about a fleet of 30ish velators w/ cheap blasters? |
Matius Toskavich
State War Academy Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 02:21:00 -
[14] - Quote
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. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
384
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 02:22:00 -
[15] - Quote
And before this thread fills up with endless gloating (and why shouldn't they gloat?) threads from miners....
Realize this: if you are a miner who is reading this thread, chances are YOU are the Third Little Pig. The one that stands to benefit from knowledge of good fits and how to avoid a gank.
Sure, in reality the Wolf won't try to blow your door in. He'll move along and kick down another straw house....
but allowing the stubborn...the new....the bots to feed at the same trough 'without risk' means an impending crash in mineral prices - and the smart miners end up suffering.
So, gloat away......
|
Suqq Madiq
Amarr Empire
177
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 02:24:00 -
[16] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Marconus Orion wrote:Oh he mad. But is he wrong? Nope. Fitted properly, a Hulk cannot be profitably ganked.
So what? There are literally dozens of ships in EVE that, when fit properly, can't be profitably ganked. Get over your preconceived notion that mining ships must be profitable gank targets. It's idiotic and you sound stupid for trying to pass off such a blatant falsehood as "The Truth". |
Roll Sizzle Beef
Space Mutiny
699
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 02:25:00 -
[17] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote: Fitted Properly, a Hulk cannot be profitably ganked right now..
It has rarely been about profit. |
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
148
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 02:25:00 -
[18] - Quote
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. |
Pipa Porto
494
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 02:31:00 -
[19] - Quote
MinefieldS wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Marconus Orion wrote:Oh he mad. But is he wrong? Nope. Fitted properly, a Hulk cannot be profitably ganked. How about a fleet of 30ish velators w/ cheap blasters?
So taking 7.5 man hours to gank a Hulk profitably. Ok EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Pipa Porto
494
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 02:33:00 -
[20] - Quote
Suqq Madiq wrote:Get over your preconceived notion that mining ships must be profitable gank targets.
They're not profitable gank targets unless the Miners choose to hold a bullseye over their face. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
|
Ginseng Jita
PAN-EVE TRADING COMPANY
1673
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 02:33:00 -
[21] - Quote
OP is right. |
Suqq Madiq
Amarr Empire
178
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 02:35:00 -
[22] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Suqq Madiq wrote:Get over your preconceived notion that mining ships must be profitable gank targets. They're not profitable gank targets unless the Miners choose to hold a bullseye over their face.
They don't. This is another one of your preconceived notions that exists only in your head. Again, there are dozens of ships that aren't profitable gank targets when fit properly, so why should Hulks be the exception? |
Gorinia Sanford
Sons of Russ
47
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 02:39:00 -
[23] - Quote
*yawn*
Not another thread whining about miners yet again? |
Pipa Porto
494
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 02:40:00 -
[24] - Quote
Suqq Madiq wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Suqq Madiq wrote:Get over your preconceived notion that mining ships must be profitable gank targets. They're not profitable gank targets unless the Miners choose to hold a bullseye over their face. They don't. This is another one of your preconceived notions that exists only in your head. Again, there are dozens of ships that aren't profitable gank targets when fit properly, so why should Hulks be the exception?
The Hulk isn't a profitable Gank target when fit properly either. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Suqq Madiq
Amarr Empire
178
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 02:42:00 -
[25] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Suqq Madiq wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Suqq Madiq wrote:Get over your preconceived notion that mining ships must be profitable gank targets. They're not profitable gank targets unless the Miners choose to hold a bullseye over their face. They don't. This is another one of your preconceived notions that exists only in your head. Again, there are dozens of ships that aren't profitable gank targets when fit properly, so why should Hulks be the exception? The Hulk isn't a profitable Gank target when fit properly either.
Then what's the problem? You're spewing your opinion all over the place advocating for Mining vessels to be profitable gank targets. Why? |
Denidil
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
315
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 02:42:00 -
[26] - Quote
cry more, gankbear. now you have to shoot things that shoot back like the rest of us, poor poor baby. HTFU I like all these gankbear tears, now maybe you'll have to go prove your "l33t pvp" skills against something that shoots back like the rest of us do. |
Suqq Madiq
Amarr Empire
178
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 02:43:00 -
[27] - Quote
Gorinia Sanford wrote:*yawn*
Not another thread whining about miners yet again?
Are you sure? I have it from a reliable source that it's the miners making all the whine threads. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1218
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 02:46:00 -
[28] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:MinefieldS wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Marconus Orion wrote:Oh he mad. But is he wrong? Nope. Fitted properly, a Hulk cannot be profitably ganked. How about a fleet of 30ish velators w/ cheap blasters? So taking 7.5 man hours to gank a Hulk profitably. Ok 30 vs 1? Interesting idea there. Even gankers have to blob now? Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Pipa Porto
494
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 02:48:00 -
[29] - Quote
Suqq Madiq wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Suqq Madiq wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Suqq Madiq wrote:Get over your preconceived notion that mining ships must be profitable gank targets. They're not profitable gank targets unless the Miners choose to hold a bullseye over their face. They don't. This is another one of your preconceived notions that exists only in your head. Again, there are dozens of ships that aren't profitable gank targets when fit properly, so why should Hulks be the exception? The Hulk isn't a profitable Gank target when fit properly either. Then what's the problem? You're spewing your opinion all over the place advocating for Mining vessels to be profitable gank targets. Why?
I'm saying they don't need a tank buff because they're fine as they are. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1113
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 02:49:00 -
[30] - Quote
Interesting...
Unfortunately, I can't test the specific changes (which likely are not yet final) because I only have one account and its full.
I like the concept. Essentially, throw the miners a bone, and if they still don't take it, tell them to deal with what happens.
If miners still whine about getting ganked, CCP can genuinely say HTFU. |
|
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1113
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 02:51:00 -
[31] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Suqq Madiq wrote:...... Then what's the problem? You're spewing your opinion all over the place advocating for Mining vessels to be profitable gank targets. Why? I'm saying they don't need a tank buff because they're fine as they are. No, the low level ones are useless and have no purpose. The only reason Macks are flown is because of their ice bonus.
CCP is trying to make all of them have a reason to fly. They just need to (possibly) work on the details. |
Turifica
University of Caille Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 02:56:00 -
[32] - Quote
Pathetic post is pathetic. Just pathetic.
In this thread: Moronic whiner complains that it will take more than one ganker to kill a target now. Also fails to realize that ganks are still easily accomplished with a small group of 2 week old Thrasher or Catalyst pilots. Doubtless, if I go back through this ******* moron's posts, I will find at least one that says something along the lines of "EVE is an MMO, that's MULTI player blah blah blah." Nut up and put together a crew, loser.
For a bad guy pirate type, you've got zero balls and zero imagination. You're problem isn't that its being rebalanced, its that you know you can't put together a group of ten people who would give you the ******* time of day, never mind listen to your pathetic drivel.
I'm looking forward to the new challenges. Like many in these new mining threads, I know that lazy people are lazy and will take the easy path. I'll be ganking them for years to come. |
Pipa Porto
495
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 02:59:00 -
[33] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Suqq Madiq wrote:...... Then what's the problem? You're spewing your opinion all over the place advocating for Mining vessels to be profitable gank targets. Why? I'm saying they don't need a tank buff because they're fine as they are. No, the low level ones are useless and have no purpose. The only reason Macks are flown is because of their ice bonus. CCP is trying to make all of them have a reason to fly. They just need to (possibly) work on the details.
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. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
stoicfaux
1299
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 03:01:00 -
[34] - Quote
So... the moral of the story is that the Big Bad Wolf has gone from being a windbag to a crybaby?
You can tell me what is and isn't Truth when you pry the tinfoil from my cold, lifeless head.
|
Ginseng Jita
PAN-EVE TRADING COMPANY
1674
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 03:08:00 -
[35] - Quote
CCP is making EVE into MLP Online. High sec is going to become 100% safe haven for miners and the botters are going to grow in such numbers it is going to be stupid silly. |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
81
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 03:09:00 -
[36] - Quote
Chainsaw Plankton wrote: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 then the stupid miner will whine that their profession is not profitable enough again. |
EvEa Deva
State War Academy Caldari State
56
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 03:09:00 -
[37] - Quote
Another kick in the balls to gankers, im almost starting to feel sorry for you guys............almost |
Ginseng Jita
PAN-EVE TRADING COMPANY
1674
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 03:11:00 -
[38] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Suqq Madiq wrote:...... Then what's the problem? You're spewing your opinion all over the place advocating for Mining vessels to be profitable gank targets. Why? I'm saying they don't need a tank buff because they're fine as they are. No, the low level ones are useless and have no purpose. The only reason Macks are flown is because of their ice bonus. CCP is trying to make all of them have a reason to fly. They just need to (possibly) work on the details. 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.
With the changes on the barges you'd be silly not to use Mackinaw with it's new uber armor. Put on ice mods and 2 MLU's, use the mining implants and tada...park your Mackinaw in the ice field and go watch a movie. Wash - rinse - repeat - profit - 0 risk. |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
81
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 03:16:00 -
[39] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Suqq Madiq wrote:...... Then what's the problem? You're spewing your opinion all over the place advocating for Mining vessels to be profitable gank targets. Why? I'm saying they don't need a tank buff because they're fine as they are. No, the low level ones are useless and have no purpose. The only reason Macks are flown is because of their ice bonus. CCP is trying to make all of them have a reason to fly. They just need to (possibly) work on the details. 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.
I didn't notice this at the time but this screams homogenization and bad design. Instead of giving mining ships a unique role and letting the miner determine which tool is the best for the job we're just going to make them all the same and let the trisomy 32 miners fly the 500mill isk ship that is clearly the best because it costs 500mill isk.
I don't mine but isn't diversity and choice part of the fun in this game? This is basically an antifun change as you no longer have to think to accomplish the task you want to perform while mining because there aren't any choices to make. |
Herr Hammer Draken
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
45
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 03:17:00 -
[40] - 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....
|
|
Pipa Porto
495
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 03:20:00 -
[41] - Quote
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. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
stoicfaux
1299
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 03:21:00 -
[42] - Quote
Adapt. It's now easier to gank the asteroids than the miners. Trade in your destroyers and tie3 BCs for mining ships and gank the asteroids out from under the miners.
Imagine the tears when the AFK miner comes back to see that his ore hold is nearly empty and his lasers shut off ten minutes ago because you and your wolfpack stripped the rocks out from under him!
You can tell me what is and isn't Truth when you pry the tinfoil from my cold, lifeless head.
|
Herr Hammer Draken
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
45
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 03:25:00 -
[43] - 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. |
Suqq Madiq
Amarr Empire
178
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 03:25:00 -
[44] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:I'm saying they don't need a tank buff because they're fine as they are.
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? |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
81
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 03:26:00 -
[45] - Quote
If these changes go through I'd like to see CCP put bot hunting into overdrive. These changes will make botting all the more easier because you don't need to worry about that mining ship getting ganked. |
Roll Sizzle Beef
Space Mutiny
699
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 03:28:00 -
[46] - Quote
La Nariz wrote: Instead of giving mining ships a unique role and letting the miner determine which tool is the best for the job we're just going to make them all the same and let the trisomy 32 miners fly the 500mill isk ship that is clearly the best because it costs 500mill isk.
so "mercoxit ship", "ice ship", "everything else ship" is letting miners determine which tool is better for the job? Well fancy that. |
Suqq Madiq
Amarr Empire
178
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 03:28:00 -
[47] - Quote
Ginseng Jita wrote:CCP is making EVE into MLP Online. High sec is going to become 100% safe haven for miners and the botters are going to grow in such numbers it is going to be stupid silly.
Nobody believes this drivel. Nowhere is 100% safe. You can still gank any ship you want by applying the correct amount of force. |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
81
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 03:29:00 -
[48] - Quote
Suqq Madiq wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:I'm saying they don't need a tank buff because they're fine as they are. 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?
Wow remember Incarna just because CCP does something doesn't mean its the right thing to do. |
Suqq Madiq
Amarr Empire
178
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 03:31:00 -
[49] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:Suqq Madiq wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:I'm saying they don't need a tank buff because they're fine as they are. 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? Wow remember Incarna just because CCP does something doesn't mean its the right thing to do.
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. |
Herr Hammer Draken
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
45
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 03:35:00 -
[50] - 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 Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
388
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 03:38:00 -
[51] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:So... the moral of the story is that the Big Bad Wolf has gone from being a windbag to a crybaby?
Nope, this Big Bad Wolf will probably go back to ganking haulers. (until Crimewatch kills that profession off)
And there are always Tengus to pop.
But Exhumers will likely be off the menu.
Sure, there will be the odd holdout 5 or 6 man dessie team. But really, the last (and ONLY) credible threat to miners in high-sec has been largely removed. Most gankers are sharp enough to realize that spending 300M for a 'chance' to pop a 180M ISK Mackinaw is an abject waste. Orcas are rarely attacked as well - same principle. No drops + massive EHP + relatively cheap cost = waste of time.
As for the AFKer and bots, while being like cockroaches (they NEVER go away) - at least you could have fun squashing them and earn a little ISK doing it. Now - they will operate with complete impunity, 60K EHP Mackinaw, HO!!!!
Has nothing to do with 'adjusting' or 'being smart' about ganking. There is no way to 'trick' anyone in this process. (unlike ninja salvaging - which, also repeatedly nerfed, I fear is breathing its last....safeties anyone?)
Ganking is all hard numbers, proper scouting, and execution - but its clear what side of the scale CCP's thumb is on. Eventually you are simply beating your head against endless nerfs, ISK disincentives and massive EHP.
Yeah, THATS creative - force all gankers exclusively into roving packs of Catalysts. Yet other 'clever' tactics and tricks have been all been removed, by one means or another - in record time, the minute CCP discovers them....
So spare me the crybaby comments.
The Goons are right on this one. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
245
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 03:44:00 -
[52] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Nope, this Big Bad Wolf will probably go back to ganking haulers. (until Crimewatch kills that profession off) What part of proposed crimewatch changes prevents hauler ganking? |
Noriko Satomi
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
53
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 03:45:00 -
[53] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Marconus Orion wrote:Oh he mad. But is he wrong? Nope. Fitted properly, a Hulk cannot be profitably ganked. Yes, he's completely wrong. They're not buffing the tank on the Hulk: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1481903#post1481903
They're just shrinking the cargo hold and adding an ore hold, which cargo expanders won't have an affect on.
If miners fit a hulk for max yield, they'll still have a wafer thin tank. The other mining vessels will be more tanky, so miners will have a bit more choice, but how is that a bad thing?
Gankers were already handed both the Tornado and a destroyer buff. This is just balance. |
Roll Sizzle Beef
Space Mutiny
700
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 03:48:00 -
[54] - Quote
Noriko Satomi wrote:Yes, he's completely wrong. They're not buffing the tank on the Hulk: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1481903#post1481903They're just shrinking the cargo hold and adding an ore hold, which cargo expanders won't have an affect on. If miners fit a hulk for max yield, they'll still have a wafer thin tank. The other mining vessels will be more tanky, so miners will have a bit more choice, but how is that a bad thing? Gankers were already handed both the Tornado and a destroyer buff. This is just balance. Actually its slightly buffed. Yet not to the extent of the other two hulls.
Hulk gets keeps 2,500 hull. 1,300 more armor to 2.3k 1,200 more shield yet almost double the recharge time to 2.7k
mack gets 2,800 more hull to 4k 3,000 more armor to 3.7k 3,300 more shield but 3 times the recharge time to 4.3k
skiff get 5,400 more hull to 6k 4,150 more armor to 5.5k 5,900 more shield but almost 4 times the recharge to 6.5k
hulk is still a lot lighter compared to the other two. |
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
833
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 03:49:00 -
[55] - Quote
Grats to miners on your reduced profits.
It's gonna be so easy now that everyone who does it will feel safe and do so with awesome yield, great cargo so they don't need to check as often and above all, in safety.
Gone are the days where EVE is a dangerous place.
Well, I guess ships will be cheap to produce.
A list of fixes for the new inventory
Dual Pane idea clicky |
Pipa Porto
495
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 03:50:00 -
[56] - Quote
Noriko Satomi wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Marconus Orion wrote:Oh he mad. But is he wrong? Nope. Fitted properly, a Hulk cannot be profitably ganked. Yes, he's completely wrong. They're not buffing the tank on the Hulk: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1481903#post1481903They're just shrinking the cargo hold and adding an ore hold, which cargo expanders won't have an affect on. If miners fit a hulk for max yield, they'll still have a wafer thin tank. The other mining vessels will be more tanky, so miners will have a bit more choice, but how is that a bad thing? Gankers were already handed both the Tornado and a destroyer buff. This is just balance.
The balance to the Nado and Dessie Buff was the Insurance nerf.
The SISI numbers say you're wrong on the rest. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
245
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 03:51:00 -
[57] - Quote
Zagdul wrote:Gone are the days where EVE is a dangerous place. I seem to have missed the part when they made all player ships immune to damage. |
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
833
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 03:51:00 -
[58] - Quote
Roll Sizzle Beef wrote:Noriko Satomi wrote:Yes, he's completely wrong. They're not buffing the tank on the Hulk: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1481903#post1481903They're just shrinking the cargo hold and adding an ore hold, which cargo expanders won't have an affect on. If miners fit a hulk for max yield, they'll still have a wafer thin tank. The other mining vessels will be more tanky, so miners will have a bit more choice, but how is that a bad thing? Gankers were already handed both the Tornado and a destroyer buff. This is just balance. Actually its slightly buffed. Yet not to the extent of the other two hulls. Hulk gets keeps 2,500 hull. 1,300 more armor to 2.3k 1,200 more shield yet almost double the recharge time to 2.7k mack gets 2,800 more hull to 4k 3,000 more armor to 3.7k 3,300 more shield but 3 times the recharge time to 4.3k skiff get 5,400 more hull to 6k 4,150 more armor to 5.5k 5,900 more shield but almost 4 times the recharge to 6.5k hulk is still a lot lighter compared to the other two.
Now, slap some tank on those raw numbers my friend.
Skiff gets some insane numbers like 70k ehp.
A list of fixes for the new inventory
Dual Pane idea clicky |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
245
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 03:55:00 -
[59] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:The balance to the Nado and Dessie Buff was the Insurance nerf. Kinda depends on how CCP looks at it. If insurance removal was designed to put ganking in the place that they thought it should probably have originally been when looking back, then that change doesn't need a counter as it was setting something strait that they decided shouldn't have been, leaving only the plus for gankers that is the improved ganking tools. |
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
1788
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 03:56:00 -
[60] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Zagdul wrote:Gone are the days where EVE is a dangerous place. I seem to have missed the part when they made all player ships immune to damage.
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. |
|
|
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
580
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:00:00 -
[61] - Quote
^ Like how their faces, should be adjusted. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Herr Hammer Draken
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
45
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:01:00 -
[62] - Quote
Eh and there it is. |
Malphilos
State War Academy Caldari State
131
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:05:00 -
[63] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote: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.
There's a whole bunch of interesting in this bit.
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
747
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:06:00 -
[64] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote: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. Tell that to the triple-digit billions I've made from ganking haulers and freighters carrying ungodly amounts of crap without a second though given to defense. I can safely say that I've caused many of those people to quit in anger. But go ahead, "adjust the numbers" if you need help with your mortgage payments.
The point is, we're not going to stop ganking until you remove aggression in high-sec, which I'm sure you'll do within the next couple of years (it's the only logical conclusion to the gradual progression that's been going on). Until that happens, we'll continue doing what we do, either by using more people, or using different, valid game mechanics. All your actions are reactionary, and are only responses to the need for short-term subscription increases. Face the facts: we know more about this game than a whole lot of people currently in charge of maintaining it, and you guys are really regretting the whole "non-consensual pvp" thing in this here year 2012. If you really want that sub spike, stop beating around the bush with these gradual let-downs, and change the game in one fell swoop. At least that way you'll leave with a bang, and a nice bonus in the bank. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
580
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:12:00 -
[65] - Quote
^ I wish I made that much money, from dieing in missions. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
747
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:13:00 -
[66] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Suicide ganking wasn't designed to be profitable
And I'm already laughing at the hordes of carebears who will quote you out of context for the next year at least. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
580
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:14:00 -
[67] - Quote
Yeah CCP I was suiciding that drone outpost. It should definetly have modules inside, worthy of my domi dieing to take it out. My death was totally on purpose and your ruining this game saying it meant nothing. Well it meant something to ME. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
580
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:17:00 -
[68] - Quote
Abdiel Kavash wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:Suicide ganking wasn't designed to be profitable And I'm already laughing at the hordes of carebears who will quote you out of context for the next year at least.
CCP Soundwave wrote:Suicide ganking wasn't designed to be profitable
Ah finally a dev, with the carebear at heart. Can you put that on the soundwave soundboard, so I can listen to that, while going to bed. Yeah out of context as well. Like how predictable money making from suicide ganks is the same thing as hunting a place and studying the prey for a random occurence to make billions. Totally the same. Out of context, its so fun I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
81
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:19:00 -
[69] - Quote
Roll Sizzle Beef wrote:La Nariz wrote: Instead of giving mining ships a unique role and letting the miner determine which tool is the best for the job we're just going to make them all the same and let the trisomy 32 miners fly the 500mill isk ship that is clearly the best because it costs 500mill isk. so "mercoxit ship", "ice ship", "everything else ship" is letting miners determine which tool is better for the job? Well fancy that.
That's not what I'm getting at. The new rigs are a good thing. What I was getting at was selecting the ship and fitting properly for the task you want to accomplish. Like picking the ship with the biggest ore bay for solo mining, the ship with the highest yield for group operations, and the ship with the best tank for dangerous operations. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
747
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:21:00 -
[70] - Quote
Something tells me that unless this thread is locked soon, it will reach fifty pages in half a day. A dev slinging a comment like that is nothing less than the **** storm of the season. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
|
Implying Implications
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
171
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:21:00 -
[71] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Suicide ganking wasn't designed to be profitable wat püåpüÉpüàn+P |
Hypercake Mix
Magical Rainbow Bakery
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:23:00 -
[72] - Quote
WELL.
1. Get stuff 2. FIGHT!
I think CCP wants us to experience more of 2 and less of 1. ALL of us. Not just the guys that went and grabbed the Happy-Fun-Forever passes.
Jeez. -.- What's with you all trying to stop people from having fun?
And, I guess you guys overlooked the sig radius changes to the Procurer/Skiff and Retriever/Mackinaw too. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
580
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:23:00 -
[73] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Something tells me that unless this thread is locked soon, it will reach fifty pages in half a day. A dev slinging a comment like that is nothing less than the **** storm of the season.
It was inevitable really, suprised ya didn't see it coming really. It will be a shitstorm, a boring one. Suppose you will have fun though, trying to get a troll started. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Pipa Porto
495
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:24:00 -
[74] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Zagdul wrote:Gone are the days where EVE is a dangerous place. I seem to have missed the part when they made all player ships immune to damage. 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.
Suicide Ganking is only profitable if the Miners don't bother to tank their Hulks. Just like it's only profitable when Freighter Pilots and Industrial Pilots fill their ships with more stuff than their tank can protect.
Didn't you guys learn your lesson about Cost being used as a balancing factor after introducing Titans and Supers? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Denidil
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
317
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:25:00 -
[75] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote: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. Tell that to the triple-digit billions I've made from ganking haulers and freighters carrying ungodly amounts of crap without a second though given to defense. I can safely say that I've caused many of those people to quit in anger. But go ahead, "adjust the numbers" if you need help with your mortgage payments.
i think that the fact that it is profitably to suicide haulers above a certain cargo value to ehp ratio was an unintended side effect of suicide ganks being possible - but not an undesirable one.
However the suiciding the hulk was profitable on a cost-of-suicider vs profit-from-building ratio and that was undesirable - especially when the permanent state of war vs mining combined with removal of dronepoo caused a lot of ship value inflation making PvP more costly.
Destiny Corrupted wrote: The point is, we're not going to stop ganking until you remove aggression in high-sec, which I'm sure you'll do within the next couple of years (it's the only logical conclusion to the gradual progression that's been going on). Until that happens, we'll continue doing what we do, either by using more people, or using different, valid game mechanics. All your actions are reactionary, and are only responses to the need for short-term subscription increases. Face the facts: we know more about this game than a whole lot of people currently in charge of maintaining it, and you guys are really regretting the whole "non-consensual pvp" thing in this here year 2012. If you really want that sub spike, stop beating around the bush with these gradual let-downs, and change the game in one fell swoop. At least that way you'll leave with a bang, and a nice bonus in the bank.
now you're just QQ'ing like a *****. I like all these gankbear tears, now maybe you'll have to go prove your "l33t pvp" skills against something that shoots back like the rest of us do. |
pussnheels
476
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:25:00 -
[76] - Quote
First i resent the fact that you are calling a certain group of players stupid pigs and i will report you for that
Second the new barges are NOT gankproof far from , only difference is that you will need more teamwork to get one down it is a MMO afterall right and the hulk is unchanged and there always will be miners going for max yield
Thirdly Something had to be done to get people mining again especialy now when you can't mine with your guns anymore
So dear OP take your butthurt whinning somewhere else and accept the fact that there are other people who play different I do not agree with what you are saying , but i will defend to the death your right to say it...... Voltaire |
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
1788
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:26:00 -
[77] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote: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. Tell that to the triple-digit billions I've made from ganking haulers and freighters carrying ungodly amounts of crap without a second though given to defense. I can safely say that I've caused many of those people to quit in anger. But go ahead, "adjust the numbers" if you need help with your mortgage payments. The point is, we're not going to stop ganking until you remove aggression in high-sec, which I'm sure you'll do within the next couple of years (it's the only logical conclusion to the gradual progression that's been going on). Until that happens, we'll continue doing what we do, either by using more people, or using different, valid game mechanics. All your actions are reactionary, and are only responses to the need for short-term subscription increases. Face the facts: we know more about this game than a whole lot of people currently in charge of maintaining it, and you guys are really regretting the whole "non-consensual pvp" thing in this here year 2012. If you really want that sub spike, stop beating around the bush with these gradual let-downs, and change the game in one fell swoop. At least that way you'll leave with a bang, and a nice bonus in the bank.
I don't want you to stop ganking nor am I going to remove aggression in high sec vOv |
|
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
833
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:27:00 -
[78] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Zagdul wrote:Gone are the days where EVE is a dangerous place. I seem to have missed the part when they made all player ships immune to damage. 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.
It's all good dude. Minerals for my supercap armada will be dirt cheap now.
I thank you for these changes. Gone are the days of expensive titans and super carriers!
A list of fixes for the new inventory
Dual Pane idea clicky |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
747
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:27:00 -
[79] - Quote
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. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Herr Hammer Draken
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
45
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:34:00 -
[80] - 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. |
|
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
81
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:36:00 -
[81] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Zagdul wrote:Gone are the days where EVE is a dangerous place. I seem to have missed the part when they made all player ships immune to damage. 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.
What about punishing people who fit poorly? This suicide ganking ship:ship ratio is only off because people refuse to change. This is a social problem not a balance problem. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1219
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:36:00 -
[82] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote: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. Maybe someone else will do it instead. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
748
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:37:00 -
[83] - Quote
Herr Hammer Draken wrote:No because you are only looking at this from one perspective that of the ganker. You're making a very large assumption right there. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1219
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:37:00 -
[84] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Zagdul wrote:Gone are the days where EVE is a dangerous place. I seem to have missed the part when they made all player ships immune to damage. 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. What about punishing people who fit poorly? This suicide ganking ship:ship ratio is only off because people refuse to change. This is a social problem not a balance problem. 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..
Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
1789
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:38:00 -
[85] - 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.
rofl |
|
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
81
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:38:00 -
[86] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Didn't you guys learn your lesson about Cost being used as a balancing factor after introducing Titans and Supers?
This needs to be emphasized. Cost should never be used as a balancing factor. |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
81
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:40:00 -
[87] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:La Nariz wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Zagdul wrote:Gone are the days where EVE is a dangerous place. I seem to have missed the part when they made all player ships immune to damage. 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. What about punishing people who fit poorly? This suicide ganking ship:ship ratio is only off because people refuse to change. This is a social problem not a balance problem. 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..
Education is a good thing a simple fitting tutorial or mission involving some fitting choices would good. At least its something different from shooting red crosses with 0 risk involved.
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1438
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:41:00 -
[88] - Quote
nobody suicide ganks hulks for a profit, it's for sport
but "suicide ganking shouldn't be profitable" is a bit of a newsflash when the game has these ship/cargo scanner boondongles that allow you to find officer-fit vexors carrying titan bpos a rogue goon |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
81
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:42:00 -
[89] - Quote
Suqq Madiq wrote:La Nariz wrote:Suqq Madiq wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:I'm saying they don't need a tank buff because they're fine as they are. 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? Wow remember Incarna just because CCP does something doesn't mean its the right thing to do. 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.
It certainly isn't npc alts either. Which alliance were you in that we killed? |
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
833
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:43:00 -
[90] - Quote
I mean... Hulks probably could have used a little more powergrid and CPU. Fitting those things was rough.
But this... this is comically overboard.
With the increased hull/shield/armor and these new fangdangled ore holds, will the cost to produce them also increase? I mean, their mass must have gone up with all this additional weight meaning more materials should be needed to produce them. The new bonuses must have added new sensory arrays to give them such awesome mining power.
Actually... no.. keep em cheap. I want another titan or 10.
A list of fixes for the new inventory
Dual Pane idea clicky |
|
Pipa Porto
497
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:44:00 -
[91] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:I don't want you to stop ganking nor am I going to remove aggression in high sec vOv
You got the Insurance Nerf. You got the Suddenly CONCORD fix to aggro kiting. You got the wardec changes that Dramatically favor the defenders. You got the proposed Crimewatch changes that make it essentially impossible to loot the cargo of a ganked Freighter. You got the proposed Crimewatch changes that were originally going to allow RR with CONCORD protection.
It all paints a picture, no matter what your stated objectives are.
Hulks can be fit such that they are not profitable to gank right now. The others need roles to fill, but if one ship's going to have the role of Tankey Miner, why are they all getting buffs that take away from that role bonus?
To fit the roles, the Skiff should have a great Tank, a middling Yield, and a smallish Cargo. The Mackinaw should have a small Tank, a middling Yield, and a Great Cargo. The Hulk should have a small Tank, a Great Yield, and a smallish Cargo.
You're giving the Skiff an insane Tank, a middling Yield, and a very good Cargo. The Mackinaw a great Tank, a middling Yield, and a Great Cargo. The Hulk a great Tank, a Great Yield, and a smallish Cargo.
When the Mack can have ~60k EHP, why bother with the Skiff? When the Hulk can have ~45k EHP, why bother with the Skiff?
35k EHP is already unprofitable to Gank. The Extra 10k will remove Exhumer ganking entirely. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
388
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:44:00 -
[92] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Zagdul wrote:Gone are the days where EVE is a dangerous place. I seem to have missed the part when they made all player ships immune to damage. 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.
First: Its a bit disingenuous to say, "Shrug, they aren't immune, you can still attack them, high-sec aggression still exists..." Straw man, yeah? Gankers aren't disputing the 'possiblility' to shoot these new Exhumers.
After all, one can take a potshot at the Chribbas Veldnaught with a Tornado. That doesn't mean (sane) people are going to participate in the activity......
Second, remember - three pigs. Don't balance based on the pigs making the bad/greedy choices.
Lets see, a Well-tanked Hulk in 0.8 Space requires at least 3 T2 Tornados to take down. Thats 300M ISK in Tornados spent to kill 300M ISK in Hulk. Seems balanced (if you insist on balancing that way...)
A badly tanked Hulk, on the other hand, requires one T2 Tornado to destroy. Thats 100M ISK to kill a 300M ISK ship. Consider it a penalty for failure to fit, orbit - or simply failure to pay attention.
And really, ganking Exhumers in Tornados actually stopped 'being profitable' when the Boomerang was nerfed. Since then, Its always been a net loss.
Catalysts, being destroyers, are a different animal, but they only thrive in 'low' high sec. They become massively inefficient above 0.7 space.
If relative ISK loses between ganker and gankee are the balancing factor, at least consider what the current capability of the Exhumers ARE - not pigs building their houses out of Straw or Sticks....' |
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
833
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:45:00 -
[93] - Quote
Also, while you're at it,
the Skiff only gets 70k ehp when you tank it and I can't fit a large shield booster on it. Can you up the power grid so I can?
A list of fixes for the new inventory
Dual Pane idea clicky |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
580
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:53:00 -
[94] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote: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. rofl
The devs have said only Hilmar and Unifex are allowed to make unilateral decisions. Not marketing. Gonna have to move up the food chain to get CCP Soundwave fired. I don't know who Unifex is or what he does, but I doubt he cares about you. Also Hilmar has shown he doesn't really care about marketing and other things. Seems your chances are pretty remote actually. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Jypsie
Wandering Star Enterprises
9
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:53:00 -
[95] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Zagdul wrote:Gone are the days where EVE is a dangerous place. I seem to have missed the part when they made all player ships immune to damage. 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.
Boom, headshot
/thread
Entire ganking team is babies!
|
baltec1
Bat Country
1704
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:57:00 -
[96] - Quote
All we are going to get out of this are fleets of untouchable mining bots and a massive market crash in low end ore just when it became worth mining. |
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
150
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 05:00:00 -
[97] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote: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.
from what I see suicide ganking most people works exactly like that. luckily some people make themselves targets by carrying tons of phat loots. However miners are on the other side of that ratio, the profit aspect isn't exactly there but the lulz:isk outweighs it. I've always lulzed when ganking a hulk but tbh it was always rather easy targets. personally I would have boosted hulk hull hp and increased cargo expander hp penalty to give miners a choice, put em up to 40-50k ehp when fully buffer tanked. |
Gustavus Adolphus
Croatoan Enterprises The Silent One's
5
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 05:02:00 -
[98] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote: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. rofl
I 100% support this product and/or service |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1438
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 05:03:00 -
[99] - Quote
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote: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. from what I see suicide ganking most people works exactly like that. luckily some people make themselves targets by carrying tons of phat loots. However miners are on the other side of that ratio, the profit aspect isn't exactly there but the lulz:isk outweighs it. I've always lulzed when ganking a hulk but tbh it was always rather easy targets. personally I would have boosted hulk hull hp and increased cargo expander hp penalty to give miners a choice, put em up to 40-50k ehp when fully buffer tanked.
a better solution would have been to give hulks the ability to fit better tanks than what they are currently capable of (say, 50-60k EHP without gang bonuses) at the expense of yield
in any case, even with a tank fit hulks were still capable of out-mining almost every other ship in the game, save for a yield-fit covetor, which still lacks the utility of a gigantic cargo hold a rogue goon |
Sentamon
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
69
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 05:07:00 -
[100] - Quote
So many tears, so little cargo space to collect them all. ~ Professional Forum Alt -á~ |
|
pussnheels
476
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 05:07:00 -
[101] - Quote
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 I do not agree with what you are saying , but i will defend to the death your right to say it...... Voltaire |
Crove
Itoen
3
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 05:08:00 -
[102] - Quote
What's odd about this whole thread / proposed change is that it will make low end ore mining less profitable, encouraging and rewarding higher risk mining. Isn't that what we want? For reward to match risk?
If you're really trying to teach the "stupid pigs" lessons, they'll learn them when profits plummet. Or, they will become low paid wage slaves for those of us who want cheap expensive ships. They'll be the eve equivalent of third world labor.
Yay third world labor! |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1438
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 05:08:00 -
[103] - Quote
pussnheels wrote:adapt or leave
ahahahaha that's the same advice we gave to the miners, "fit a tank" "try drones that don't mine" "try not going AFK" but they felt entitled to have their max-yield fits AND a damnation-sized tank so they cried to CCP a rogue goon |
Ginseng Jita
PAN-EVE TRADING COMPANY
1674
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 05:10:00 -
[104] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:All we are going to get out of this are fleets of untouchable mining bots and a massive market crash in low end ore just when it became worth mining.
This. Watch the return of botters like never before. |
stoicfaux
1303
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 05:13:00 -
[105] - Quote
IMO, the only real solution that will satisfy both sides is simply to have meaningful consequences for having a criminal record.
If you gank in real life, you don't get forgiven after a few minutes. In Eve, if you gank, you should wind up on the faction's/corporation's Most Wanted list, flashy red to faction navies to gate guns to players associated with that faction/corporation, for *forever* or until you pay restitution plus a hefty penalty. Criminals are locked out of the faction/corporation: no station services, no docking, no running around safely in a pod, no one cares about how much ratting you do because security status doesn't exist anymore, etc.. You do the crime, you get shot at for all time.
Gankers can still gank but they have to be really sneaky about it (i.e. raid from low-sec or from friendly faction territory.) High-sec players can band together to keep their local communities safe from marauders. Nobody has to deal with quirky, nonsensical, and unrealistic aggression mechanics. CONCORD goes away except for newbies systems. It's win win.
You can tell me what is and isn't Truth when you pry the tinfoil from my cold, lifeless head.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
1704
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 05:14:00 -
[106] - Quote
pussnheels wrote: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
This is a factual post if you ignore the fact that all 3 exhumers could be tanked, the rise in ships was mostly down to massive inflation and minerals jumped due to drone alloy nerf. Or in other words, you just lied. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
748
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 05:17:00 -
[107] - Quote
Crove wrote:What's odd about this whole thread / proposed change is that it will make low end ore mining less profitable, encouraging and rewarding higher risk mining. Isn't that what we want? For reward to match risk?
If you're really trying to teach the "stupid pigs" lessons, they'll learn them when profits plummet. Or, they will become low paid wage slaves for those of us who want cheap expensive ships. They'll be the eve equivalent of third world labor.
Yay third world labor! This is not how carebearism/botting works. Increasing safety will lead to, and always has led to, an increase in safety-centric activity. Do you really think that if barges become invulnerable, that miners will move to null to chase the better rocks, instead of making more alt accounts to mine Veld in .9? (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
1791
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 05:18:00 -
[108] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:I don't want you to stop ganking nor am I going to remove aggression in high sec vOv You got the Insurance Nerf. You got the Suddenly CONCORD fix to aggro kiting. You got the wardec changes that Dramatically favor the defenders. You got the proposed Crimewatch changes that make it essentially impossible to loot the cargo of a ganked Freighter. You got the proposed Crimewatch changes that were originally going to allow RR with CONCORD protection. It all paints a picture, no matter what your stated objectives are. Hulks can be fit such that they are not profitable to gank right now. The others need roles to fill, but if one ship's going to have the role of Tankey Miner, why are they all getting buffs that take away from that role bonus? To fit the roles, the Skiff should have a great Tank, a middling Yield, and a smallish Cargo. The Mackinaw should have a small Tank, a middling Yield, and a Great Cargo. The Hulk should have a small Tank, a Great Yield, and a smallish Cargo. You're giving the Skiff an insane Tank, a middling Yield, and a very good Cargo. The Mackinaw a great Tank, a middling Yield, and a Great Cargo. The Hulk a great Tank, a Great Yield, and a smallish Cargo. When the Mack can have ~60k EHP, why bother with the Skiff? When the Hulk can have ~45k EHP, why bother with the Skiff? 35k EHP is already unprofitable to Gank. The Extra 10k will remove Exhumer ganking entirely. Oh, and the other 2 Exhumers with max MLUs should be able to out-mine a 0 MLU Hulk. Otherwise people are going to keep using the Hulk and tanking it (probably badly).
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. |
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
748
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 05:19:00 -
[109] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:IMO, the only real solution that will satisfy both sides is simply to have meaningful consequences for having a criminal record.
If you gank in real life, you don't get forgiven after a few minutes. In Eve, if you gank, you should wind up on the faction's/corporation's Most Wanted list, flashy red to faction navies to gate guns to players associated with that faction/corporation, for *forever* or until you pay restitution plus a hefty penalty. Criminals are locked out of the faction/corporation: no station services, no docking, no running around safely in a pod, no one cares about how much ratting you do because security status doesn't exist anymore, etc.. You do the crime, you get shot at for all time.
Gankers can still gank but they have to be really sneaky about it (i.e. raid from low-sec or from friendly faction territory.) High-sec players can band together to keep their local communities safe from marauders. Nobody has to deal with quirky, nonsensical, and unrealistic aggression mechanics. CONCORD goes away except for newbies systems. It's win win. So, will criminals also get the opportunity to avoid the police (CONCORD) entirely with these changes? You know, just like in "real life?" (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1439
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 05:22:00 -
[110] - Quote
i remember when a couple of dudes in frigates kept a proteus tackled long enough for us to arrive and murder it
clearly two dudes in 500k isk ships deciding the fate of a 2bn isk ship is totally unfair a rogue goon |
|
Pipa Porto
498
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 05:26:00 -
[111] - Quote
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 will be profitable to gank, so why use the Skiff? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
245
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 05:26:00 -
[112] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:i remember when a couple of dudes in frigates kept a proteus tackled long enough for us to arrive and murder it
clearly two dudes in 500k isk ships deciding the fate of a 2bn isk ship is totally unfair If in a different security, different engagement rules and irrelevant to the situation being discussed. If the frigates were able to trick the proteus into engaging then the proteus chose to engage and irrelevant to the situation being discussed. |
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
1791
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 05:28:00 -
[113] - Quote
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). |
|
baltec1
Bat Country
1704
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 05:28:00 -
[114] - Quote
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.
The exhumers didnt need to buff to their tank. The skiff and the hulk could already fit a heavy assault ship class tank and the mack could get high end cruiser which made them ungankworthy to all but the most dedicated/angry ganker. The t1 barges needed the work done on the tank. What the exhumers needed was distinct rolls but the way they have been altered means that they all overlap into eachothers turf.
The skiff should be the little brick that can escape and live in lowsec. Tanky little scamp with a +2 warp strength to get out of sticky situations
The Mack with its expansive hold but poor defences and mining yeild
The hulk with its hoover like yeild but small cargo and poor tank.
Three ships for different jobs all of which could be fitted for either tank or yeild not both. Having to make the choice is a good thing as is the risk that goes along with that choice. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1439
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 05:30:00 -
[115] - Quote
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).
so you're saying that it should literally cost half a billion to kill an afk mining hulk a rogue goon |
Pipa Porto
498
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 05:33:00 -
[116] - Quote
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).
Ok, so you don't feel that miners in HS should be exposed to any risk. Sure.
People don't throw away Isk on Suicide ganking like miners seem to think they do. It's done for profit, and Suicide Ganking has always been done for profit (whether Freighters, Industrials, or Barges).
What reason is there for making the price of the ship relevant?
Again. If a current Hulk is fit properly, it is not profitable to gank it. Ask the GSF for their data on Hulk KMs. See how many of them were tanked well. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Roll Sizzle Beef
Space Mutiny
700
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 05:36:00 -
[117] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote: It's done for profit, and Suicide Ganking has always been done for profit
I guess if you say it enough you begin to believe it. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
748
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 05:36:00 -
[118] - Quote
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). If you really thought that, then you'd be reconsidering exhumer construction requirements instead of simply buffing their health to buffer-fit battleship levels. The fact that you're not is obviously indicative of your intent to marginalize ganking to such an extent that anyone who can't field three to four dozen destroyers for a single kill (read: the majority of people) won't do it. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
245
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 05:37:00 -
[119] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote: People don't throw away Isk on Suicide ganking like miners seem to think they do. It's done for profit, and Suicide Ganking has always been done for profit (whether Freighters, Industrials, or Barges).
To be fair, either you are mistaken or some of your peers are lying. |
Pipa Porto
498
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 05:42:00 -
[120] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Pipa Porto wrote: People don't throw away Isk on Suicide ganking like miners seem to think they do. It's done for profit, and Suicide Ganking has always been done for profit (whether Freighters, Industrials, or Barges).
To be fair, either you are mistaken or some of your peers are lying.
Goonswarm Propaganda not being totally accurate about their motives? Whaaaaaa???
Anyway, I will qualify it. It's only done on a large scale for profit. How many not-for-profit Freighter ganks happen? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1439
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 05:44:00 -
[121] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:i remember when a couple of dudes in frigates kept a proteus tackled long enough for us to arrive and murder it
clearly two dudes in 500k isk ships deciding the fate of a 2bn isk ship is totally unfair If in a different security, different engagement rules and irrelevant to the situation being discussed. If the frigates were able to trick the proteus into engaging then the proteus chose to engage and irrelevant to the situation being discussed.
not really, because by this logic you'll be equally safe in an 0.5 system as you would in a 1.0 a rogue goon |
Ziranda Hakuli
Relativity Holding Corp
124
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 05:47:00 -
[122] - Quote
Damnit! i need to get the hulk out to load up on these tears! |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
245
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 05:47:00 -
[123] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Pipa Porto wrote: People don't throw away Isk on Suicide ganking like miners seem to think they do. It's done for profit, and Suicide Ganking has always been done for profit (whether Freighters, Industrials, or Barges).
To be fair, either you are mistaken or some of your peers are lying. Goonswarm Propaganda not being totally accurate about their motives? Whaaaaaa??? Anyway, I will qualify it. It's only done on a large scale for profit. How many not-for-profit Freighter ganks happen? It's not simply limited to the words of Goonswarm, perhaps zealous individuals that believe the propaganda? But then that still makes it true even if self fulfilling. Also in the case of freighters the damage necessary to kill the base hull will cost well beyond the rewards the wreck will leave. The same isn't true of any of the current exhumers. So perhaps that is a bad example. Maybe transport ships? |
Gun Gal
Dark Club
52
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 05:47:00 -
[124] - Quote
Lol, crybaby gankers,HOW I LOVE YOUR TEARS
YES FOLKS THE LITTLE BABIES ARE SAD THAT THEIR GRIEF TACTICS HAVE TO CHANGE.
this is too darn funny, kinda like the other day when I had my Proteus cloaked by my hulk with a can dropped.
Should have seen the tears as I ripped a new.one.
Bridget's: too lame to really pvp, what's that saying, don't like the heat? Stay the f%&k out of the kitchen |
Marconus Orion
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
332
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 05:48:00 -
[125] - Quote
Tell them about how Concord actually works against them for these suicide ganks. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1439
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 05:49:00 -
[126] - Quote
Marconus Orion wrote:Tell them about how Concord actually works against them for these suicide ganks.
you're right, CONCORD should be removed, that way you eliminate suicide ganking entirely a rogue goon |
Jypsie
Wandering Star Enterprises
9
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 05:50:00 -
[127] - Quote
Richard Desturned 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). so you're saying that it should literally cost half a billion to kill an afk mining hulk, one with nothing fitted as far as a tank, absolutely nothing trained as far as tanking skills and no effort taken to mitigate the risk of being blown up i'm not trying to put words in your mouth but that sounds like what you're trying to say by "it should cost more to kill a ship than what the ship is worth"
Quote:but more that the expenses should be higher for the attacker than the defender
Oooh, that's a Bingo!
Is that the way you say it? "That's a bingo?"
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
245
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 05:50:00 -
[128] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:i remember when a couple of dudes in frigates kept a proteus tackled long enough for us to arrive and murder it
clearly two dudes in 500k isk ships deciding the fate of a 2bn isk ship is totally unfair If in a different security, different engagement rules and irrelevant to the situation being discussed. If the frigates were able to trick the proteus into engaging then the proteus chose to engage and irrelevant to the situation being discussed. not really, because by this logic you'll be equally safe in an 0.5 system as you would in a 1.0 In either a 1.0 or an 0.5 the frigates wouldn't be free to engage for any length of time without some for of aggression or kill rights and even then they only held it so help could arrive. This isn't a fair comparison to a suicide gank or the balancing mechanics behind one. |
Pipa Porto
498
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 05:51:00 -
[129] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Pipa Porto wrote: People don't throw away Isk on Suicide ganking like miners seem to think they do. It's done for profit, and Suicide Ganking has always been done for profit (whether Freighters, Industrials, or Barges).
To be fair, either you are mistaken or some of your peers are lying. Goonswarm Propaganda not being totally accurate about their motives? Whaaaaaa??? Anyway, I will qualify it. It's only done on a large scale for profit. How many not-for-profit Freighter ganks happen? It's not simply limited to the words of Goonswarm, perhaps zealous individuals that believe the propaganda? But then that still makes it true even if self fulfilling. Also in the case of freighters the damage necessary to kill the base hull will cost well beyond the rewards the wreck will leave. The same isn't true of any of the current exhumers. So perhaps that is a bad example. Maybe transport ships?
The new Skiff's going to have 2/3rds the EHP of a Freighter.
How many properly tanked Hulks do you see in lossmails in 1.0 space (where you need 3 Nados at a cost of 200m)? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Pipa Porto
498
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 05:52:00 -
[130] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:i remember when a couple of dudes in frigates kept a proteus tackled long enough for us to arrive and murder it
clearly two dudes in 500k isk ships deciding the fate of a 2bn isk ship is totally unfair If in a different security, different engagement rules and irrelevant to the situation being discussed. If the frigates were able to trick the proteus into engaging then the proteus chose to engage and irrelevant to the situation being discussed. not really, because by this logic you'll be equally safe in an 0.5 system as you would in a 1.0 In either a 1.0 or an 0.5 the frigates wouldn't be free to engage for any length of time without some for of aggression or kill rights and even then they only held it so help could arrive. This isn't a fair comparison to a suicide gank or the balancing mechanics behind one.
Soundwave just said that he wanted to make sure Suicide Gankers have to pay more than their prey loses. Pointing out that that is silly is perfectly valid. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
|
baltec1
Bat Country
1704
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 05:52:00 -
[131] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote: Ask the GSF for their data on Hulk KMs. See how many of them were tanked well.
Here are the Bat Country Caldari ice interdiction records
By all means look through the 773 exhumers we killed.
You will find almost all of them fitted no tank. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
245
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 05:54:00 -
[132] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote: Soundwave just said that he wanted to make sure Suicide Gankers have to pay more than their prey loses. Pointing out that that is silly is perfectly valid.
It isn't relevant because the situation being discussed wasn't a suicide gank and as such soundwaves statement doesn't apply. |
Roll Sizzle Beef
Space Mutiny
700
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 05:54:00 -
[133] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Marconus Orion wrote:Tell them about how Concord actually works against them for these suicide ganks. you're right, CONCORD should be removed, that way you eliminate suicide ganking entirely
then all systems can have all ore, all players will spread out, and everyone will join super alliances to live in their own little blue blocks, and no central trading. helleluyah. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
391
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 05:57:00 -
[134] - Quote
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).
And there it is.
I. Profitable ganking: You end up with more ISK than when you started the attack. (Via T2 Plates, T2 Strips etc)
This is possible with Catalysts in narrow situations (0.5-0.7 + good skills or numbers + failfit Exhumer) This WAS possible with Tornados until the boomerang nerf - because you could kill 4-6 Mackinaws per Tornado. Also, fishing for haulers and Tengus fall into this category.
II. Ganking for Tears: Target loses more ISK than you do. (By FAR the most common...) This is the essence of miner ganking. For instance, sacrificing a 75-100M ISK T2 Tornado to take down a 300M ISK fail-fit Hulk.
III. Rage (idiotic) ganking?: You lose more ISK than the target. (Honestly, don't know what to call it because it doesn't really exist.)
This almost never happens in practice. I know that if someone wasted 400M worth of ships to 'try' to kill my 200M ISK Exhumer, I'd be laughing my ass off. I say 'try' because every attempt guarantees loss, while success and drops are not.
Orcas (and most other T1 ships) fall into this category due to insurance. Which is why they are rarely ganked unless fit with some serious bling. T1 Barges mostly fall into this category as well, unless you can pop them with a T1 Dessie.
Sounds like you feel that all ganking should be 'rage' ganking - which would be a major shift in hi-sec dynamics. Suicide ganking, while possible, will more or less disappear because gankers are not irrational.
By all means, redefine the roles of the Exhumers....Merc/ICE/Ore seemed to be a silly way to define your Exhumers, TBH. But stick to giving them some extra grid, slots and power grid, if you must. Nix the Ore bay. Leave it to the miners to figure out how to properly fit them.
And if you are dead set on these mega-EHP Exhumers.... at a bare minimum, build costs should be heavily scaled up. (and I mean 2 or 3x times, at a minimum, especially for the Mack and Skiff...) |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1440
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 05:57:00 -
[135] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Soundwave just said that he wanted to make sure Suicide Gankers have to pay more than their prey loses. Pointing out that that is silly is perfectly valid.
and it doesn't even make sense because 5 Catalysts out-dps a Vindicator at a fraction of the cost
oh and a vindicator won't be able to suicide gank a skiff in 0.5 lmao despite costing like 15x as much a rogue goon |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
245
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 05:58:00 -
[136] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote: The new Skiff's going to have 2/3rds the EHP of a Freighter.
How many properly tanked Hulks do you see in lossmails in 1.0 space (where you need 3 Nados at a cost of 200m)?
So then we go back to my original statement, either you are mistaken or those who say they do gank regardless of profit will be exposed for the truth of their actions. I'm not making a judgement either way, but both can't be true. |
Pipa Porto
498
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 05:58:00 -
[137] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Pipa Porto wrote: Soundwave just said that he wanted to make sure Suicide Gankers have to pay more than their prey loses. Pointing out that that is silly is perfectly valid.
It isn't relevant because the situation being discussed wasn't a suicide gank and as such soundwaves statement doesn't apply.
Ok, replace 2B Proteus with 300m Hulk, and 500k Frigate with 5m Catalysts. Tell me, why should Exhumers have protection explicitly related to their cost when nothing else does?
Is the Active tanked Tengu up next for a buff? It can be one volleyd by a 70m Tornado when it's hull+subs cost at least 300m. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Asuka Solo
Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises
1571
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 06:02:00 -
[138] - Quote
Cool story bro
But I prefer the version where all 3 little miners lol while concord wtf molests the **** out of the big bad ganker while he tries to ******* do the miners in in hi-sec.
Herr Wilkus wrote: This is more than a buff - this is CCP acknowledging that miners, as a group, are too stupid to make the correct fitting choices.
1stly, there is no right or wrong way to fit. There are just fits. Some are better than others. The fit justifies the end.
2ndly, Its called emergent game-play adjustments. 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.
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1440
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 06:03:00 -
[139] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Is the Active tanked Tengu up next for a buff? It can be one volleyd by a 70m Tornado when it's hull+subs cost at least 300m.
the difference is that those who fly the active tanked tengus are actually at the keyboard flying their ships and moving with an AB running
and if they're smart they refit for travel before going anywhere near a gate
being AFK (or terrible at the game) is a balancing factor now a rogue goon |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
246
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 06:06:00 -
[140] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Pipa Porto wrote: Soundwave just said that he wanted to make sure Suicide Gankers have to pay more than their prey loses. Pointing out that that is silly is perfectly valid.
It isn't relevant because the situation being discussed wasn't a suicide gank and as such soundwaves statement doesn't apply. Ok, replace 2B Proteus with 300m Hulk, and 500k Frigate with 5m Catalysts. Tell me, why should Exhumers have protection explicitly related to their cost when nothing else does? Is the Active tanked Tengu up next for a buff? It can be one volleyd by a 70m Tornado when it's hull+subs cost at least 300m. Soundwave apparently, but on a side note I'm not sure cost and performance can ever be segregated as we place a great deal of value in specialization and superiority as players.
As to your comparison, how does the EHP of an purely active tengu compare to a purely active tanked hulk? The goal can't be centered around isk for isk anyways as ships with high EHP roles but lesser costs make that impossible as well as the fact that even in the same role EHP doesn't scale with cost. Best you can do is decide a cost that a certain type of ship can be killed at and set EHP and fitting accordingly.
I just think it was a poor choice of words on soundwaves part that shouldn't be interpreted quite so literally, but I could be wrong. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country
1704
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 06:08:00 -
[141] - Quote
Asuka Solo wrote: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.
99% of miners dont go anywhere where there is no CONCORD and will jump corp when wardeced. CCP are about to make mining as risk free as its possible to get in space as well as very bot friendly. |
Roll Sizzle Beef
Space Mutiny
701
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 06:10:00 -
[142] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: 99% of miners dont go anywhere where there is no CONCORD and will jump corp when wardeced. CCP are about to make mining as risk free as its possible to get in space as well as very bot friendly.
Well then, perhaps they should crack down on bots... |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1440
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 06:10:00 -
[143] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:As to your comparison, how does the EHP of an purely active tengu compare to a purely active tanked hulk?
the generic active tanked tengu has like 18k EHP and a gigantic EM resist hole a rogue goon |
Pipa Porto
498
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 06:11:00 -
[144] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote: Soundwave apparently, but on a side note I'm not sure cost and performance can ever be segregated as we place a great deal of value in specialization and superiority as players.
As to your comparison, how does the EHP of an purely active tengu compare to a purely active tanked hulk? The goal can't be centered around isk for isk anyways as ships with high EHP roles but lesser costs make that impossible as well as the fact that even in the same role EHP doesn't scale with cost. Best you can do is decide a cost that a certain type of ship can be killed at and set EHP and fitting accordingly.
I just think it was a poor choice of words on soundwaves part that shouldn't be interpreted quite so literally, but I could be wrong.
His wording is pretty clear.
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).
The EHP on a purely active Tengu coming through a Gate is low enough that it can be single shotted by a Nado on the gate. The Hulk doesn't have any reason to fit an active tank in HS, and even if it did, it would have some 27k EHP, more than enough to survive 2 shots from a Nado. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Werst Dendenahzees
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
85
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 06:12:00 -
[145] - Quote
rodyas wrote:Abdiel Kavash wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:Suicide ganking wasn't designed to be profitable And I'm already laughing at the hordes of carebears who will quote you out of context for the next year at least. CCP Soundwave wrote:Suicide ganking wasn't designed to be profitable Ah finally a dev, with the carebear at heart.
Dear god I wish I could frame this |
baltec1
Bat Country
1704
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 06:15:00 -
[146] - Quote
Roll Sizzle Beef wrote:baltec1 wrote: 99% of miners dont go anywhere where there is no CONCORD and will jump corp when wardeced. CCP are about to make mining as risk free as its possible to get in space as well as very bot friendly.
Well then, perhaps they should crack down on bots...
They have. As did my corp, however these changes mean that it would be impossible to run another big interdiction. The problem with bots is that they just keep on coming back. But there is also the problem with eveyone else mining. These changes will result in low end ore prices dropping again which is bad for miners. |
Asuka Solo
Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises
1571
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 06:19:00 -
[147] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Asuka Solo wrote: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.
99% of miners dont go anywhere where there is no CONCORD and will jump corp when wardeced. CCP are about to make mining as risk free as its possible to get in space as well as very bot friendly.
I fail to see how that's MY problem.
Dec every hi-sec corp.
This change means cheaper minerals for me, which = cheaper cap fleets.
~deal with it~ |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
246
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 06:20:00 -
[148] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:His wording is pretty clear. There is still quite a bit of room for interpretation. When I read it I took it as hull for hull, not counting variables including fit and cargo. But as I said before, I could be mistaken.
Pipa Porto wrote:Deciding on a cost to gank is fine (that's basically what a Freighter's EHP is). But there's no reason it should have anything to do with the cost of the ship. It shouldn't (and doesn't even in the hulk's case with similar costing ships). Your illustration proves that. Maybe what we have is more of a response to the social evolution of the game then. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1440
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 06:22:00 -
[149] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:The EHP on a purely active Tengu coming through a Gate is low enough that it can be single shotted by a Nado on the gate. The Hulk doesn't have any reason to fit an active tank in HS, and even if it did, it would have some 27k EHP, more than enough to survive 2 shots from a Nado.
like I said before, the difference here is that the guy in the Tengu (assuming it's not a bot) is generally not AFK and can usually rub two brain cells together and realize that he's flying a 2bn loot pinata that will pop to one tornado, so he takes steps to mitigate that possibility, generally by refitting for travel before going anywhere near a gate or docking right back up if they see a guy in a Tornado waiting for them to undock a rogue goon |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1440
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 06:24:00 -
[150] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:His wording is pretty clear. There is still quite a bit of room for interpretation. When I read it I took it as hull for hull, not counting variables including fit and cargo. But as I said before, I could be mistaken. Pipa Porto wrote:Deciding on a cost to gank is fine (that's basically what a Freighter's EHP is). But there's no reason it should have anything to do with the cost of the ship. It shouldn't (and doesn't even in the hulk's case with similar costing ships). Your illustration proves that. Maybe what we have is more of a response to the social evolution of the game then.
there is literally no way to make it cost as much as a Hulk to suicide gank a Hulk because there is no across the board damage/cost ratio for ships because of the diminishing returns aspect of the game
a Vindicator may be substantially more powerful than a Megathron, but even though it costs 10x as much, it does not perform 10x as well a rogue goon |
|
baltec1
Bat Country
1704
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 06:24:00 -
[151] - Quote
Asuka Solo wrote: I
Dec every hi-sec corp.
~deal with it~
Because thats possible |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1440
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 06:25:00 -
[152] - Quote
Asuka Solo wrote:baltec1 wrote:Asuka Solo wrote: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.
99% of miners dont go anywhere where there is no CONCORD and will jump corp when wardeced. CCP are about to make mining as risk free as its possible to get in space as well as very bot friendly. I fail to see how that's MY problem. Dec every hi-sec corp. This change means cheaper minerals for me, which = cheaper cap fleets. ~deal with it~
lmao ex-widot a rogue goon |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
246
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 06:28:00 -
[153] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:His wording is pretty clear. There is still quite a bit of room for interpretation. When I read it I took it as hull for hull, not counting variables including fit and cargo. But as I said before, I could be mistaken. Pipa Porto wrote:Deciding on a cost to gank is fine (that's basically what a Freighter's EHP is). But there's no reason it should have anything to do with the cost of the ship. It shouldn't (and doesn't even in the hulk's case with similar costing ships). Your illustration proves that. Maybe what we have is more of a response to the social evolution of the game then. there is literally no way to make it cost as much as a Hulk to suicide gank a Hulk because there is no across the board damage/cost ratio for ships because of the diminishing returns aspect of the game a Vindicator may be substantially more powerful than a Megathron, but even though it costs 10x as much, it does not perform 10x as well Let me clarify, in this case it would be the potential reward of the gank based on the hull alone, not the cost. In the case of T2 salvage this can set a high bar for exhumers.
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. |
Werst Dendenahzees
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
85
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 06:30:00 -
[154] - Quote
The fact that the 30k ehp hulk, which was already fairly immune to cost effective ganks in 0.8 and up, is now the WEAKEST exhumer tank, is frankly a huge blunder. |
baltec1
Bat Country
1704
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 06:32:00 -
[155] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
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.
Agreed, the exhumers did not need more HP on the hulls. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1440
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 06:32:00 -
[156] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Let me clarify, in this case it would be the potential reward of the gank based on the hull alone, not the cost. In the case of T2 salvage this can set a high bar for exhumers.
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.
This is what I've been saying - rather than fiddling around with giving them hilariously high base HP, give them the ability to fit better tanks at the expense of yield so that sacrificing yield could actually net you a decent enough tank
a Hulk right now can tank 36k EHP against blasters, which is decent, but it'd be better if it could wring out 60k (again, sacrificing yield) while not being much better off than it is now with an all-yield fit a rogue goon |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
261
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 06:34:00 -
[157] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:
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.
Agreed, the exhumers did not need more HP on the hulls.
then they did need more cpu/pg for fittings. almost every tank fit i've seen for the current hulk requires micro auxiluary power core thingies for extra fitting space. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
dexington
74
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 06:35:00 -
[158] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:there is literally no way to make it cost as much as a Hulk to suicide gank a Hulk because there is no across the board damage/cost ratio for ships because of the diminishing returns aspect of the game
That is the case for most ships, why should it be any different for mining ship?, the aggressor(s) still have the option to form a group an use several less expensive.
You can get a battlecruiser for around 40M and hulk a hulk for around 270M. GÇ£The best way to keep something bad from happening is to see it ahead of time, and you can't see it if you refuse to face the possibility.GÇ¥-á |
Pipa Porto
498
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 06:35:00 -
[159] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:His wording is pretty clear. There is still quite a bit of room for interpretation. When I read it I took it as hull for hull, not counting variables including fit and cargo. But as I said before, I could be mistaken. Pipa Porto wrote:Deciding on a cost to gank is fine (that's basically what a Freighter's EHP is). But there's no reason it should have anything to do with the cost of the ship. It shouldn't (and doesn't even in the hulk's case with similar costing ships). Your illustration proves that. Maybe what we have is more of a response to the social evolution of the game then.
So we should punish successful strategies even though the victims of said strategies have had the way to beat those successful ones explained to them many times?
If taking Australia and holding it for 20 turns works for me every time in Risk because my opponents never even try to stop me over the course of Hundreds of games (even though they've had the strategy explained to them), do you nerf Australia, or do you decide that my opponents are morons?
Suicide ganking can be trivially countered. The ways in which it can be countered have been enumerated many times.
1. Tank your Hulk 2. Mine aligned (webs make this easy, but it can be done solo)(Total Immunity here) 3. Mine in a Rokh (battleship mining used to be THE way to make money) 4. Use D-Scan to look for gank ships incoming 5. Use Local in a backwater and get to know the regulars. 6. Sit in a Grav site and use D-Scan (really effective) 7. Sit in a mission pocket and use D-Scan (short range d-scan will eliminate most false positives) 8. Use a fleet booster on a tanked Hulk (~45-50k EHP) 9. Use RR 10. Use ECM 11. Put a Seboed 800mm Nado on your Hulks and Blap anyone who goes GCC. 12. Use ECM drones set on aggressive
All of these provide varying measures of safety at varying costs. None of them don't work. All of them are strong counters to Suicide ganks.
If a strategy can be trivially countered, it's not Overpowered. The opponents are just bad. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Werst Dendenahzees
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
85
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 06:35:00 -
[160] - Quote
I for one will be theorycrafting a sigtanked bonused battleskiff comedy doctrine. |
|
Harbingour
Ssssansha'S Deathhead Einsatzgruppen
1
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 06:36:00 -
[161] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:So... the moral of the story is that the Big Bad Wolf has gone from being a windbag to a crybaby?
Yep grab the tear bucket & start collectingthe delicious lazy gankers tears lil' piggies |
Pipa Porto
498
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 06:38:00 -
[162] - Quote
Werst Dendenahzees wrote:I for one will be theorycrafting a sigtanked bonused battleskiff comedy doctrine.
A Cyno Skiff in every mining fleet.
Awoxers never had it so good (you won't even be on the KMs). EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
MotherMoon
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
1036
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 06:38:00 -
[163] - Quote
Malphilos wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote: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. There's a whole bunch of interesting in this bit.
oh, hah i see it now too xD you bastard, ruined my purity.
also wth I've never flown caps, even on my main. Or lit a cyno personally. Is it really something any ship can use? shouldn't it be something a ship with a role uses? like bombs? http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1440
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 06:42:00 -
[164] - Quote
Harbingour wrote:stoicfaux wrote:So... the moral of the story is that the Big Bad Wolf has gone from being a windbag to a crybaby?
Yep grab the tear bucket & start collectingthe delicious lazy gankers tears lil' piggies
frankly the "abloobloobloo my hulk got blown up in hisec i thought it was safe there" tears were far, far better a rogue goon |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
4360
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 06:45:00 -
[165] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Zagdul wrote:Gone are the days where EVE is a dangerous place. I seem to have missed the part when they made all player ships immune to damage. 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.
I was under the impression that suicide ganking wasn't "designed" at all, insofar as all ships anywhere in space can be attacked by default. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
261
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 06:46:00 -
[166] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Harbingour wrote:stoicfaux wrote:So... the moral of the story is that the Big Bad Wolf has gone from being a windbag to a crybaby?
Yep grab the tear bucket & start collectingthe delicious lazy gankers tears lil' piggies frankly the "abloobloobloo my hulk got blown up in hisec i thought it was safe there" tears were far, far better
any plans for goons to raise rewards for hulkageddon in order to somewhat bankroll bigger ships to continue ganking miners? Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Werst Dendenahzees
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
85
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 06:46:00 -
[167] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Werst Dendenahzees wrote:I for one will be theorycrafting a sigtanked bonused battleskiff comedy doctrine. A Cyno Skiff in every mining fleet. Awoxers never had it so good (you won't even be on the KMs).
Seriously a 100k ehp cruiser sized skiff, with tengu and loki bonuses, will be a hilarious thing. |
Pipa Porto
498
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 06:48:00 -
[168] - Quote
Werst Dendenahzees wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Werst Dendenahzees wrote:I for one will be theorycrafting a sigtanked bonused battleskiff comedy doctrine. A Cyno Skiff in every mining fleet. Awoxers never had it so good (you won't even be on the KMs). Seriously a 100k ehp cruiser sized skiff, with tengu and loki bonuses, will be a hilarious thing.
From what I understand from another thread, it's Sig Radius is decreasing to an almost Frigate size. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
246
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 06:49:00 -
[169] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:A lot of stuff. I don't fundamentally dissagree with what you've said here, but it doesn't change the idea of a base EHP cost to perform a gank, which is clearly what they have in mind. This is a penalty for doing what you did, regardless of if the person you did it to allowed it to happen or not. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1440
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 06:50:00 -
[170] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:From what I understand from another thread, it's Sig Radius is decreasing to an almost Frigate size.
the skiff already has a frigate-sized sig a rogue goon |
|
Pipa Porto
498
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 06:52:00 -
[171] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:From what I understand from another thread, it's Sig Radius is decreasing to an almost Frigate size. the skiff already has a frigate-sized sig
Ok, not decreasing. Staying the same. Aren't 100k EHP Frigates a wonderful idea? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1440
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 06:53:00 -
[172] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:any plans for goons to raise rewards for hulkageddon in order to somewhat bankroll bigger ships to continue ganking miners?
yeah if we do continue to fund hulkageddon infinity despite the tech nerf, we might have to slightly increase the reward so that people could use *gasp* more than one catalyst a rogue goon |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
429
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 06:58:00 -
[173] - Quote
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). That's a nice sentiment I suppose, but it seems you've failed to back it up with anything resembling a justification.
Do you have any idea what you're about to do to the game with this change? Do you seriously believe this is a good idea? MINERS THEMSELVES should be against this change, because it promotes lazy gameplay. Intelligent miners will be making far less, the price of minerals as a whole will drop, and supercapital production will be significantly cheaper. The only miners that will make any kind of money now are the same miners who find it difficult to pull a profit under these conditions because they're lazy and mine for hours simply because they don't even sit at their computers while they do it.
How you could possibly think this is a good idea is beyond me. EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1440
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 06:58:00 -
[174] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:From what I understand from another thread, it's Sig Radius is decreasing to an almost Frigate size. the skiff already has a frigate-sized sig Ok, not decreasing. Staying the same. Aren't 100k EHP Frigates a wonderful idea?
oh wait, the skiff is getting its sig radius changed to 200 from 90
a hilarious side effect is that it'll be able to fit a 10mn afterburner and zoom around with the same tank as a T3 while acting as heavy tackle with its new utility midslot
what great foresight there a rogue goon |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
261
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 06:58:00 -
[175] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Dave stark wrote:any plans for goons to raise rewards for hulkageddon in order to somewhat bankroll bigger ships to continue ganking miners? yeah if we do continue to fund hulkageddon infinity despite the tech nerf, we might have to slightly increase the reward so that people could use *gasp* more than one catalyst
interesting. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
469
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 06:59:00 -
[176] - Quote
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).
Oh, did you notice? What could be wrong with blowing ships worth 400 million (and a couple weeks of casual mining) with ships worth 1.5 million and which the NPE hands out for free?
I'm waiting now for you to check how much it costs to blow a mission runner ship worth 2+ billion ISK (and a couple months of casual mission runing).
"We want your help to convince management to develop Incarna into 3rd person shooter dungeon raiding with friendly fire in nullsec space..."
Seriously, Team Avatar? |
Ludi Burek
The Player Haters Corp
119
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 07:00:00 -
[177] - Quote
Wait, ganking wasn't meant to be profitable? I think I need to be banned for exploiting
Also, surely these extra HPs will be reflected in build materials needed? That bulk need to come from somewhere. Or is this whole thing based on space magic?
Really, macks should cost around half a bill according to this. Don't look at me so teary eyed miner bear. After all it probably will be just a magical HP buff. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1647
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 07:00:00 -
[178] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:I was under the impression that suicide ganking wasn't "designed" at all, insofar as all ships anywhere in space can be attacked by default.
There's a fairy tale about a King who was looking for a master marksman to hunt the villains who kidnapped his daughter. His scouts brought him this bent, blunt old man carrying a bow, a quiver of arrows and a can of paint. The advisers exclaimed, "sire! This man is the most incredible marksman in the country! Every arrow he shoots hits the bullseye!"
To demonstrate, the old man shot an arrow, which bounced off the edge of the target roundel, ricochet of a wall and embedded itself in a tree. The old man walked over to the tree and painted a bullseye around the arrow.
TL;DR: GÇ£History shall be kind to us, for we shall write it!GÇ¥ Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
261
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 07:00:00 -
[179] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh 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). That's a nice sentiment I suppose, but it seems you've failed to back it up with anything resembling a justification. Do you have any idea what you're about to do to the game with this change? Do you seriously believe this is a good idea? MINERS THEMSELVES should be against this change, because it promotes lazy gameplay. Intelligent miners will be making far less, the price of minerals as a whole will drop, and supercapital production will be significantly cheaper. The only miners that will make any kind of money now are the same miners who find it difficult to pull a profit under these conditions because they're lazy and mine for hours simply because they don't even sit at their computers while they do it. How you could possibly think this is a good idea is beyond me.
i nearly took you seriously until you said miners could be afk for hours demonstrating you've never mined for more than 5 mins in your entire life. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Pipa Porto
498
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 07:01:00 -
[180] - Quote
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai 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). Oh, did you notice? What could be wrong with blowing ships worth 400 million (and a couple weeks of casual mining) with ships worth 1.5 million and which the NPE hands out for free? I'm waiting now for you to check how much it costs to blow a mission runner ship worth 2+ billion ISK (and a couple months of casual mission runing).
It costs 1 Tornado if you do it right. 2 if you're lazy about it. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1440
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 07:01:00 -
[181] - Quote
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:Oh, did you notice? What could be wrong with blowing ships worth 400 million (and a couple weeks of casual mining) with ships worth 1.5 million and which the NPE hands out for free? I'm waiting now for you to check how much it costs to blow a mission runner ship worth 2+ billion ISK (and a couple months of casual mission runing).
i'm glad that CCP Soundwave finally came to realize that hisec needs to be absolutely free of risk
can't wait to move my PvE alt to hisec so I can grind isk in absolute safety in an officer-fit vindicator that nobody will bother ganking because they'd need 60 tornadoes a rogue goon |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1219
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 07:03:00 -
[182] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:From what I understand from another thread, it's Sig Radius is decreasing to an almost Frigate size. the skiff already has a frigate-sized sig Ok, not decreasing. Staying the same. Aren't 100k EHP Frigates a wonderful idea? oh wait, the skiff is getting its sig radius changed to 200 from 90 a hilarious side effect is that it'll be able to fit a 10mn afterburner and zoom around with the same tank as a T3 while acting as heavy tackle with its new utility midslot what great foresight there Wait, could it become the new t2 rifter Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
429
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 07:09:00 -
[183] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:James Amril-Kesh 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). That's a nice sentiment I suppose, but it seems you've failed to back it up with anything resembling a justification. Do you have any idea what you're about to do to the game with this change? Do you seriously believe this is a good idea? MINERS THEMSELVES should be against this change, because it promotes lazy gameplay. Intelligent miners will be making far less, the price of minerals as a whole will drop, and supercapital production will be significantly cheaper. The only miners that will make any kind of money now are the same miners who find it difficult to pull a profit under these conditions because they're lazy and mine for hours simply because they don't even sit at their computers while they do it. How you could possibly think this is a good idea is beyond me. i nearly took you seriously until you said miners could be afk for hours demonstrating you've never mined for more than 5 mins in your entire life. Yeah, I admit I forgot the part where you press F1, F2, and F3, and then go about whatever you were doing before.
The point is you don't even have to pay attention anymore, because it won't matter whatsoever. EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
Mira Luhtanen
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
12
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 07:11:00 -
[184] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:oh wait, the skiff is getting its sig radius changed to 200 from 90
a hilarious side effect is that it'll be able to fit a 10mn afterburner and zoom around with the same tank as a T3 while acting as heavy tackle with its new utility midslot
what great foresight there speaking as someone who hasn't even trained Mining Barges I, I think I'm going to be feeling very left out on patch day. |
Jypsie
Wandering Star Enterprises
9
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 07:11:00 -
[185] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:
I was under the impression that suicide ganking wasn't "designed" at all, insofar as all ships anywhere in space can be attacked by default.
CCP made the game mechanics knowing full well that ships could still fire on other ships in high sec even though war was not declared. CCP also sets the time to kill for CONCORD. CCP designed the setting, tools, everything that allows suicide ganking to occur, and has said that they are cool with it as long as someone does not avoid punishment by CONCORD. |
marVLs
25
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 07:12:00 -
[186] - Quote
Good changes to mining ships, approved
And don't bother gankers, they are.... just don't |
Major Bibi
6
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 07:13:00 -
[187] - Quote
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 |
baltec1
Bat Country
1706
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 07:16:00 -
[188] - Quote
Major Bibi wrote: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
You can no longer gank these ships and make any isk. Which means miners will more or less be the only profession in the game that face no real risk with their choices. |
dexington
74
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 07:16:00 -
[189] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:The point is you don't even have to pay attention anymore, because it won't matter whatsoever.
Are we talking about mining, trading or planetary interaction?... even lvl4 missions can be done afk in drone boats. GÇ£The best way to keep something bad from happening is to see it ahead of time, and you can't see it if you refuse to face the possibility.GÇ¥-á |
Pipa Porto
498
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 07:17:00 -
[190] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:From what I understand from another thread, it's Sig Radius is decreasing to an almost Frigate size. the skiff already has a frigate-sized sig Ok, not decreasing. Staying the same. Aren't 100k EHP Frigates a wonderful idea? oh wait, the skiff is getting its sig radius changed to 200 from 90 a hilarious side effect is that it'll be able to fit a 10mn afterburner and zoom around with the same tank as a T3 while acting as heavy tackle with its new utility midslot what great foresight there Wait, could it become the new t2 rifter
880m/s. Only problem is that it's align time's poor. But that's not a big deal when you have 100k EHP (before fleet bonuses) to get chewed through. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
|
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
391
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 07:19:00 -
[191] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Malcanis wrote:I was under the impression that suicide ganking wasn't "designed" at all, insofar as all ships anywhere in space can be attacked by default. There's a fairy tale about a King who was looking for a master marksman to hunt the villains who kidnapped his daughter. His scouts brought him this bent, blunt old man carrying a bow, a quiver of arrows and a can of paint. The advisers exclaimed, "sire! This man is the most incredible marksman in the country! Every arrow he shoots hits the bullseye!" To demonstrate, the old man shot an arrow, which bounced off the edge of the target roundel, ricochet of a wall and embedded itself in a tree. The old man walked over to the tree and painted a bullseye around the arrow. TL;DR: GÇ£History shall be kind to us, for we shall write it!GÇ¥
Thats actually an amusing story.
Incidentally, Mara Rinn is a perfect example of the 'smart' high-sec miner. While I am generally inactive during the summer, I've recently made a few ganking passes through her mining systems. She tanks her Hulk hard, and is quite content to continue mining away - with ice at record high prices. She pays attention to her surroundings, knows that I work alone - and am unlikely to crack her tank without spending far more than I'd like. And she broadcasts warnings to the other miners in local.
Fortunately for me, there usually are a few targets in system that don't pay attention and I get my kills as well. I get to blow up some Exhumers, and she has less mining competition, allowing her to sell her ice at higher prices.
Win for the ganker, Win for the 'smart' miner, exactly how it should be.
|
ChromeStriker
The Riot Formation Executive Outcomes
190
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 07:20:00 -
[192] - Quote
Can i get a link to all these new stats??? where does it say barges have orca hp????? - Nulla Curas |
Phill Esteen
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
72
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 07:22:00 -
[193] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:880m/s. Only problem is that it's align time's poor. But that's not a big deal when you have 100k EHP (before fleet bonuses) to get chewed through.
no no no, it needs to be fast enough to catch oversized AB Tengus GÇô postum faex est GÇô-á
never forget
|
dexington
74
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 07:25:00 -
[194] - Quote
ChromeStriker wrote:Can i get a link to all these new stats??? where does it say barges have orca hp?????
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=136222&find=unread
GÇ£The best way to keep something bad from happening is to see it ahead of time, and you can't see it if you refuse to face the possibility.GÇ¥-á |
Pipa Porto
498
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 07:26:00 -
[195] - Quote
ChromeStriker wrote:Can i get a link to all these new stats??? where does it say barges have orca hp?????
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=136222 Discussion which includes some fits.
http://pastebin.com/frBc2muR Raw stats.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1686159 SISI forums discussion.
(Apparantly, the Sig is increasing to 200 on the Skiff. So they're gonna be cruiser sized sigs) EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
429
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 07:36:00 -
[196] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:Malcanis wrote:I was under the impression that suicide ganking wasn't "designed" at all, insofar as all ships anywhere in space can be attacked by default. There's a fairy tale about a King who was looking for a master marksman to hunt the villains who kidnapped his daughter. His scouts brought him this bent, blunt old man carrying a bow, a quiver of arrows and a can of paint. The advisers exclaimed, "sire! This man is the most incredible marksman in the country! Every arrow he shoots hits the bullseye!" To demonstrate, the old man shot an arrow, which bounced off the edge of the target roundel, ricochet of a wall and embedded itself in a tree. The old man walked over to the tree and painted a bullseye around the arrow. TL;DR: GÇ£History shall be kind to us, for we shall write it!GÇ¥ Thats actually an amusing story. Incidentally, Mara Rinn is a perfect example of the 'smart' high-sec miner. While I am generally inactive during the summer, I've recently made a few ganking passes through her mining systems. She tanks her Hulk hard, and is quite content to continue mining away - with ice at record high prices. She pays attention to her surroundings, knows that I work alone - and am unlikely to crack her tank without spending far more than I'd like. And she broadcasts warnings to the other miners in local. Fortunately for me, there usually are a few targets in system that don't pay attention and I get my kills as well. I get to blow up some Exhumers, and she has less mining competition, allowing her to sell her ice at higher prices. Win for the ganker, Win for the 'smart' miner, exactly how it should be. This guy knows what's up.
Increasing mining barge/exhumer EHP and cargohold dumbs down the game. There's no other way around this simple fact. EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
261
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 07:44:00 -
[197] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Dave stark wrote:James Amril-Kesh 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). That's a nice sentiment I suppose, but it seems you've failed to back it up with anything resembling a justification. Do you have any idea what you're about to do to the game with this change? Do you seriously believe this is a good idea? MINERS THEMSELVES should be against this change, because it promotes lazy gameplay. Intelligent miners will be making far less, the price of minerals as a whole will drop, and supercapital production will be significantly cheaper. The only miners that will make any kind of money now are the same miners who find it difficult to pull a profit under these conditions because they're lazy and mine for hours simply because they don't even sit at their computers while they do it. How you could possibly think this is a good idea is beyond me. i nearly took you seriously until you said miners could be afk for hours demonstrating you've never mined for more than 5 mins in your entire life. Yeah, I admit I forgot the part where you press F1, F2, and F3, and then go about whatever you were doing before. The point is you don't even have to pay attention anymore, because it won't matter whatsoever.
and you still can't go afk for hours because asteroids will pop after about 6 mins. less if you're not using a hulk. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Ziranda Hakuli
Relativity Holding Corp
124
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 07:47:00 -
[198] - Quote
Richard Desturned 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). so you're saying that it should literally cost half a billion to kill an afk mining hulk, one with nothing fitted as far as a tank, absolutely nothing trained as far as tanking skills and no effort taken to mitigate the risk of being blown up i'm not trying to put words in your mouth but that sounds like what you're trying to say by "it should cost more to kill a ship than what the ship is worth"
U mad bro? you butt hurt Mad? i think the goon is butt hurt mad cause someone cut into his profit margin!!! WOOOHOOO!!
Not sure what your smoking dude but you seriously gotta look at the numbers instead of going half cocked...woah!! forgot your goon you always go half cocked when its something you do not like.
where is my skiff at......hmm....need to load up on them ganker tears |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
748
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 07:48:00 -
[199] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:and you still can't go afk for hours because asteroids will pop after about 6 mins. less if you're not using a hulk. Oh, well, let me tell you about this little piece of software I have... (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
262
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 07:51:00 -
[200] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Dave stark wrote:and you still can't go afk for hours because asteroids will pop after about 6 mins. less if you're not using a hulk. Oh, well, let me tell you about this little piece of software I have...
your signature makes this post even more amusing than it is. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1649
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 07:54:00 -
[201] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Incidentally, Mara Rinn is a perfect example of the 'smart' high-sec miner. While I am generally inactive during the summer, I've recently made a few ganking passes through her mining systems. She tanks her Hulk hard, and is quite content to continue mining away - with ice at record high prices. She pays attention to her surroundings, knows that I work alone - and am unlikely to crack her tank without spending far more than I'd like. And she broadcasts warnings to the other miners in local.
Fortunately for me, there usually are a few targets in system that don't pay attention and I get my kills as well. I get to blow up some Exhumers, and she has less mining competition, allowing her to sell her ice at higher prices.
Win for the ganker, Win for the 'smart' miner, exactly how it should be.
The current balance is great: gankers who are careful can sustain their playstyle by eating their prey: T2 salvage and 2-6M ISK ice harvester modules go a long way to paying for the T2 blaster catalyst, methinks. Just as long as I am not the target :)
Removing the dumb miners and keeping the threat of suicide ganking real means there are fewer people keen to get out in the belts with max yield vessels, means there are tidy profits to be made for those who dedicate their play time to mining. Being alert means the miners have to form some form of community (intel channels, red/blue lists, conversations in local with strangers) and the game is a richer experience for it.
These new buffs will hurt actively playing miners and suicide gankers alike. After the changes, mining profitability will drop off a cliff because the only people doing it will be those asleep at the keyboard or whose cats are playing for them. People like me will switch to whatever else is better at raising ISK.
To the suicide gankers, thank you for your service to the community. And for not eating me :)
To CCP: I hope you have something up your sleeve, otherwise this barge buff will end up benefitting bots and sociopaths more than real players. I dread the thought of what you might have in the pipeline to counter the barge buff. The only buff the Hulk needed was 10PG.
I will be alert for the inevitable Tornado trio ganking my Hulk as the gankers bid their careers goodbye.
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Jypsie
Wandering Star Enterprises
9
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 08:07:00 -
[202] - Quote
Quote:After the changes, mining profitability will drop off a cliff because the only people doing it will be those asleep at the keyboard or whose cats are playing for them.
Or maybe the gankers will have to go back to shooting each other to make their money. Get their asses back out there blowing each other up and creating upward pressure on the price of minerals.
The risk free money of blowing up a exhumer, looting the t2 strips, salvaging intact plates, and getting a isk GG pat on the ass from goons all for the cost of a well fit dessie isn't going to be there anymore.
|
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
262
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 08:09:00 -
[203] - Quote
Jypsie wrote:Quote:After the changes, mining profitability will drop off a cliff because the only people doing it will be those asleep at the keyboard or whose cats are playing for them. Or maybe the gankers will have to go back to shooting each other to make their money. Get their asses back out there blowing each other up and creating upward pressure on the price of minerals. The risk free money of blowing up a exhumer, looting the t2 strips, salvaging intact plates, and getting a isk GG pat on the ass from goons all for the cost of a well fit dessie isn't going to be there anymore.
the fact still remains; mineral prices will be going down. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Jypsie
Wandering Star Enterprises
9
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 08:12:00 -
[204] - Quote
Quote:the fact still remains; mineral prices will be going down.
True. Its the nature of the industry. Just have to hope for more wars.
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
748
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 08:14:00 -
[205] - Quote
Ah, yes, the good old "gankers should grow balls and go shoot each other" argument. I guess for people who've never once fit guns to their ships, it always has to be one or the other. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1704
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 08:14:00 -
[206] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Sam Ruger wrote: And Ganker is too stupid to bring some friends along to help.
Fitted Properly, a Hulk cannot be profitably ganked right now.
It shouldn't be profitably ganked.
Do you profitably gank empty badgers or T2 fitted BCs?
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
262
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 08:17:00 -
[207] - Quote
Jypsie wrote:Quote:the fact still remains; mineral prices will be going down. True. Its the nature of the industry. Just have to hope for more wars.
even as a miner i kinda like lower mineral prices. it still takes me the same amount of time to buy most things, and anything else i do is worth more relative to what it was worth in terms of purchasing power. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
393
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 08:19:00 -
[208] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:
Good stuff. Soundwave should try and absorb what I have to say.
Couldn't have said it better myself - and I've been saying it for 3-4 years now.
Remove the predators from the equation and you end up with large numbers of very stupid prey - and they starve when they exhaust the food supply (ie, overrun the demand for minerals/ice.)
All miners end up the same, with no challenges to distinguish (and reward) the intelligent ones over the slow and stupid.
And yes, make no mistake - this IS removing predators from the equation, because gankers are not going to waste 500M ISK to gank your AFKing, 200M ISK Mackinaw, let alone over a billion to kill your 120M ISK Skiff.
Somehow I don't think 'belt rats' are going to pose a credible threat to these new Exhumers.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1705
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 08:21:00 -
[209] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:If these changes go through I'd like to see CCP put bot hunting into overdrive. These changes will make botting all the more easier because you don't need to worry about that mining ship getting ganked.
Totally wrong. Botters have 20 replacement ships, their money comes from huge quantity over time not from survivability.
A small mining op can make 300M a day, a botter makes 900M+. Imagine how much they care to lose a ship every now and them. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Jypsie
Wandering Star Enterprises
9
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 08:23:00 -
[210] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Ah, yes, the good old "gankers should grow balls and go shoot each other" argument. I guess for people who've never once fit guns to their ships, it always has to be one or the other.
You realize lots of miners producing cheap ships and lots of wars blowing up those cheap ships are good for the game, right? Circle of life/production/destruction?
PvP'ers cannibalizing miners is counter-productive to the flow of the game. Shooting your foot so to speak.
Pussies did it though because they could make a quick buck without having to put up a fight.
|
|
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
262
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 08:29:00 -
[211] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:
Good stuff. Soundwave should try and absorb what I have to say.
Couldn't have said it better myself - and I've been saying it for 3-4 years now. Remove the predators from the equation and you end up with large numbers of very stupid prey - and they starve when they exhaust the food supply (ie, overrun the demand for minerals/ice.) All miners end up the same, with no challenges to distinguish (and reward) the intelligent ones over the slow and stupid. And yes, make no mistake - this IS removing predators from the equation, because gankers are not going to waste 500M ISK to gank your AFKing, 200M ISK Mackinaw, let alone over a billion to kill your 120M ISK Skiff. Somehow I don't think 'belt rats' are going to pose a credible threat to these new Exhumers.
the problem is, you can't have belt rats that will 1shot new players. in terms of belt rats even the regular mining barges with no tank at all are overtanked for high sec belt rats. a flight of light drones will take out the high sec belt rats in a single volley, maybe two depending on your drone skills. however with rats not spawning in 1.0 systems i guess we could justify throwing battleship rats in to high sec. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1705
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 08:31:00 -
[212] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:stoicfaux wrote:So... the moral of the story is that the Big Bad Wolf has gone from being a windbag to a crybaby?
Nope, this Big Bad Wolf will probably go back to ganking haulers. (until Crimewatch kills that profession off) And there are always Tengus to pop. But Exhumers will likely be off the menu. ... So spare me the crybaby comments. The Goons are right on this one.
No they are not.
Why do you pop a Tengu? Because of the bare hull or because it's using that nice deadspace booster and faction launchers? If you only saw T1 fitted Tengus how many gankers would kill them "for a profit"? Few, eh?
So why would a T1 fit exhumer bring in profit "just for existing" instead? There are Hulks with deadspace small shield booster (fitting copied from Halada's mining guide) go kill them. They are pimped like the pimped Tengu.
All the others are worthless like it's worthless to gank a T1 fit Tengu or an empty hauler. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1705
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 08:33:00 -
[213] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:
Good stuff. Soundwave should try and absorb what I have to say.
Couldn't have said it better myself - and I've been saying it for 3-4 years now. Remove the predators from the equation and you end up with large numbers of very stupid prey - and they starve when they exhaust the food supply (ie, overrun the demand for minerals/ice.) All miners end up the same, with no challenges to distinguish (and reward) the intelligent ones over the slow and stupid. And yes, make no mistake - this IS removing predators from the equation, because gankers are not going to waste 500M ISK to gank your AFKing, 200M ISK Mackinaw, let alone over a billion to kill your 120M ISK Skiff. Somehow I don't think 'belt rats' are going to pose a credible threat to these new Exhumers. the problem is, you can't have belt rats that will 1shot new players. in terms of belt rats even the regular mining barges with no tank at all are overtanked for high sec belt rats. a flight of light drones will take out the high sec belt rats in a single volley, maybe two depending on your drone skills. however with rats not spawning in 1.0 systems i guess we could justify throwing battleship rats in to high sec.
Not true, try flying a Retriever with newbie skills below 0.7 sec and it gets popped so fast it's unreal. Even spamming shield repeair. The game has to work for them too. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
393
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 08:36:00 -
[214] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:La Nariz wrote:If these changes go through I'd like to see CCP put bot hunting into overdrive. These changes will make botting all the more easier because you don't need to worry about that mining ship getting ganked. Totally wrong. Botters have 20 replacement ships, their money comes from huge quantity over time not from survivability. A small mining op can make 300M a day, a botter makes 900M+. Imagine how much they care to lose a ship every now and them.
Actually, the botters DO care. The random odd gank, no - but dedicated persecution bothers them.
Persecution required good tactics and effort. Using the Tornado Boomerang, I torched over 50 Botting Mackinaws over an 8 hour period - all belonging to a single Ukrainian botter. Made hundreds of millions in Salvage profits, killing 3-4 Exhumers at a time, every 15 minutes.
Goons are well known to drive botters from one region to another, through sheer force of numbers.
The problem? Well, naturally, they cheat. It comes easily for Russians in my experience. They simply redflag your gank char, and the script auto-docks the entire fleet - the instant you enter local. (as ratters do in nullsec). Then its up to CCP rule enforcement - which in my experience takes months - if they are dealt with at all. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1650
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 08:38:00 -
[215] - Quote
Jypsie wrote:Or maybe the gankers will have to go back to shooting each other to make their money. Get their asses back out there blowing each other up and creating upward pressure on the price of minerals.
The risk free money of blowing up a exhumer, looting the t2 strips, salvaging intact plates, and getting a isk GG pat on the ass from goons all for the cost of a well fit dessie isn't going to be there anymore.
But the risk-free parking your exhumer in a belt and sucking up all the rocks or ice you can will be there. This is a situation that I do not like, and I dislike it more than I dislike the ability for a 12M ISK blaster catalyst to blow up at 300M ISK hulk before CONCORD can intervene. At least the miner has the option of fitting a tank. When it comes to mining in perfect safety, the options are "mine heaps" or "mine even more heaps" there is no control of this system except the individual's perceived value of time.
Someone running a Bot will continue to do so while the value of running that Bot is greater than zero. Thus humans competing with Bots will end up in the situation of mining for marginally more than 0ISK/hr. The humans will be better off running stealth bomber alts in Minmatar militia.
So while you are celebrating cheaper ships, just be aware that you are supporting bots.
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
263
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 08:41:00 -
[216] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Dave stark wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:
Good stuff. Soundwave should try and absorb what I have to say.
Couldn't have said it better myself - and I've been saying it for 3-4 years now. Remove the predators from the equation and you end up with large numbers of very stupid prey - and they starve when they exhaust the food supply (ie, overrun the demand for minerals/ice.) All miners end up the same, with no challenges to distinguish (and reward) the intelligent ones over the slow and stupid. And yes, make no mistake - this IS removing predators from the equation, because gankers are not going to waste 500M ISK to gank your AFKing, 200M ISK Mackinaw, let alone over a billion to kill your 120M ISK Skiff. Somehow I don't think 'belt rats' are going to pose a credible threat to these new Exhumers. the problem is, you can't have belt rats that will 1shot new players. in terms of belt rats even the regular mining barges with no tank at all are overtanked for high sec belt rats. a flight of light drones will take out the high sec belt rats in a single volley, maybe two depending on your drone skills. however with rats not spawning in 1.0 systems i guess we could justify throwing battleship rats in to high sec. Not true, try flying a Retriever with newbie skills below 0.7 sec and it gets popped so fast it's unreal. Even spamming shield repeair. The game has to work for them too.
really? i guess it has been a while since i've been mining in a retriever in high sec; still my drone skills aren't any thing special and 0.7 space rats pop within 2 volleys. it's about what, 9 days training for 5x t2 light drones? and up to 14 days if you add drone interfacing IV to that. i'm sure new players can tolerate mining in 1.0 systems for 2 weeks. it's skills they want anyway.
not to mention the lucrative ores (atm, scordite) can be found in 0.7 systems which have laughable rats. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Vera Algaert
Republic University Minmatar Republic
257
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 08:44:00 -
[217] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:The problem? Well, naturally, they cheat. It comes easily for Russians in my experience. They simply redflag your gank char, and the script auto-docks the entire fleet - the instant you enter local. (as ratters do in nullsec). Do Russians cheat more than other nationalities/ethnicities because of their familiarity with red flags or is there an other reason? |
Ginseng Jita
PAN-EVE TRADING COMPANY
1674
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 08:44:00 -
[218] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Dave stark wrote:James Amril-Kesh 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). That's a nice sentiment I suppose, but it seems you've failed to back it up with anything resembling a justification. Do you have any idea what you're about to do to the game with this change? Do you seriously believe this is a good idea? MINERS THEMSELVES should be against this change, because it promotes lazy gameplay. Intelligent miners will be making far less, the price of minerals as a whole will drop, and supercapital production will be significantly cheaper. The only miners that will make any kind of money now are the same miners who find it difficult to pull a profit under these conditions because they're lazy and mine for hours simply because they don't even sit at their computers while they do it. How you could possibly think this is a good idea is beyond me. i nearly took you seriously until you said miners could be afk for hours demonstrating you've never mined for more than 5 mins in your entire life. Yeah, I admit I forgot the part where you press F1, F2, and F3, and then go about whatever you were doing before. The point is you don't even have to pay attention anymore, because it won't matter whatsoever. and you still can't go afk for hours because asteroids will pop after about 6 mins. less if you're not using a hulk.
Ice does not pop after six minutes.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1705
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 08:46:00 -
[219] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:pussnheels wrote:adapt or leave ahahahaha that's the same advice we gave to the miners, "fit a tank" "try drones that don't mine" "try not going AFK" but they felt entitled to have their max-yield fits AND a damnation-sized tank so they cried to CCP
It's not like you are not crying to CCP yourself right now.
From 0.0 hardened barons none the less. "We are out to ruin your game" and all that jazz. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1651
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 08:46:00 -
[220] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Not true, try flying a Retriever with newbie skills below 0.7 sec and it gets popped so fast it's unreal. Even spamming shield repeair. The game has to work for them too.
A newbie mi er found this out the hard way yesterday: lost a retriever in Brapelille to a single Serpentis frigate. What I don't understand was that he sat there in a capsule for half an hour while some NPC corp type salvaged the wreck and stole his loot.
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
|
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
264
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 08:49:00 -
[221] - Quote
Ginseng Jita wrote:
Ice does not pop after six minutes.
true, but he implied that minerals would fall because of afk miners. simply not true. ice prices falling because of afk miners sure, but not minerals. hence why it's obvious he hasn't got a clue what he's talking about. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Evei Shard
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
102
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 08:55:00 -
[222] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:But the risk-free parking your exhumer in a belt and sucking up all the rocks or ice you can will be there.
This is false. You could increase the base EHP on a Hulk to 200,000, and it still would not be "risk free".
The only risk-free thing you can do in Eve is stay docked. Profit favors the prepared |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
393
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 08:56:00 -
[223] - Quote
Vera Algaert wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:The problem? Well, naturally, they cheat. It comes easily for Russians in my experience. They simply redflag your gank char, and the script auto-docks the entire fleet - the instant you enter local. (as ratters do in nullsec). Do Russians cheat more than other nationalities/ethnicities because of their familiarity with red flags or is there some other reason?
"We'll they're are all Arabs to me. The blacks, the Jews, those blue, tree-hugging queers in Avatar. In fact, everyone from outside of America is technically, an Arab."
/Sacha Baron Cohen
|
Jypsie
Wandering Star Enterprises
10
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 08:59:00 -
[224] - Quote
Quote:So while you are celebrating cheaper ships, just be aware that you are supporting bots.
I'll leave it to CCP to declare whose a bot and whose a single mom hoovering scordite between loads of laundry.
In the end, the price of minerals will be determined by NullSec Wars (upward pressure) and CCP's lack/strength of bot banning (downward pressure.) Sure, there are lots of little things in between that affect it, but IMNSHO those are the big things. As the price fluxes, you will see real miners join and leave the profession. They are more reactionary, not a market maker, not a influence. Its big wars draining the supplies, and CCP either doing something or not to cut off the cheap minerals.
|
Zowie Powers
Hole in the wall
115
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 09:07:00 -
[225] - Quote
CCP Sreegs is the one who declares who is a bot or not and I have seen that scumbag in action. He presents no evidence, takes radical actions against people CCP Soundwave doesn't like, is not accountable to anybody and doesn't have the rational capacity to keep his mouth shut and so forum janitors have to clean up after he spills all his stupid out where everybody can see it.
You will never see anything fair and uncorrupted in this game ever again because of the Soundwave/Sreegs lockdown of anything and the large important detail, Internal Affairs DO NOT EXIST. --- ATX: The best of the rest. |
Jypsie
Wandering Star Enterprises
10
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 09:07:00 -
[226] - Quote
Evei Shard wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:But the risk-free parking your exhumer in a belt and sucking up all the rocks or ice you can will be there.
This is false. You could increase the base EHP on a Hulk to 200,000, and it still would not be "risk free". The only risk-free thing you can do in Eve is stay docked.
I was docked and this guy wanted to sell me a Navy Raven real cheap since he was moving out to NullSec. But when I finished the trade he had given me a normal Raven. For some reason he won't talk to me anymore.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1705
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 09:07:00 -
[227] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:La Nariz wrote:If these changes go through I'd like to see CCP put bot hunting into overdrive. These changes will make botting all the more easier because you don't need to worry about that mining ship getting ganked. Totally wrong. Botters have 20 replacement ships, their money comes from huge quantity over time not from survivability. A small mining op can make 300M a day, a botter makes 900M+. Imagine how much they care to lose a ship every now and them. Actually, the botters DO care. The random odd gank, no - but dedicated persecution bothers them. Persecution required good tactics and effort. Using the Tornado Boomerang, I torched over 50 Botting Mackinaws over an 8 hour period - all belonging to a single Ukrainian botter. Made hundreds of millions in Salvage profits, killing 3-4 Exhumers at a time, every 15 minutes. Goons are well known to drive botters from one region to another, through sheer force of numbers. The problem? Well, naturally, they cheat. It comes easily for Russians in my experience. They simply redflag your gank char, and the script auto-docks the entire fleet - the instant you enter local. (as ratters do in nullsec). Then its up to CCP rule enforcement - which in my experience takes months - if they are dealt with at all.
You are talking about the 1% of professional botters who probably also RMT. The 99% are just blokes with 1-2 ships running some crappy autokey or something. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1219
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 09:08:00 -
[228] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:[After the changes, mining profitability will drop off a cliff because the only people doing it will be those asleep at the keyboard or whose cats are playing for them. People like me will switch to whatever else is better at raising ISK. We have a dog that FCs, do you think it could multibox a small ice mining fleet? Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
393
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 09:10:00 -
[229] - Quote
Evei Shard wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:But the risk-free parking your exhumer in a belt and sucking up all the rocks or ice you can will be there.
This is false. You could increase the base EHP on a Hulk to 200,000, and it still would not be "risk free". The only risk-free thing you can do in Eve is stay docked.
See this is the disingenuous thing again. Normally I'd ignore stuff like this, but we just watched CCP Soundwave post similar ideas. "Its not like we are making Exhumers invulnerable."
Sure, lets use a theoretical 200K EHP Hulk as an example. Suicide ganking one is still, technically, possible. It would *only* take 20 Tornados to kill. Soundwave hasn't 'turned off' high sec aggression, so whats the beef?
Its this: 20 Tornados cost 2 Billion, and a replacement Hulk is only 300M - therefore it simply won't happen in any imaginable situation where ISK has value. And thats just ISK - we are also talking about 20 players spending time, vs one! Hulk.
Conclusion, while one should be careful speaking in absolutes... it also pays to dwell within the realm of realistic possibility.
Sure, someone could suicide gank the Veldnaught. But would it really happen? No.
|
Khanh'rhh
1641
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 09:11:00 -
[230] - Quote
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). You can still make it so it's not profitable, yet also within the realms of what one might do if they were so inclined.
If you want to balance cost, then an *untanked* hulk should be killable to 1 or 2 Nado's, with a good reward for tanking them, making it say, 45-50k EHP fully fit.
What you want to do is offer a low base EHP but give it more fitting room to fit a stiff tank if the user wants to.
The current situation is such that even the mining barge designed to be weak and flimsy is immune to anything less than the focused aggression of 5 people, which is a buff the likes of which we have never seen.
By the way, the "making it unprofitable" part is just silly. If I want to make money doing it I can alpha a Tengu and collect all the Gist goodies that spill out. If people move here are you just going to put a 4x EHP buff to an active Tengu, as well?
This really looks like a change which does nothing else than protect players who are unable/refuse to protect themselves, and trying to balance the game to make it safer for the lowest common denominator just smacks of the wrong direction, totally.
The changes to the lower tier barges is mostly OK, but the massive Hulk buff does nothing but promote AFK mining with little to no risk. - "Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930's |
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1705
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 09:12:00 -
[231] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote: Someone running a Bot will continue to do so while the value of running that Bot is greater than zero. Thus humans competing with Bots will end up in the situation of mining for marginally more than 0ISK/hr. The humans will be better off running stealth bomber alts in Minmatar militia.
So while you are celebrating cheaper ships, just be aware that you are supporting bots.
No, the very mining mining "profession" is so bland and bot friendly.
You should not get a profit because you slap 2 hardeners to survive a gank, but because you had to solve something more complex than what a turtle could do while asleep in order to get those minerals. Other MMOs do that and they certainly don't have brighter designers than CCP.
CCP should have revamped the whole thing to be more "active player friendly" but alas they didn't.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Evei Shard
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
102
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 09:14:00 -
[232] - Quote
Jypsie wrote:Evei Shard wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:But the risk-free parking your exhumer in a belt and sucking up all the rocks or ice you can will be there.
This is false. You could increase the base EHP on a Hulk to 200,000, and it still would not be "risk free". The only risk-free thing you can do in Eve is stay docked. I was docked and this guy wanted to sell me a Navy Raven real cheap since he was moving out to NullSec. But when I finished the trade he had given me a normal Raven. For some reason he won't talk to me anymore.
:P So the only risk free thing you can do then is bio-mass.
But I suppose some people would manage to mess that one up too.
Ah well, there go the dreams of something risk-free in Eve. Profit favors the prepared |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1705
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 09:18:00 -
[233] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:
really? i guess it has been a while since i've been mining in a retriever in high sec; still my drone skills aren't any thing special and 0.7 space rats pop within 2 volleys. it's about what, 9 days training for 5x t2 light drones? and up to 14 days if you add drone interfacing IV to that. i'm sure new players can tolerate mining in 1.0 systems for 2 weeks. it's skills they want anyway.
not to mention the lucrative ores (atm, scordite) can be found in 0.7 systems which have laughable rats.
Right 2 days ago I needed 999 trit to complete a R&D mission on an alt who sits at 40 jumps away off Jita. I checked the market of this 0.6 sec system and the closest trit for sale was 22 jumps away.
So I thought: "well she's in a frig and by chance I got 1 mining laser I fitted, let's just take from a roid in this system".
Now that alt is one of the 2008 "900k SP" ones, that is well better suited than modern new characters yet I could not do a single cycle before I was taken to hull by the 3 rats in there.
Sucks to be new in EvE. Game should entice new players go discover around (other MMOs grant XP or unlocks for that) not to stick to 1.0 sec for 2 months or else... Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Khanh'rhh
1641
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 09:20:00 -
[234] - Quote
Khanh'rhh 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). You can still make it so it's not profitable, yet also within the realms of what one might do if they were so inclined. If you want to balance cost, then an *untanked* hulk should be killable to 1 or 2 Nado's, with a good reward for tanking them, making it say, 45-50k EHP fully fit. What you want to do is offer a low base EHP but give it more fitting room to fit a stiff tank if the user wants to. The current situation is such that even the mining barge designed to be weak and flimsy is immune to anything less than the focused aggression of 5 people, which is a buff the likes of which we have never seen. By the way, the "making it unprofitable" part is just silly. If I want to make money doing it I can alpha a Tengu and collect all the Gist goodies that spill out. If people move here are you just going to put a 4x EHP buff to an active Tengu, as well? This really looks like a change which does nothing else than protect players who are unable/refuse to protect themselves, and trying to balance the game to make it safer for the lowest common denominator just smacks of the wrong direction, totally. The changes to the lower tier barges is mostly OK, but the massive Hulk buff does nothing but promote AFK mining with little to no risk. If they really want to do that, then they should accept they get EHP from lower yields. This is really a best of both scenario.
To quote myself and make a further point, the real sadness here is that smart miners now no longer have an advantage over dumb miners and bots, which is basically a nerf to risk management and thinking things through.
This is sad, truly. - "Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930's |
Patrakele
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
62
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 09:26:00 -
[235] - Quote
More tears. MOAR!
Back in my days, pvpers had some balls. What happened? Did they drop off? |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1705
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 09:26:00 -
[236] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:
By the way, the "making it unprofitable" part is just silly. If I want to make money doing it I can alpha a Tengu and collect all the Gist goodies that spill out. If people move here are you just going to put a 4x EHP buff to an active Tengu, as well?
First of all the buff to Hulk is not going to magically make it require 20 tornadoes.
Second you say it yourself: you gank the Tengu for the Gist goodies, not because its bare hull is so sexy. Same applies to freigthers and Orcas and whatever other ships: if they are empty or have crap fits, they are not worth.
So what makes a mining ship different, that EMPTY and unfitted it should bring in about 16 to 33M worth of salvage (it's what I'd get yesterday when salvaging macks)? Now add the fittings and all of this with an expense off yours of 5-10M?
You should make negative ISK for ganking an empty or T1 fit ship. It costed you no selective skill to kill it, like if you ganked the first badger you see: ooops it was empty.
IF the Hulk has the deadspace fit or has the ORE miners / MLU then LIKE FOR THE GIST TENGU, you should kill it and really make good money. Like for the rest of the game. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Evei Shard
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
102
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 09:35:00 -
[237] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Evei Shard wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:But the risk-free parking your exhumer in a belt and sucking up all the rocks or ice you can will be there.
This is false. You could increase the base EHP on a Hulk to 200,000, and it still would not be "risk free". The only risk-free thing you can do in Eve is stay docked. See this is the disingenuous thing again. Normally I'd ignore stuff like this, but we just watched CCP Soundwave post similar ideas. "Its not like we are making Exhumers invulnerable." Sure, lets use a theoretical 200K EHP Hulk as an example. Suicide ganking one is still, technically, possible. It would *only* take 20 Tornados to kill. Soundwave hasn't 'turned off' high sec aggression, so whats the beef? Its this: 20 Tornados cost 2 Billion, and a replacement Hulk is only 300M - therefore it simply won't happen in any imaginable situation where ISK has value. And thats just ISK - we are also talking about 20 players spending time, vs one! Hulk. Conclusion, while one should be careful speaking in absolutes... it also pays to dwell within the realm of realistic possibility. Sure, someone could suicide gank the Veldnaught. But would it really happen? No.
That in itself is an absolute. Part of the uniqueness of New Eden comes from the unpredictability of what will happen next. I'm sure there are a lot of people who would like to participate in ganking the Veldnaught, they juts haven't found someone to coordinate them into a plan of action for doing so.
The complaining about the changes to mining barges and exhumers is senseless. People are taking up their proverbial torches and pitchforks over what is a small slice of time in the life of the game we argue so much about (EVE). The Devs do not tell the players everything. The changes they make are not necessarily permanent, and we do not know what changes they have planned that will affect the current situation. Take the issue of mineral prices dropping, as many are complaining about. Who is to say that CCP isn't planning on decreasing refinery quality in high-sec in a future expansion? They cannot make the game perfectly balanced in one huge expansion. Profit favors the prepared |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
430
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 09:36:00 -
[238] - Quote
Evei Shard wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:But the risk-free parking your exhumer in a belt and sucking up all the rocks or ice you can will be there.
This is false. You could increase the base EHP on a Hulk to 200,000, and it still would not be "risk free". The only risk-free thing you can do in Eve is stay docked. I think you understand the flaw in your argument has more to do with the feasibility of suicide ganking rather than the possibility.
Of course it's possible to suicide gank a Hulk, whether it has 20,000 EHP, 200,000 EHP, or 20,000,000 EHP. Nobody's going to bother suicide ganking Hulks with EHP much higher than they are now because it will simply cost too much.
Again, this promotes lazy gameplay, and makes mining ultra easy-mode in highsec. EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
264
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 09:38:00 -
[239] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Dave stark wrote:
really? i guess it has been a while since i've been mining in a retriever in high sec; still my drone skills aren't any thing special and 0.7 space rats pop within 2 volleys. it's about what, 9 days training for 5x t2 light drones? and up to 14 days if you add drone interfacing IV to that. i'm sure new players can tolerate mining in 1.0 systems for 2 weeks. it's skills they want anyway.
not to mention the lucrative ores (atm, scordite) can be found in 0.7 systems which have laughable rats.
Right 2 days ago I needed 999 trit to complete a R&D mission on an alt who sits at 40 jumps away off Jita. I checked the market of this 0.6 sec system and the closest trit for sale was 22 jumps away. So I thought: "well she's in a frig and by chance I got 1 mining laser I fitted, let's just take from a roid in this system". Now that alt is one of the 2008 "900k SP" ones, that is well better suited than modern new characters yet I could not do a single cycle before I was taken to hull by the 3 rats in there. Sucks to be new in EvE. Game should entice new players go discover around (other MMOs grant XP or unlocks for that) not to stick to 1.0 sec for 2 months or else...
1day 17hours to get in to an osprey (give or take if you're not caldari) that'll have more durability than a frigate. also we've no idea how durable the new mining frigate will be. again; the real issue here is that exhumers must be able to tank belt rats in 0.0 which means a triple bs spawn which in turn is just pure overkill for high sec belts.
however i see no reason why we shouldn't put battleships in high sec ice belts; nothing less than a mining barge can mine in those belts anyway. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Jypsie
Wandering Star Enterprises
10
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 09:38:00 -
[240] - Quote
Quote:This really looks like a change which does nothing else than protect players who are unable/refuse to protect themselves, and trying to balance the game to make it safer for the lowest common denominator just smacks of the wrong direction, totally
No...just, no.
See, Ruby Porto there, loves to post that list of "how not to die as a miner" in every thread he comes across where someone bitches and whines about getting ganked. I like it, I like alot of it. I actually have done quite a bit of it myself. I mine in grav sites and mission sites when I'm in high sec, otherwise I'm hidden in WH's.
Here's my problem with his list when it comes to fitting. Which is really what we're arguing about in this thread. The stat changes and fitting changes to barges.
He includes the exhumers using every single slot fitted for tank.
It is not acceptable that just to survive vs. a T1 dessie for all of 25 seconds a T2 Exhumer commit every single slot and rig to tanking.
Imagine if you flew anything other than an Abaddon in a Lvl 4 with every slot packed with T2 tank mods you were expected to explode within 30 seconds. There would be people complaining about the ship imbalance. People might feel that either the difficulty of the missions or the tanks of other batteships was off.
Needless to say, there would be some bittervet screaming about back in his day, there were no Abaddon's and they ran Lvl 4's in Fleets, exploded, and they liked it!
If an exhumer with half slots tank, half slots yield, had a chance against a decent ass dessie fit, we wouldn't be where we are today. But it doesn't, and here we are.
Suck it up, HTFU, and adapt.
|
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1705
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 09:39:00 -
[241] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:1day 17hours to get in to an osprey (give or take if you're not caldari) that'll have more durability than a frigate. also we've no idea how durable the new mining frigate will be. again; the real issue here is that exhumers must be able to tank belt rats in 0.0 which means a triple bs spawn which in turn is just pure overkill for high sec belts.
however i see no reason why we shouldn't put battleships in high sec ice belts; nothing less than a mining barge can mine in those belts anyway.
My original mention was about a Retriever, which has considerably less tank than an Osprey. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
430
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 09:42:00 -
[242] - Quote
Jypsie wrote:Quote:This really looks like a change which does nothing else than protect players who are unable/refuse to protect themselves, and trying to balance the game to make it safer for the lowest common denominator just smacks of the wrong direction, totally No...just, no. See, Ruby Porto there, loves to post that list of "how not to die as a miner" in every thread he comes across where someone bitches and whines about getting ganked. I like it, I like alot of it. I actually have done quite a bit of it myself. I mine in grav sites and mission sites when I'm in high sec, otherwise I'm hidden in WH's. Here's my problem with his list when it comes to fitting. Which is really what we're arguing about in this thread. The stat changes and fitting changes to barges. He includes the exhumers using every single slot fitted for tank.It is not acceptable that just to survive vs. a T1 dessie for all of 25 seconds a T2 Exhumer commit every single slot and rig to tanking. Imagine if you flew anything other than an Abaddon in a Lvl 4 with every slot packed with T2 tank mods you were expected to explode within 30 seconds. There would be people complaining about the ship imbalance. People might feel that either the difficulty of the missions or the tanks of other batteships was off. Needless to say, there would be some bittervet screaming about back in his day, there were no Abaddon's and they ran Lvl 4's in Fleets, exploded, and they liked it! If an exhumer with half slots tank, half slots yield, had a chance against a decent ass dessie fit, we wouldn't be where we are today. But it doesn't, and here we are. Suck it up, HTFU, and adapt. I can figure out how to avoid getting suicide ganked in a Hulk without any tank mods at all. If you can't, why should I stand back and let you get coddled by CCP? It's your own damn fault if you can't be creative enough to play this game properly. EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
264
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 09:42:00 -
[243] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Dave stark wrote:1day 17hours to get in to an osprey (give or take if you're not caldari) that'll have more durability than a frigate. also we've no idea how durable the new mining frigate will be. again; the real issue here is that exhumers must be able to tank belt rats in 0.0 which means a triple bs spawn which in turn is just pure overkill for high sec belts.
however i see no reason why we shouldn't put battleships in high sec ice belts; nothing less than a mining barge can mine in those belts anyway. My original mention was about a Retriever, which has considerably less tank than an Osprey.
does it? jeez i haven't flown those ships for such a long time i forget what tanks better than what. also, if i'm not mistaken an osprey can fit a launcher as well as miners due to the 5 high slots and less than 5 turrets etc so new players aren't really at the mercy of high sec rats.
Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Whoopie
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 09:45:00 -
[244] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Zagdul wrote:Gone are the days where EVE is a dangerous place. I seem to have missed the part when they made all player ships immune to damage. 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.
This is exactly it. It's a perfectly reasonable way to re-balance, and it is really necessary.
|
Evei Shard
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
102
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 09:46:00 -
[245] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Evei Shard wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:But the risk-free parking your exhumer in a belt and sucking up all the rocks or ice you can will be there.
This is false. You could increase the base EHP on a Hulk to 200,000, and it still would not be "risk free". The only risk-free thing you can do in Eve is stay docked. I think you understand the flaw in your argument has more to do with the feasibility of suicide ganking rather than the possibility. Of course it's possible to suicide gank a Hulk, whether it has 20,000 EHP, 200,000 EHP, or 20,000,000 EHP. Nobody's going to bother suicide ganking Hulks with EHP much higher than they are now because it will simply cost too much. Again, this promotes lazy gameplay, and makes mining ultra easy-mode in highsec.
Not arguing that, just regurgitating an oft used position taken by gankers when carebears make the mistake of assuming high-sec is 100% safe.
Profit favors the prepared |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
430
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 09:49:00 -
[246] - Quote
Evei Shard wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Evei Shard wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:But the risk-free parking your exhumer in a belt and sucking up all the rocks or ice you can will be there.
This is false. You could increase the base EHP on a Hulk to 200,000, and it still would not be "risk free". The only risk-free thing you can do in Eve is stay docked. I think you understand the flaw in your argument has more to do with the feasibility of suicide ganking rather than the possibility. Of course it's possible to suicide gank a Hulk, whether it has 20,000 EHP, 200,000 EHP, or 20,000,000 EHP. Nobody's going to bother suicide ganking Hulks with EHP much higher than they are now because it will simply cost too much. Again, this promotes lazy gameplay, and makes mining ultra easy-mode in highsec. Not arguing that, just regurgitating an oft used position taken by gankers when carebears make the mistake of assuming high-sec is 100% safe. Well if you're not arguing that, then I think you can agree that this is a terrible change. It's like mining in a Rokh with a larger cargohold and a bonus to mining laser yield. EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
Jypsie
Wandering Star Enterprises
10
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 09:50:00 -
[247] - Quote
Quote:I can figure out how to avoid getting suicide ganked in a Hulk without any tank mods at all. If you can't, why should I stand back and let you get coddled by CCP? It's your own damn fault if you can't be creative enough to play this game properly.
Where did I say I have ever been caught? I avoid em by actions. Its fittings/stats that are the subject of disagreement. Keep up with the conversation.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1705
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 09:51:00 -
[248] - Quote
Another little history.
Carpet bombing belts is as lame and unskillful as it was playing Rain of Fire bright wizards in Warhammer.
The natural selection should apply to the gankers at least if not more (because they are the predators) than on miners.
Few weeks ago I went with one of my Cheetahs and scanned an Hulk and lo and behold, it has the Halada's fitting, that is the nice deadspace small shield booster.
I have a caldari alt (I know, sucky choice ) with a series of dessies, one for ninja looting, some for asploding and so on. So I got the guy popped, and the shield alone sold for 162M at Jita.
Since then I also discovered other miners use Caldari Navy small shield boosters (eve mail me I can even tell you where to find them).
That's The Ganking, that is a mindful operation helped with intelligence and aimed at sniping the pinatas.
The rest is dumb carpet farming, why should you reap hundreds of millions a day for that?
With the same Cheetah I find DED4/10 not far from Jita (!) and then use the Caldari alt with a Drake to do them. Guess what, doing a DED 4/10 takes longer, there's always 3-4 competitors (happens in minmatar space too) trying to steal the cans and the cans will contain from 5M worth of crap to the a 70M module (never got anything above that).
Now, match the effort of scanning and winning over competitors to get from 5M to 70M and see how it measures with "warp in, melt Mackinaw, get 1-2 intact armor playes at 16,500,000 a piece + random lesser scraps".
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
430
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 09:53:00 -
[249] - Quote
Jypsie wrote:Quote:I can figure out how to avoid getting suicide ganked in a Hulk without any tank mods at all. If you can't, why should I stand back and let you get coddled by CCP? It's your own damn fault if you can't be creative enough to play this game properly. Where did I say I have ever been caught? I avoid em by actions. Its fittings/stats that are the subject of disagreement. Keep up with the conversation. So by your own admission you can take actions to avoid ganks without fitting a tank at all. I don't see what the problem is, then. You want to be able to mine without taking any action at all to defend yourself apart from fitting a mild tank? In other words, you want CCP to help you be lazy. EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
Patrakele
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
62
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 09:53:00 -
[250] - Quote
Evei Shard wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:But the risk-free parking your exhumer in a belt and sucking up all the rocks or ice you can will be there.
This is false. You could increase the base EHP on a Hulk to 200,000, and it still would not be "risk free". The only risk-free thing you can do in Eve is stay docked.
Boot.ini
Nowhere is safe. |
|
Khanh'rhh
1643
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 09:57:00 -
[251] - Quote
Jypsie wrote:Suck it up, HTFU, and adapt. I can make a Retriever safe from a Dreadnought. That's adapting, no? You can warp off. It's not rocket science. Mining AFK ought to be risky.
The problem with the buff is exactly this: it promotes doing nothing at all to help yourself, whilst having the solution just given to you.
There's nothing to say that you can't mix tank and yield and still have a Hulk that can survive, if you decide you need to sit still and not watch Dscan. The fact a Hulk now has more EHP than a fully fit Heavy Assault ship is nonsense.
If people want to mine AFK/as a dumbie then they should be using a ship which supports that, and offers lower yield. This change makes even the thinnest of the barges ungankable so does nothing but say "train Hulk, AFK mine."
It's a buff to the current situation and does nothing to improve gameplay. The solution is making a fully fit hulk tough but an unfit/max yield Hulk thin. - "Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930's |
Jypsie
Wandering Star Enterprises
10
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 09:57:00 -
[252] - Quote
Quote:I don't see what the problem is, then.
Quote: Its fittings/stats that are the subject of disagreement.
*sigh* |
Acac Sunflyier
Eternal Phoenix Rises Soldiers Of New Eve
180
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 09:58:00 -
[253] - Quote
I like the changes. There just isn't anything intresting on the front page of the GD anymore. Yawn! |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
430
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 10:03:00 -
[254] - Quote
Jypsie wrote:Quote:I don't see what the problem is, then. Quote: Its fittings/stats that are the subject of disagreement. *sigh* If we've demonstrated that tank is unnecessary, why are you still arguing about it? EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
Jypsie
Wandering Star Enterprises
10
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 10:05:00 -
[255] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Jypsie wrote:Quote:I don't see what the problem is, then. Quote: Its fittings/stats that are the subject of disagreement. *sigh* If we've demonstrated that tank is unnecessary, why are you still arguing about it?
We haven't. You're straw manning towards actions while the discusson is about statistics.
|
Evei Shard
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
102
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 10:10:00 -
[256] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Evei Shard wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Evei Shard wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:But the risk-free parking your exhumer in a belt and sucking up all the rocks or ice you can will be there.
This is false. You could increase the base EHP on a Hulk to 200,000, and it still would not be "risk free". The only risk-free thing you can do in Eve is stay docked. I think you understand the flaw in your argument has more to do with the feasibility of suicide ganking rather than the possibility. Of course it's possible to suicide gank a Hulk, whether it has 20,000 EHP, 200,000 EHP, or 20,000,000 EHP. Nobody's going to bother suicide ganking Hulks with EHP much higher than they are now because it will simply cost too much. Again, this promotes lazy gameplay, and makes mining ultra easy-mode in highsec. Not arguing that, just regurgitating an oft used position taken by gankers when carebears make the mistake of assuming high-sec is 100% safe. Well if you're not arguing that, then I think you can agree that this is a terrible change. It's like mining in a Rokh with a larger cargohold and a bonus to mining laser yield.
No, I don't agree, but I am of a mindset right now to patiently wait and see what else CCP is looking to do. Yeah, I'll mine a lot more and take advantage of it, but I don't expect it to be permanent. I think if more people looked at EvE and saw it as a fluid, ever evolving environment, there would be a lot less butt-hurt when changes like this are made. So people can't gank and miners get what is perceived to be a free ride. It won't last permanently. I was sure last fall that Tier 3 Battlecruisers were going to wreck industry, and was quite wrong. People were sure that the hybrid buff was going to make ganking "too easy", and in their eyes, it did, but CCP keeps changing things. I think most people knew that sooner or later the industrial portion of EvE was going to get some changes, and that appears to be what is going on. No matter what change is made, someone is always going to QQ about it. What I haven't seen a lot of on the forum is people trusting CCP to guide the game in a direction that will keep the pendulum swinging back and forth. There's a lot of sky-is-falling panic over changes. Assumptions that CCP has jumped the shark with the latest adjustment. Maybe CCP has earned that lack of trust, but the game is still here. The servers still run better and have a more consistent up-time than many MMO's, and there's still things to do in game every day. :)
Profit favors the prepared |
pussnheels
477
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 10:15:00 -
[257] - Quote
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 I do not agree with what you are saying , but i will defend to the death your right to say it...... Voltaire |
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
322
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 10:16:00 -
[258] - Quote
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).
And our point is that isk should not be the main factor in your "balancing" Using your logic, a frigate should never have a chance against a cruiser or bigger. Getting to a high level or spending a lot of money on items to be impossible to kill by lower levels is a horrible WoW mechanic that has no place in EVE. Training Exhumers and spending a lot of isk should not give you immunity unless your opponent spends an equal amount of isk.
You are violating two main design principles in EVE. Giving a ship too many capabilities and balancing it based on isk values of the ship.
You see the tier 3 Battlecruisers? They can use large guns and are very fast but are paper thin and very vulnerable to smaller, faster ships. That is a balanced ship. You want to create a tornado that can destroy any frigate easily with the EHP of a battleship. That is not balanced. I suggest you learn how to play EVE before you try to talk like you know anything about it.
Here's a better balancing idea: Strip Miner new ability: Can only be activated in .3 and lower security. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
430
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 10:16:00 -
[259] - Quote
Jypsie wrote:We haven't. You're straw manning towards actions while the discusson is about statistics. If it helps you along: Quote:To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. You know, I really wish we could go back to this magical time where I don't have to go back and remind people what they said.
You said that you take issue with the fact that properly tanking an exhumer to survive a suicide ganking attempt requires using all of the ship's fitting slots, sacrificing cargohold and yield. I replied by stating this is irrelevant, because you can fit for max yield and avoid suicide ganking altogether. You continued by repeating your original position that the fitting stats were insufficient, which completely ignores my point that they're only insufficient to a completely inflexible and lazy play style.
There's no straw man here. EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
Johnson Johnson
UK Corp RAZOR Alliance
50
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 10:18:00 -
[260] - Quote
people used to play games for giggles rather than for imaginary space money |
|
baltec1
Bat Country
1706
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 10:20:00 -
[261] - Quote
pussnheels wrote: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
Miners didn't adapt though. Gankers however will, it just means we cannot make a profit from your stupidity. |
Jypsie
Wandering Star Enterprises
10
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 10:27:00 -
[262] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Jypsie wrote:We haven't. You're straw manning towards actions while the discusson is about statistics. If it helps you along: Quote:To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position. You know, I really wish we could go back to this magical time where I don't have to go back and remind people what they said. You said that you take issue with the fact that properly tanking an exhumer to survive a suicide ganking attempt requires using all of the ship's fitting slots, sacrificing cargohold and yield. I replied by stating this is irrelevant, because you can fit for max yield and avoid suicide ganking altogether. You continued by repeating your original position that the fitting stats were insufficient, which completely ignores my point that they're only insufficient to a completely inflexible and lazy play style. There's no straw man here.
Both you and I have stated that it is possible to avoid ganking via actions. I have stated that by current stauts quo of fittings and statistcs for exhumers, it is not reasonable to avoid suicide ganking. I have reflected that other members of this forum stated that the statistics were reasonable.
You and I and Ruby are right that people can avoid being ganked by actions. This is a straw man when the thread is about statistic changes and fittings. Its similar yet unequivalent position.
Look at the monkey
|
Talon Kitsune
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 10:41:00 -
[263] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:But is he wrong?
Nope.
Fitted properly, a Hulk cannot be profitably ganked.
Is he wrong? Not really, he's not really right either tho. Profitability? Come on, 90% of mining ganks aren't profitable to begin with, for the majority it's not a profit game.
To gank the first two you don't need a Nado or Talos, create an alt, spend about two weeks, maybe a month if you want to do it right, spend about 20-30 million if you really want to tweak it out, and you can kill them easily enough in anything below a .7 system. For the third? Bring a friend or two (or have them do the same), still don't need to bring a nado or talos or spend anywhere near as much time or money as the miner did. You have to bring ten gankers in some pretty nicely geared catalysts to be about at even cost. And that only applies to hi-sec. That's where the balance issue is.
It's not that you can kill a miner, everyone is suppose to be killable, I get it and I accept it. No the issue is when the amount of time, effort, and cost involved is so absurdly much lower than your target that there isn't balance or anything close to it. You're spoon feeding gankers who have no need to bother with "skill" or even basic knowledge of the game. All they have to do is spend less than a minute reading one of the many gank guides out there or spend a few minutes watching the youtube videos. Toss in Goonswarm throwing money at them, and you've got yourself a great environment for e-peen measuring "hardcore" pvpers to pick on the weakest possible targets they can find, and claim it took some measure of skill or effort.
Are these changes a little overboard? Probably, but if it means the ganker has to spend anywhere near as much time and money as the miner did, then it's a step in the right direction. If it turns out that for a while the miners are on the plus side of the equation, well after so many years of being on the far negative side, maybe it's just karma. Who knows, next patch al DPS values could be tripled and this will be a moot point.
Me personally? I could care less about the changes, I spend a decent amount of time mining, but I've never been ganked mining or even forced to dock, and I run a 10k EHP hulk with x2 MLU's one loadout of mining drones and one of ECM. I *might* switch to a Mackinaw so I can miss a cycle once in a while if the yield difference is as small as it is in some threads, but it's very likely I'll just keep doing what I've been doing.
So feel free to complain about how miners are being visited by the barge fairy and that we're stupid little people who don't get that the game is about pew pew, whatever. Who really cares? I mean really, it's a fricken video game. Yes we spend time and some money on it (atleast before we get enough to just buy plex with ISK), but still it's just a game. It's meant to be fun, if this somehow ruins your fun, then find the new lowest target on the food chain and move on to that. If killing miners is your primary fun, then just move out of hi-sec or start war-dec'ing. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1653
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 10:42:00 -
[264] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:You should not get a profit because you slap 2 hardeners to survive a gank, but because you had to solve something more complex than what a turtle could do while asleep in order to get those minerals. Other MMOs do that and they certainly don't have brighter designers than CCP.
In which games is mining any more difficult than beating someone else to the rock and then activating your mining skill?
I make a profit because I can survive a gank, but also because I practice that activity that all prey animals throughout the evolution of life on Earth have practised in order to survive and propagate the species: be alert. If you're in a group, make sure at least one of you is watching the region around you for danger.
This is more complex than "what a turtle could do while asleep".
The barge buff now means that mining is less complex than the simplest thing a turtle could do while dead. What challenge was left in mining is being taken away.
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Josef Djugashvilis
The Scope Gallente Federation
378
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 10:42:00 -
[265] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Well played, CCP. Your DEVs/balancing team apparently have the reasoning ability of small children so I'll put this in terms they will understand. ********** "Once upon a time there were three little miners. They ventured into the big wide world to earn their fortunes. The First Little Miner went to Jita and fit his Hulk with Cargo Expanders.This way, he could AFK mine with a minimum of effort and fuss. It left the miner plenty of freetime to daydream, jerk off, and watch Japanese Anime while earning ISK. ....Then along came the Big Bad Ganker in a Catalyst, saying "Little miner, little miner, I'm going to ******* do you in." The first miner, predictably, was tabbed out and said nothing. So the Ganker loaded and overheated and blew the Hulk in, and splattered the pod, too. The Second Little Miner went to Jita, bought MLU's and a hauler.This way, he could mine faster than anyone else - and become quite wealthy in no time. It was a bit more work, of course, but he kept himself entertained chatting in local with his neighbors. ...Then along came the Big Bad Ganker, in a Tornado, saying "Little miner, little miner, I'm going to ******* do you in." The second miner, said "Not by the hair of my chinny, chin chin," aligns, and turned on his Small Booster II. So the Ganker loaded and overheated and blew the Hulk in. The frightened miner flees in his pod, broke, but alive. The Third Little Miner went to Jita and fit his Hulk with a DCII, MSE, Invulnerability Fields, and Shield Extender Rigs. Wisely, he sets his Hulk to orbit a nearby asteroid, and always kept an wary eye on his surroundings. ...Then along came the Big Bad Ganker, in a T2 Talos, saying "Little miner, little miner, I'm going to ******* do you in." The Third miner chuckles to himself, overheats his Invulnerability Fields and aligns to the nearest station. So the Ganker loaded, and overheated, and simply CANNOT blow the Hulk in.Defeated, the ganker slinks off in his pod, and the smart little Miner scoops the Talos wreckage and sells it for a tidy profit." THE END********** Cargo Hulk, Yield Hulk, Tank Hulk, those were the choices - all with drawbacks. Cargo - for a Hybrid Exhumer/Hauler, with a risky AFK 'cruise control' option. Yield - to maximize returns with friends providing transport. Tank - 30-40K EHP to discourage/thwart gankers. (and really, one could still put up a reasonable tank on either Cargo or Yield fit Hulks, if they used the mid-slots.... ) But choices are dangerous things. Given the choice, miners will take cargo/yield every time - and then throw a tantrum when they are ganked. The rare, clever miner who tanked his Hulk; well, he weathered the storm - and reaped the benefits as mineral prices rose. But throw that out the window, just give the whining miners all three. Notice how CCP put quite a bit of care into saving miners from their own bad choices. This is more than a buff - this is CCP acknowledging that miners, as a group, are too stupid to make the correct fitting choices.Step 1: Idiot miners don't even use the slots they have - so slap stupid amounts of EHP directly to the hull, rather than give them additional slots/PG or CPU. Frigate-size Skiff, Orca EHP. Really? Step 2: Idiot miners keep sacking their EHP with Cargo Expanders - so make Cargo Expanders pointless with the Ore Bay. (And I doubt the DEVs will get around to fixing the 'special cargo bays don't drop loot' bug, either - simply because fixing THAT bug would benefit the wrong kinds of players, I suppose.....) So, good game, CCP. Good to know we are still steaming, full speed ahead! - towards Hello-Kitty highsec, a paradise for bots and stupidass gameplay. Hard to hear myself say it, but I'm now officially nostalgic for the days of Incarna and WiS development. At least back then, the DEVs were merely wasting their own time.
Good job gankers can only bring one Talos at a time to the party. You want fries with that? |
pussnheels
477
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 10:48:00 -
[266] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:pussnheels wrote: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 Miners didn't adapt though. Gankers however will, it just means we cannot make a profit from your stupidity. 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 I do not agree with what you are saying , but i will defend to the death your right to say it...... Voltaire |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1653
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 10:48:00 -
[267] - Quote
Talon Kitsune wrote:It's not that you can kill a miner, everyone is suppose to be killable, I get it and I accept it. No the issue is when the amount of time, effort, and cost involved is so absurdly much lower than your target that there isn't balance or anything close to it. You're spoon feeding gankers who have no need to bother with "skill" or even basic knowledge of the game. All they have to do is spend less than a minute reading one of the many gank guides out there or spend a few minutes watching the youtube videos.
And all the hisec miner has to do is read a few anti-ganking guides and fit a handful of modules worth less than 10M ISK.
The miner who wants to get more yield, takes more risk. Alternately, the miners in low sec and null sec get to fit for more yield because they have the luxury of being able to warp to safe/station the moment strangers enter their system.
Thus there is an incentive for mining fleets to move to more dangerous space. There would be more of an incentive if Nocxium was removed from Pyroxeres.
CCP could have done so much with mining, but instead they decided to give us invulnerable bots harvesting ore and ice 24/7.
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
DrSmegma
Smegma United Asgard Supplies and Logistics
60
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 10:51:00 -
[268] - Quote
pussnheels wrote: 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
No offense but, multistory libraries could be filled with the things that miners don't understand about Eve.
For example that nobody gives a f*** if you just want a stress relief. Or that this buff is another tiny nail in the coffin of Eve. And also, that it will only cause more ganking, not less. And this time with a passion to drive scum like you out of the game. And I'll be participating.
ITT: CCP taking measures to protect the biggest homogeneous group of their subscribers - bots. I don't really want to troll you. If I trolled you anyway, I'll probably edit it out as soon as the rage fades. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1653
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 10:52:00 -
[269] - Quote
Though to be fair, with this barge buff we might see a drastic increase in the value of T2 salvage.
So watch out, marauder pilots! You have less EHP than exhumers :)
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Michus Danether
Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn
17
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 10:54:00 -
[270] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Lots of complaining
HTFU.
Things change, adapt. Fly gank-fit dominix from now on if you still want miner tears. |
|
dexington
75
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 10:59:00 -
[271] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:CCP could have done so much with mining, but instead they decided to give us invulnerable bots harvesting ore and ice 24/7.
It's not like they don't exist now, all battleships with 8 high out mine anything that can't fit 3 strip miners. GÇ£The best way to keep something bad from happening is to see it ahead of time, and you can't see it if you refuse to face the possibility.GÇ¥-á |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1654
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 11:02:00 -
[272] - Quote
pussnheels wrote: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
Because burning down the factories of people who haven't got fire fighting equipment means that your fire-resistant factory is more profitable.
Welcome to extreme capitalism and piracy, in the cold harsh Objectivist world of EVE Online. Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1654
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 11:04:00 -
[273] - Quote
dexington wrote:It's not like they don't exist now, all battleships with 8 high out mine anything that can't fit 3 strip miners.
You can't harvest ice in a battleship.
Mining asteroids in a battleship would require the bot to target new asteroids constantly and move to new belts when the current belt is exhausted. Then mining in a fleet would require more coordination between the bots to ensure they aren't mining each others' rocks.
I'm sure there's a bot out there that can handle all of the above, but the simplest bots will harvest ice because ice never pops.
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Pipa Porto
498
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 11:06:00 -
[274] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Sam Ruger wrote: And Ganker is too stupid to bring some friends along to help.
Fitted Properly, a Hulk cannot be profitably ganked right now. It shouldn't be profitably ganked. Do you profitably gank empty badgers or T2 fitted BCs?
You can profitably gank a number of untanked T2 ships (most T2 Cruisers, for instance). Exhumers are just the most common T2 ship flown without a Tank. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Pipa Porto
498
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 11:13:00 -
[275] - Quote
Jypsie wrote:Here's my problem with his list when it comes to fitting. Which is really what we're arguing about in this thread. The stat changes and fitting changes to barges.
He includes the exhumers using every single slot fitted for tank.
If an exhumer with half slots tank, half slots yield, had a chance against a decent ass dessie fit, we wouldn't be where we are today. But it doesn't, and here we are.
A Hulk with every slot dedicated to Tank will be unprofitable to Gank in any reasonable HS gank (30 noobships is not reasonable).
A Hulk with 1 MLUII can still get over 20k EHP, which will stop any solo gank. Heck, it'll probably stop ganks from being profitable in some higher sec bands. I'm not going to bother doing the math because ::effort:: EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
baltec1
Bat Country
1706
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 11:14:00 -
[276] - Quote
pussnheels wrote: 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
Its called piracy.
|
Kinis Deren
EVE University Ivy League
64
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 11:19:00 -
[277] - Quote
I can't understand all the QQ'ing from the ganker dudes
Plenty of Hulks in nullbear land (sov null) and no CONCORD response either Oh wait, is that too risky for you? |
Adam Junior
Protus Correction Facility Inc.
12
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 11:19:00 -
[278] - Quote
AFK mining makes my warboats cheap. |
Tyrton
Imbecile MIiss Managment and Disasters Intergalactic Interstellar Interns
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 11:25:00 -
[279] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:MinefieldS wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Marconus Orion wrote:Oh he mad. But is he wrong? Nope. Fitted properly, a Hulk cannot be profitably ganked. How about a fleet of 30ish velators w/ cheap blasters? So taking 7.5 man hours to gank a Hulk profitably. Ok
Crap like this amazes me ... ccp is taking away/reducing cheap ganks for lols, thats fantastic. You spend time repeating the same boring 3 points 1 Don't afk mine 2 Tank your barge(instead of yield or cargo) 3 Be aligned and have friends.
AND NOW
You are now whining that it will take effort on your part to gank a barge.....REALLY.
The only thing that will change is this upcoming buff will get rid of the "herp derp i killed your hulk you suck at pvp i am pvp god"
I am sure that serious gankers ... will find a way to kill even a fully tanked skiff (it will all depend on how much they want it) |
baltec1
Bat Country
1707
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 11:31:00 -
[280] - Quote
Tyrton wrote: AND NOW
You are now whining that it will take effort on your part to gank a barge.....REALLY.
No we are pointing out that exhumers could already tank and that the changes mean thet they can now tank most attempts while having a max yeild fit. Which is wrong. |
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
121
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 11:33:00 -
[281] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Happy Miner is proud that he's too stupid to survive without CCP holding his hand and leading him to water. Bet you that in 6 months we're gonna hear Happy Miner turn into Sad Miner complaining that CCP hasn't forced him to drink.
1) I'm happy miner and yet to be ganked. 2) I do my mining mostly with Hulk. 3) If you want to gank me prepare to lose more destroyers than you thought you would lose. 4) Yes, there's still time before Inferno 1.2! |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
264
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 11:34:00 -
[282] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Tyrton wrote: AND NOW
You are now whining that it will take effort on your part to gank a barge.....REALLY.
No we are pointing out that exhumers could already tank and that the changes mean thet they can now tank most attempts while having a max yeild fit. Which is wrong.
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. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
baltec1
Bat Country
1707
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 11:36:00 -
[283] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:baltec1 wrote:Tyrton wrote: AND NOW
You are now whining that it will take effort on your part to gank a barge.....REALLY.
No we are pointing out that exhumers could already tank and that the changes mean thet they can now tank most attempts while having a max yeild fit. Which is wrong. 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.
The same 3 mil ship will take down any heavy assault ship and recon in the same time if they dont tank their ships. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
121
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 11:38:00 -
[284] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:The same 3 mil ship will take down any heavy assault ship and recon in the same time if they dont tank their ships.
I would PAY to see you destroying my Pilgrim with Catalyst. Or Curse. |
baltec1
Bat Country
1707
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 11:40:00 -
[285] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:baltec1 wrote:The same 3 mil ship will take down any heavy assault ship and recon in the same time if they dont tank their ships. I would PAY to see you destroying my Pilgrim with Catalyst.
Pilgrim hull has less tank than a hulk hull. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
264
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 11:41:00 -
[286] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dave stark wrote:baltec1 wrote:Tyrton wrote: AND NOW
You are now whining that it will take effort on your part to gank a barge.....REALLY.
No we are pointing out that exhumers could already tank and that the changes mean thet they can now tank most attempts while having a max yeild fit. Which is wrong. 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. The same 3 mil ship will take down any heavy assault ship and recon in the same time if they dont tank their ships.
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. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
121
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 11:41:00 -
[287] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Pilgrim hull has less tank than a hulk hull.
How long can you keep firing your blasters without cap? |
Mara Tessidar
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
642
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 11:43:00 -
[288] - Quote
Highsec is not supposed to be safe, it is supposed to be safer. Unfortunately, mining ships are now so overtanked that even an idiot can't lose one short of pressing the self-destruct button and walking away from their computer for two minutes. There are a lot of idiots flying mining ships.
Thanks for the wonderful ship balancing as per your usual standard, CCP. EveO is a circus train that is for bafflingly unclear reasons also carrying tanks of chlorine gas,-ácrashing and exploding in the middle of a small midwestern town. -áCalling it a mere train wreck gives neither the entertainment nor the horror it offers its proper due. |
baltec1
Bat Country
1707
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 11:44:00 -
[289] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:
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.
So fitting a tank means the three t2 strips stop working?
Also, the untanked heavy assault ship would die so fast it wouldnt get the chance to shoot back. I know, we tested this. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
264
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 11:44:00 -
[290] - Quote
Mara Tessidar wrote:Highsec is not supposed to be safe, it is supposed to be safer. Unfortunately, mining ships are now so overtanked that even an idiot can't lose one short of pressing the self-destruct button and walking away from their computer for two minutes. There are a lot of idiots flying mining ships.
Thanks for the wonderful ship balancing as per your usual standard, CCP.
and you think it was balanced that in order to tank a 0.0 rat spawn you HAD to use deadspace/faction modules? as if a hulk hull on it's own isn't a big enough prize for a neut... Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country
1707
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 11:45:00 -
[291] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:baltec1 wrote:Pilgrim hull has less tank than a hulk hull. How long can you keep firing your blasters without cap?
2-3 vollies and you die. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
265
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 11:47:00 -
[292] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dave stark wrote:
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.
So fitting a tank means the three t2 strips stop working? Also, the untanked heavy assault ship would die so fast it wouldnt get the chance to shoot back. I know, we tested this.
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. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
baltec1
Bat Country
1708
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 11:50:00 -
[293] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:
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.
You dont need deadspace mods to tank rats in 0.0
Also your self entitlement is shocking. I mean, hoe DARE I say that you should be putting a tank on your ship just like everyone else has to. Hulks should have the best of all worlds just because. |
Mara Tessidar
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
642
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 11:50:00 -
[294] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:
and you think it was balanced that in order to tank a 0.0 rat spawn you HAD to use deadspace/faction modules? as if a hulk hull on it's own isn't a big enough prize for a neut...
You can easily tank nullsec rats in a Hulk if you don't fit an omnitank. EveO is a circus train that is for bafflingly unclear reasons also carrying tanks of chlorine gas,-ácrashing and exploding in the middle of a small midwestern town. -áCalling it a mere train wreck gives neither the entertainment nor the horror it offers its proper due. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
265
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 11:52:00 -
[295] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dave stark wrote:
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.
You dont need deadspace mods to tank rats in 0.0 Also your self entitlement is shocking. I mean, hoe DARE I say that you should be putting a tank on your ship just like everyone else has to. Hulks should have the best of all worlds just because.
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. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
baltec1
Bat Country
1708
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 11:55:00 -
[296] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:
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.
Because CCP have never made a mistake with a ship buff before. Also learn to tank, t2 tanked hulks work just fine in 0.0 |
Doddy
Excidium. Executive Outcomes
80
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 11:55:00 -
[297] - Quote
Speaking as someone who has happily ganked scores of hulks there was never really any good reason for them having th survivability of a wet paper bag. Gankers don't expect to solo gank a freighter or a mission bs so they shouldn't really expect to be able to do it to a miner either. The only reservation i really have is the excessive tank on the afk friendly makinaw. To my mind hulk should have the same sort of tank as now but without really nerfing its output (the reduced cargo being a very goo dthing) to get it, the makinaw should have less tank than this not more. Really they should continue this trend into haulers. At the moment (with the notable exception of the itty 5) the highest capacity sub freighter haulers are also the most gank proof (DSTs). |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1655
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 11:58:00 -
[298] - Quote
Tyrton wrote:You spend time repeating the same boring 3 points 1 Don't afk mine 2 Tank your barge(instead of yield or cargo) 3 Be aligned and have friends.
AND NOW
You are now whining that it will take effort on your part to gank a barge.....REALLY.
The major part of the whine is that with the barge buff, the miner will no longer have to follow those three steps, since the raw Skiff hull with no tank fitted is already better tanked than a brick-fit Hulk, with better yield than that brick-fit Hulk the moment you fit an MLU/IHU in a low slot (which you will be able to do because you don't have to worry about tank). I have wanted a small buff to Exhumers for some time in the form of a little more PG and perhaps a bit more shield for the hulk. I'd have been elated with a 10PG buff to Hulks, since that would allow for 30k EHP and a mining upgrade in a low slot.
So here we are with an exhumer that can field a 100k EHP tank yet still get 5/6th the yield of a Hulk. For the tank & capacity roles, I'd have expected 1/2 the yield of a Hulk (through a cycle bonus on strip miners and ice harvesters), and I'd have expected the Hulk to receive a slight decrease in EHP to compensate for its extremely high yield.
What is wrong with this situation is that through no effort on the part of the miner, suicide ganking an exhumer is going to be solely the realm of the spite-ganker. It won't even be financially viable to interdict ice harvesting operations in hisec in order to manipulate the price of oxytopes.
It's entirely possible that gankers will "adapt" by switching to other sources of T2 salvage such as marauders. How many marauders are active-tanked gank fits with less than 30k EHP?
Who knows GǪ maybe belt rats will get a serious buff so that a high yield Hulk will be challenged in 0.5 systems?
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Y'nit Gidrine
Gold Horizons Industrial
12
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 11:58:00 -
[299] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dave stark wrote:baltec1 wrote:Tyrton wrote: AND NOW
You are now whining that it will take effort on your part to gank a barge.....REALLY.
No we are pointing out that exhumers could already tank and that the changes mean thet they can now tank most attempts while having a max yeild fit. Which is wrong. 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. The same 3 mil ship will take down any heavy assault ship and recon in the same time if they dont tank their ships.
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. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
265
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 12:03:00 -
[300] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dave stark wrote:
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.
Because CCP have never made a mistake with a ship buff before. Also learn to tank, t2 tanked hulks work just fine in 0.0
i already said i think they might have gone overboard with the skiff.
i don't have an issue fitting a tank. again, a t2 small shield booster isn't cap stable. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country
1711
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 12:04:00 -
[301] - Quote
Y'nit Gidrine wrote:
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.
A hulk will get a 33k hp buffer. Most heavy assault ships get a buffer of between 30k and 40k. The comparison is valid.
The base tank on these ships is more or less the same with the same resists. |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1169
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 12:06:00 -
[302] - Quote
So i herd that the risk reward policy that makes EVE what it is doesnt apply to afk miners anymore
c/d My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
Tyrton
Imbecile MIiss Managment and Disasters Intergalactic Interstellar Interns
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 12:08:00 -
[303] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Tyrton wrote: AND NOW
You are now whining that it will take effort on your part to gank a barge.....REALLY.
No we are pointing out that exhumers could already tank and that the changes mean thet they can now tank most attempts while having a max yeild fit. Which is wrong.
Not sure if its wrong max yield on a skiff does not compare to max yield on a hulk. The miner will have to trade off the number of strips he can have to the amount of tank he can have .
Another point is that the skiff was somewhat of a useless step in barges (unless it was used in deep core mining merx in (0.0)) This change will bring the skiff a new life in the steps leading up to the hulk.
A miner will trade up yield for tank just by simply choosing how much protection he wants ..
If i recall in some other post a fully yield hulk only has 28k ehp .. that is an improvement form the 9k or so it did have with an SB fit (have not eft-ed in a while)
To me the bottom line that no 3 week old alt in a cat getting off 4 rounds to take out a hulk. Those folks that love to gank will work out their new bottom line and keep on trucking ...
PS: Many have mentioned it before you can't tank stupid, even after the changes there will be miners that will be in their hulks with no rigs missing mids and mlu's in the lows. This will make ganking a bit more selective and ship scanners more used.
|
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
265
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 12:09:00 -
[304] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:So i herd that the risk reward policy that makes EVE what it is doesnt apply to afk miners anymore
c/d
nor suicide gankers. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1705
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 12:14:00 -
[305] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:You should not get a profit because you slap 2 hardeners to survive a gank, but because you had to solve something more complex than what a turtle could do while asleep in order to get those minerals. Other MMOs do that and they certainly don't have brighter designers than CCP. In which games is mining any more difficult than beating someone else to the rock and then activating your mining skill?
In Entropia you have to survey an area (and fight against aggro off stuff) and then find where the stuff could be close enough and finally deploy explosives (all stuff that gets used or breaks so you have to resupply as well). In the end you take more or less the same time but it's much more of an active game play.
Mara Rinn wrote: I make a profit because I can survive a gank, but also because I practice that activity that all prey animals throughout the evolution of life on Earth have practised in order to survive and propagate the species: be alert. If you're in a group, make sure at least one of you is watching the region around you for danger.
This is more complex than "what a turtle could do while asleep".
The barge buff now means that mining is less complex than the simplest thing a turtle could do while dead. What challenge was left in mining is being taken away.
Did you seriously mine for the challenge? Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
DrSmegma
Smegma United Asgard Supplies and Logistics
60
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 12:14:00 -
[306] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Skippermonkey wrote:So i herd that the risk reward policy that makes EVE what it is doesnt apply to afk miners anymore
c/d nor suicide gankers.
Confirming two wrongs make a right I don't really want to troll you. If I trolled you anyway, I'll probably edit it out as soon as the rage fades. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1656
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 12:15:00 -
[307] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:nor suicide gankers.
Suicide gankers are the risk.
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
265
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 12:17:00 -
[308] - Quote
DrSmegma wrote:Dave stark wrote:Skippermonkey wrote:So i herd that the risk reward policy that makes EVE what it is doesnt apply to afk miners anymore
c/d nor suicide gankers. Confirming two wrongs make a right
well, to be fair, they're mostly the ones complaining about it. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1656
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 12:17:00 -
[309] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Did you seriously mine for the challenge?
I mined for profit. There was very little challenge in mining, even your hypothetical sleeping turtle could do it. But all the people with less intellect than a sleeping turtle complained so long and loud that they got what they wished for, so now mining will have a barrier of entry so low that even a dead turtle could do it.
When I speak of challenge, you might want to substitute barrier to entry.
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1705
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 12:18:00 -
[310] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Sam Ruger wrote: And Ganker is too stupid to bring some friends along to help.
Fitted Properly, a Hulk cannot be profitably ganked right now. It shouldn't be profitably ganked. Do you profitably gank empty badgers or T2 fitted BCs? You can profitably gank a number of untanked T2 ships (most T2 Cruisers, for instance). Exhumers are just the most common T2 ship flown without a Tank.
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. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1656
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 12:19:00 -
[311] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:well, to be fair, they're mostly the ones complaining about it.
Half the people complaining about the buff are the people who actually mine as opposed to the people who might mine, if only it wasn't so dangerous.
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
DrSmegma
Smegma United Asgard Supplies and Logistics
61
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 12:19:00 -
[312] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:DrSmegma wrote:Dave stark wrote:Skippermonkey wrote:So i herd that the risk reward policy that makes EVE what it is doesnt apply to afk miners anymore
c/d nor suicide gankers. Confirming two wrongs make a right well, to be fair, they're mostly the ones complaining about it.
Suicide gankers were overpowered because of sloppy game mechanics, such as -10 pods being allowed into high sec.
Miners were unbalanced because they're the scum of the univers who refused to adapt and cried until CCP gave in although the possibilities to defend themselves had been existent all along.
There's nothing "fair" about this change as you say. I don't really want to troll you. If I trolled you anyway, I'll probably edit it out as soon as the rage fades. |
Taranius De Consolville
Galactic Federation of Light
70
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 12:20:00 -
[313] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:
Hi, i cannot gank mining barges anymore for fun, i cannot ruin peoples day anymore for fun
i am a whiney little *****
fixed it for u |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1170
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 12:20:00 -
[314] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Skippermonkey wrote:So i herd that the risk reward policy that makes EVE what it is doesnt apply to afk miners anymore
c/d nor suicide gankers. I know you arent the brightest spark, so i'll point it out to you
Suicide gankers are WELL aware of rick vs reward...
the risk is the ship that they WILL lose, the REWARD is the smug satisfaction that in maybe an hour, the miner will notice that he isnt in the belt anymore
These changes make it so that even Dolly the Cloned Sheep will be able to happily mine away without even a thought for the possible dangers that might be out there.
The hilarious thing is that the miners that CCP are trying to protect will probably not even notice the changes to the mining barge lineup for weeks My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
baltec1
Bat Country
1711
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 12:21:00 -
[315] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
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.
Hulks can also go part tank/Yeild. |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1170
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 12:22:00 -
[316] - Quote
DrSmegma wrote:Suicide gankers were overpowered because of sloppy game mechanics, such as -10 pods being allowed into high sec. Do we need to sit you down with a textbook and explain to you how sec status works? My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
265
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 12:23:00 -
[317] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:Dave stark wrote:Skippermonkey wrote:So i herd that the risk reward policy that makes EVE what it is doesnt apply to afk miners anymore
c/d nor suicide gankers. I know you arent the brightest spark, so i'll point it out to you Suicide gankers are WELL aware of rick vs reward... the risk is the ship that they WILL lose, the REWARD is the smug satisfaction that in maybe an hour, the miner will notice that he isnt in the belt anymore These changes make it so that even Dolly the Cloned Sheep will be able to happily mine away without even a thought for the possible dangers that might be out there. The hilarious thing is that the miners that CCP are trying to protect will probably not even notice the changes to the mining barge lineup for weeks
there isn't any risk, that's the point. you can't have risk vs reward when there's no risk. it isn't a risk if it's a guaranteed ship loss. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
DrSmegma
Smegma United Asgard Supplies and Logistics
61
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 12:23:00 -
[318] - Quote
The funniest part is that even after this change, we will still see QQ-postings on the forum of miners who got ganked and demand better protection from CCP. I don't really want to troll you. If I trolled you anyway, I'll probably edit it out as soon as the rage fades. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1705
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 12:28:00 -
[319] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:[quote=Tyrton]You spend time repeating the same boring 3 points
So here we are with an exhumer that can field a 100k EHP tank yet still get 5/6th the yield of a Hulk. For the tank & capacity roles, I'd have expected 1/2 the yield of a Hulk (through a cycle bonus on strip miners and ice harvesters), and I'd have expected the Hulk to receive a slight decrease in EHP to compensate for its extremely high yield.
Nobody would use a ship yielding 1/2 of a peer tier other. Heck, nobody wanted to use a covetor which is way cheaper, 1 tier below yet it mines within 15% off an Hulk.
The scope of the "tiericide" instead is to make all the ship equally flown.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
265
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 12:30:00 -
[320] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:[quote=Tyrton]You spend time repeating the same boring 3 points
So here we are with an exhumer that can field a 100k EHP tank yet still get 5/6th the yield of a Hulk. For the tank & capacity roles, I'd have expected 1/2 the yield of a Hulk (through a cycle bonus on strip miners and ice harvesters), and I'd have expected the Hulk to receive a slight decrease in EHP to compensate for its extremely high yield.
Nobody would use a ship yielding 1/2 of a peer tier other. Heck, nobody wanted to use a covetor which is way cheaper, 1 tier below yet it mines within 15% off an Hulk. The scope of the "tiericide" instead is to make all the ship equally flown.
actually it's more than that, iirc you can only fit 2x mlu IIs on a covetor with an implant. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
|
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1171
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 12:33:00 -
[321] - Quote
(disclaimer - i HOPE i got these figures wrong)
from my basic grasp on maths, here are the expected shield resists for an Exhumer 5 Hulk pilot, bearing in mind this is a NON COMBAT SHIP
EM - 51.56% EXPL - 89.38% THERM - 68.75% KIN - 85.94%
Changes that make them nigh on invulnerable and all they can do it moan that theres not enough room in the cargohold for more mining crystals
CCP, please stop pandering to these people My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1705
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 12:33:00 -
[322] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Did you seriously mine for the challenge? I mined for profit. There was very little challenge in mining, even your hypothetical sleeping turtle could do it. But all the people with less intellect than a sleeping turtle complained so long and loud that they got what they wished for, so now mining will have a barrier of entry so low that even a dead turtle could do it. When I speak of challenge, you might want to substitute barrier to entry.
Considering it's the first profession suggested to take, both in tutorials, on rookie chat and online websites, it can't be DA ELITE Everest entry barrier. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1705
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 12:35:00 -
[323] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:[quote=Tyrton]You spend time repeating the same boring 3 points
So here we are with an exhumer that can field a 100k EHP tank yet still get 5/6th the yield of a Hulk. For the tank & capacity roles, I'd have expected 1/2 the yield of a Hulk (through a cycle bonus on strip miners and ice harvesters), and I'd have expected the Hulk to receive a slight decrease in EHP to compensate for its extremely high yield.
Nobody would use a ship yielding 1/2 of a peer tier other. Heck, nobody wanted to use a covetor which is way cheaper, 1 tier below yet it mines within 15% off an Hulk. The scope of the "tiericide" instead is to make all the ship equally flown. actually it's more than that, iirc you can only fit 2x mlu IIs on a covetor with an implant.
You can only fit those fabled "everybody should get" 30K EHP tanks with CPU implant, EFT "All skills to V" pilot and possibly an Orca boost. Clearly the starter fitting for the starter profession. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
265
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 12:39:00 -
[324] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Dave stark wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:[quote=Tyrton]You spend time repeating the same boring 3 points
So here we are with an exhumer that can field a 100k EHP tank yet still get 5/6th the yield of a Hulk. For the tank & capacity roles, I'd have expected 1/2 the yield of a Hulk (through a cycle bonus on strip miners and ice harvesters), and I'd have expected the Hulk to receive a slight decrease in EHP to compensate for its extremely high yield.
Nobody would use a ship yielding 1/2 of a peer tier other. Heck, nobody wanted to use a covetor which is way cheaper, 1 tier below yet it mines within 15% off an Hulk. The scope of the "tiericide" instead is to make all the ship equally flown. actually it's more than that, iirc you can only fit 2x mlu IIs on a covetor with an implant. 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.
yeah but the fact you can't fit the 2nd mlu means the difference between the two ships is greater than 15%. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
baltec1
Bat Country
1711
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 12:45:00 -
[325] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
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.
Because hulks are a starter ship... |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1705
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 12:49:00 -
[326] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Nobody would use a ship yielding 1/2 of a peer tier other. Heck, nobody wanted to use a covetor which is way cheaper, 1 tier below yet it mines within 15% off an Hulk.
The scope of the "tiericide" instead is to make all the ship equally flown.
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.
yeah but the fact you can't fit the 2nd mlu means the difference between the two ships is greater than 15%.[/quote]
It's 20.3%, which is a far, far call from Mara Rinn's "1/2" of peer tier ship. But most "sane" Hulk setups don't have 2 MLUs so the difference is far less. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1705
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 12:50:00 -
[327] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
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.
Because hulks are a starter ship...
A 57 days pre-requisites training ship at the end of the starter profession is nothing compared to tons of other ships in EvE. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1657
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 12:53:00 -
[328] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:A 57 days pre-requisites training ship at the end of the starter profession is nothing compared to tons of other ships in EvE.
Such as Assault Ships, Covert Ops, or Electronic Attack Ships, for example?
Are you suggesting that Ishkurs and Kitsunes are starter ships?
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1705
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 12:56:00 -
[329] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:A 57 days pre-requisites training ship at the end of the starter profession is nothing compared to tons of other ships in EvE. Such as Assault Ships, Covert Ops, or Electronic Attack Ships, for example? Are you suggesting that Ishkurs and Kitsunes are starter ships?
Are you suggesting you can't read starter *profession* and you want to read starter *ship*?
Quite sure in the rookie chat you don't get told to train Electronic Attack Ship ASAP and go use it around. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1657
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 12:58:00 -
[330] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:GǪ now mining will have a barrier of entry so low that even a dead turtle could do it.
When I speak of challenge, you might want to substitute barrier to entry.
Considering it's the first profession suggested to take, both in tutorials, on rookie chat and online websites, it can't be DA ELITE Everest entry barrier.
Yes, and your point is GǪ ?
The barrier for entry into mining was very low, and it is becoming lower with this barge buff. No longer do people even have to use their brain to come up with ways of not getting blown up when mining. Just fly that brand new hull with nothing more than an ice harvester ii fitted, and no-one in their right mind will interfere with you. Then you make some ISK to cover the cost of the ship and you end up fitting an ice harvester upgrade.
No thinking required. No barrier to entry. Mining is the window-licking profession.
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
|
Khanh'rhh
1643
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 13:01:00 -
[331] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Did you seriously mine for the challenge? I mined for profit. There was very little challenge in mining, even your hypothetical sleeping turtle could do it. But all the people with less intellect than a sleeping turtle complained so long and loud that they got what they wished for, so now mining will have a barrier of entry so low that even a dead turtle could do it. When I speak of challenge, you might want to substitute barrier to entry. Exactly this is the problem.
No matter what a miner does, they have to accept they're playing a gamestyle where a 5 year old taught what 2 buttons to push or an autohotkey script captured in 5minutes would be as safe and efficient as they are.
The skill cap on mining if these changes go through is quite literally nothing; the best players will be no more skilled than those who are fresh out of the tutorials.
There needs to be a mechanic by which players like Mara will have an advantage over players who think going AFK for most of their gameplay time is an equally valid mechanic.
The profession needs a complete overhaul, from the bottom right up, ASAP. It needs:
- Very low yields/rewards for a solo or AFK player. - Highest yields/rewards for an active GROUP of players.
5 players working together to mine should be earning nearly 2x the ore per minute each of 1 player working alone, and that process needs to be highly interactive. - "Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930's |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1657
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 13:02:00 -
[332] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Are you suggesting you can't read starter *profession* and you want to read starter *ship*?
Are you suggesting that recommending mining as a starter profession involves getting people into Hulks ASAP?
As a starter profession, my usual recommendation is to get into a Scythe or Osprey. Training Minmatar or Caldari Cruiser 5 opens up a wonderful world of combat ships that are fun to fly and actually useful in battle. Even for people planning to do only mining, my recommendation is to get into an Osprey rather than a retriever (though this advice will be changing drastically come August 8).
The Hulk is the ultimate mining ship: it is the end-game ship, not the starter ship. Flying it properly requires many skills trained to 5. Just because someone can get into one in 55 days of focussed training doesn't mean they can use it properly.
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Cryten Jones
Advantage Inc The Matari Consortium
77
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 13:04:00 -
[333] - Quote
It's not fun when some random people get to force you into playing a particular way is it.... oh wait that's normally you guys...
Karma.
|
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
265
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 13:04:00 -
[334] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Dave stark wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Nobody would use a ship yielding 1/2 of a peer tier other. Heck, nobody wanted to use a covetor which is way cheaper, 1 tier below yet it mines within 15% off an Hulk.
The scope of the "tiericide" instead is to make all the ship equally flown.
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. yeah but the fact you can't fit the 2nd mlu means the difference between the two ships is greater than 15%. It's 20.3% off a T1 ship vs a T2 ship, which is a far, far call from Mara Rinn's "1/2" of peer tier ship. But most "sane" Hulk setups don't have 2 MLUs so the difference is far less.
depends how we're defining sane. for solo mining, sure. however if you're solo mining you can't tank a covetor so you're a guarenteed free kill.
in a fleet though, why wouldn't you fit 2x mlus? Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
dexington
76
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 13:04:00 -
[335] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:No longer do people even have to use their brain to come up with ways of not getting blown up when mining.
As it should be in hi-sec, it's only fair that the aggressor has to be the one using brains. Destroyers taking on +200M T2 ships in high, sec pretty much risk free, is not how it should be. GÇ£The best way to keep something bad from happening is to see it ahead of time, and you can't see it if you refuse to face the possibility.GÇ¥-á |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1174
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 13:06:00 -
[336] - Quote
The real tragedy here is that instead of CCP reimagining Mining as a Profession, they have instead given the tools to miners to make it much easier to mine for longer periods without any needed input or concentration.
Further relegating mining as the profession of botters and alt accounts My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1705
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 13:06:00 -
[337] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:GǪ now mining will have a barrier of entry so low that even a dead turtle could do it.
When I speak of challenge, you might want to substitute barrier to entry.
Considering it's the first profession suggested to take, both in tutorials, on rookie chat and online websites, it can't be DA ELITE Everest entry barrier. Yes, and your point is GǪ ? The barrier for entry into mining was very low, and it is becoming lower with this barge buff. No longer do people even have to use their brain to come up with ways of not getting blown up when mining. Just fly that brand new hull with nothing more than an ice harvester ii fitted, and no-one in their right mind will interfere with you. Then you make some ISK to cover the cost of the ship and you end up fitting an ice harvester upgrade. No thinking required. No barrier to entry. Mining is the window-licking profession.
That was engineered to be such a profession and it will stay so until they implement skill requiring game play. No, staying aligned or spamming the 1 directional button or copying Ruby Porto's premade fittings is not "skill requiring game play".
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
265
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 13:08:00 -
[338] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:The real tragedy here is that instead of CCP reimagining Mining as a Profession, they have instead given the tools to miners to make it much easier to mine for longer periods without any needed input or concentration.
Further relegating mining as the profession of botters and alt accounts
yeah because making the hulk's ore bay facilitates being afk more... right? if you sit at the computer and jetcan mine with a hulk you'll mine more than just waiting for the asteroid depleted sound when sitting there in a mackinaw. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1705
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 13:09:00 -
[339] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Dave stark wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Nobody would use a ship yielding 1/2 of a peer tier other. Heck, nobody wanted to use a covetor which is way cheaper, 1 tier below yet it mines within 15% off an Hulk.
The scope of the "tiericide" instead is to make all the ship equally flown.
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. yeah but the fact you can't fit the 2nd mlu means the difference between the two ships is greater than 15%. It's 20.3% off a T1 ship vs a T2 ship, which is a far, far call from Mara Rinn's "1/2" of peer tier ship. But most "sane" Hulk setups don't have 2 MLUs so the difference is far less. depends how we're defining sane. for solo mining, sure. however if you're solo mining you can't tank a covetor so you're a guarenteed free kill. in a fleet though, why wouldn't you fit 2x mlus?
Because I have an extensive experience of "real world" mining fleets and how pear shaped it goes when a cloakie bails a destroyer on a dual MLU exhumer. No, some ECM drones or sacrificing a remote SEBO ship to gank the ganker won't make it in time.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1705
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 13:13:00 -
[340] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Are you suggesting you can't read starter *profession* and you want to read starter *ship*? Are you suggesting that recommending mining as a starter profession involves getting people into Hulks ASAP? As a starter profession, my usual recommendation is to get into a Scythe or Osprey. Training Minmatar or Caldari Cruiser 5 opens up a wonderful world of combat ships that are fun to fly and actually useful in battle. Even for people planning to do only mining, my recommendation is to get into an Osprey rather than a retriever (though this advice will be changing drastically come August 8). The Hulk is the ultimate mining ship: it is the end-game ship, not the starter ship. Flying it properly requires many skills trained to 5. Just because someone can get into one in 55 days of focussed training doesn't mean they can use it properly.
I wrote above it's the last ship of the starter profession so it's not like you are writing something so much different than me.
And anyway, regardless of what me or you want, people WILL rush to a Covetor which as you well know is like 2-3 days away from flying an Hulk. Had the covetor => Hulk time jump been like for other ships (Battlecruisers V...) that would make Hulk some totally distant objective, but alas it does not work like that. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
|
Ban Bindy
Bindy Brothers Pottery Association
435
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 13:15:00 -
[341] - Quote
Amazing to learn that the entire fate of Eve rests on one's ability to shoot unarmed miners in high sec. Brilliant post by OP. Starting off by insulting the intelligence of everybody with a different point of view is a sure winner in any debate. |
Desert Ice78
Cobra Kai Dojo WHY so Seri0Us
144
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 13:25:00 -
[342] - Quote
Good laugh, would read again.
I am a pod pilot: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/DesertIce/POD.jpg
CCP Zulu: Came expecting a discussion about computer monitors, left confused. |
Makari Aeron
The Shadow's Of Eve TSOE Consortium
26
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 13:29:00 -
[343] - Quote
While entertaining, I could care less about hi-sec. I go to hi-sec every six months to pick up skill books and then I'm gone. If you really want to kill miners, do it in 0.0......the fittings are much more expensive down there. Not to mention the abundance of Orcas and Rorquals. And you might get to tangle with REAL ships that fight back for a change. Pew Pew Pew! |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1174
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 13:32:00 -
[344] - Quote
Makari Aeron wrote:While entertaining, I could care less about hi-sec. I go to hi-sec every six months to pick up skill books and then I'm gone. If you really want to kill miners, do it in 0.0......the fittings are much more expensive down there. Not to mention the abundance of Orcas and Rorquals. And you might get to tangle REAL ships that fight back for a change. blah blah blah come to nulsec
Anyone else tired of hearing that stupid argument? My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
Makari Aeron
The Shadow's Of Eve TSOE Consortium
26
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 13:35:00 -
[345] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:Makari Aeron wrote:While entertaining, I could care less about hi-sec. I go to hi-sec every six months to pick up skill books and then I'm gone. If you really want to kill miners, do it in 0.0......the fittings are much more expensive down there. Not to mention the abundance of Orcas and Rorquals. And you might get to tangle REAL ships that fight back for a change. blah blah blah come to nulsec Anyone else tired of hearing that stupid argument?
Nope :D Pew Pew Pew! |
Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
885
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 13:37:00 -
[346] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Well played, CCP. Your DEVs/balancing team apparently have the reasoning ability of small children so I'll put this in terms they will understand. ********** "Once upon a time there were three little miners. They ventured into the big wide world to earn their fortunes. The First Little Miner went to Jita and fit his Hulk with Cargo Expanders.This way, he could AFK mine with a minimum of effort and fuss. It left the miner plenty of freetime to daydream, jerk off, and watch Japanese Anime while earning ISK. ....Then along came the Big Bad Ganker in a Catalyst, saying "Little miner, little miner, I'm going to ******* do you in." The first miner, predictably, was tabbed out and said nothing. So the Ganker loaded and overheated and blew the Hulk in, and splattered the pod, too. The Second Little Miner went to Jita, bought MLU's and a hauler.This way, he could mine faster than anyone else - and become quite wealthy in no time. It was a bit more work, of course, but he kept himself entertained chatting in local with his neighbors. ...Then along came the Big Bad Ganker, in a Tornado, saying "Little miner, little miner, I'm going to ******* do you in." The second miner, said "Not by the hair of my chinny, chin chin," aligns, and turned on his Small Booster II. So the Ganker loaded and overheated and blew the Hulk in. The frightened miner flees in his pod, broke, but alive. The Third Little Miner went to Jita and fit his Hulk with a DCII, MSE, Invulnerability Fields, and Shield Extender Rigs. Wisely, he sets his Hulk to orbit a nearby asteroid, and always kept an wary eye on his surroundings. ...Then along came the Big Bad Ganker, in a T2 Talos, saying "Little miner, little miner, I'm going to ******* do you in." The Third miner chuckles to himself, overheats his Invulnerability Fields and aligns to the nearest station. So the Ganker loaded, and overheated, and simply CANNOT blow the Hulk in.Defeated, the ganker slinks off in his pod, and the smart little Miner scoops the Talos wreckage and sells it for a tidy profit." THE END********** Cargo Hulk, Yield Hulk, Tank Hulk, those were the choices - all with drawbacks. Cargo - for a Hybrid Exhumer/Hauler, with a risky AFK 'cruise control' option. Yield - to maximize returns with friends providing transport. Tank - 30-40K EHP to discourage/thwart gankers. (and really, one could still put up a reasonable tank on either Cargo or Yield fit Hulks, if they used the mid-slots.... ) But choices are dangerous things. Given the choice, miners will take cargo/yield every time - and then throw a tantrum when they are ganked. The rare, clever miner who tanked his Hulk; well, he weathered the storm - and reaped the benefits as mineral prices rose. But throw that out the window, just give the whining miners all three. Notice how CCP put quite a bit of care into saving miners from their own bad choices. This is more than a buff - this is CCP acknowledging that miners, as a group, are too stupid to make the correct fitting choices.Step 1: Idiot miners don't even use the slots they have - so slap stupid amounts of EHP directly to the hull, rather than give them additional slots/PG or CPU. Frigate-size Skiff, Orca EHP. Really? Step 2: Idiot miners keep sacking their EHP with Cargo Expanders - so make Cargo Expanders pointless with the Ore Bay. (And I doubt the DEVs will get around to fixing the 'special cargo bays don't drop loot' bug, either - simply because fixing THAT bug would benefit the wrong kinds of players, I suppose.....) So, good game, CCP. Good to know we are still steaming, full speed ahead! - towards Hello-Kitty highsec, a paradise for bots and stupidass gameplay. Hard to hear myself say it, but I'm now officially nostalgic for the days of Incarna and WiS development. At least back then, the DEVs were merely wasting their own time.
You have such a terrible awful non-respect for the game of EVE. WHY in God's name are you still playing. ? I honestly feel really sorry for your pathetic self. "Every other expansion has catered to the pew-pew need for more things to blow up; to more public cries of, "see how valuable I am!" - anon-á "You have to understand that the human ego will do whatever it takes to get attention because it needs to know that it exists." -- RuPaul |
Sarcasim
The Southern Gentleman's Social Club Event Horizon Protocol
1
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 13:40:00 -
[347] - Quote
rodyas wrote:Abdiel Kavash wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:Suicide ganking wasn't designed to be profitable And I'm already laughing at the hordes of carebears who will quote you out of context for the next year at least. CCP Soundwave wrote:Suicide ganking wasn't designed to be profitable Ah finally a dev, with the carebear at heart. Can you put that on the soundwave soundboard, so I can listen to that, while going to bed. Yeah out of context as well. Like how predictable money making from suicide ganks is the same thing as hunting a place and studying the prey for a random occurence to make billions. Totally the same. Out of context, its so fun
Funny how it came right out of the devs head to his hands to the keyboard and people still dont want to belive what they read. Ask him to type it again see if it changes? |
Unit757
North Point Cannabis Legionis
12
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 13:42:00 -
[348] - Quote
Currently, on SISI, a completely untanked hulk has 12k EHP. Considering the vast majority will more then likely still fit max yield/no tank, I would say they will still be gankable. I'm not a professional ganker though, so I don't know.
Edit - Sorry, I had low-grade slaves plugged in when I got that number, so it would actually less EHP. |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1174
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 13:46:00 -
[349] - Quote
Unit757 wrote:Currently, on SISI, a completely untanked hulk has 12k EHP. Considering the vast majority will more then likely still fit max yield/no tank, I would say they will still be gankable. I'm not a professional ganker though, so I don't know.
Edit - Sorry, I had low-grade slaves plugged in when I got that number, so it would actually less EHP.
I didnt think the changes had made their way to SiSI yet
Check to see if the other exhumers have bonuses for Ice and Mercoxit, etc My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
266
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 13:48:00 -
[350] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:Unit757 wrote:Currently, on SISI, a completely untanked hulk has 12k EHP. Considering the vast majority will more then likely still fit max yield/no tank, I would say they will still be gankable. I'm not a professional ganker though, so I don't know.
Edit - Sorry, I had low-grade slaves plugged in when I got that number, so it would actually less EHP. I didnt think the changes had made their way to SiSI yet Check to see if the other exhumers have bonuses for Ice and Mercoxit, etc
they've been on sisi for a few days now.
and it's mackinaw ehp you need to check, not hulk ehp. :) Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
|
dexington
78
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 13:48:00 -
[351] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:Unit757 wrote:Currently, on SISI, a completely untanked hulk has 12k EHP. Considering the vast majority will more then likely still fit max yield/no tank, I would say they will still be gankable. I'm not a professional ganker though, so I don't know.
Edit - Sorry, I had low-grade slaves plugged in when I got that number, so it would actually less EHP. I didnt think the changes had made their way to SiSI yet Check to see if the other exhumers have bonuses for Ice and Mercoxit, etc
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=136222&find=unread GÇ£The best way to keep something bad from happening is to see it ahead of time, and you can't see it if you refuse to face the possibility.GÇ¥-á |
Unit757
North Point Cannabis Legionis
12
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 13:50:00 -
[352] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:Unit757 wrote:Currently, on SISI, a completely untanked hulk has 12k EHP. Considering the vast majority will more then likely still fit max yield/no tank, I would say they will still be gankable. I'm not a professional ganker though, so I don't know.
Edit - Sorry, I had low-grade slaves plugged in when I got that number, so it would actually less EHP. I didnt think the changes had made their way to SiSI yet Check to see if the other exhumers have bonuses for Ice and Mercoxit, etc
They are on the second round of adjustments to the barges now actually. The only real tough ship is the skiff if somebody fits it for a tank, if they are max yield fit, your lucky to break 20k EHP. |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1174
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 13:50:00 -
[353] - Quote
strange... i thought the stats were the only thing released, as i had my corpmate check the ships on SiSi only a few days ago. My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
Sarcasim
The Southern Gentleman's Social Club Event Horizon Protocol
1
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:00:00 -
[354] - Quote
Being new to the game I can stand on the outside and look in, and see this thread for what it truly is. I have not started mining yet so I am impartial. The DEV said suicide ganking wasnGÇÖt designed as a way to make profit. Seems straight forward to me, doesnGÇÖt take a four year degree to decipher.
When I look at this thread I see a bunch of people butt hurt over possibly loosing that ability. DoesnGÇÖt look like the GÇ£care bearsGÇ¥ are the ones crying. Some of you need to take some of your own advise that you like to throw out there for players. L2P, adapt change or rage quit. Can I have your stuff? You mad bro?
This MMO community is no different than any other. Always the vocal forum warriors cry and complain till they make so many bad changes they ruin the game completely. I hope the development team has the courage and resolve to stay the course and keep designing the game the way they envision it should be.
People will continue to take advantage of game mechanics but they shouldnGÇÖt cry foul when it gets taken away.
|
Danfen Fenix
143
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:03:00 -
[355] - Quote
Wait, the dev blog about this has been up for weeks...
Why has the complaining only started now ? |
Pipa Porto
501
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:05:00 -
[356] - Quote
Sarcasim wrote:Being new to the game I can stand on the outside and look in, and see this thread for what it truly is. I have not started mining yet so I am impartial. The DEV said suicide ganking wasnGÇÖt designed as a way to make profit. Seems straight forward to me, doesnGÇÖt take a four year degree to decipher.
EVE's all about emergent gameplay.
There are tons of gameplay elements that we take for granted that weren't envisioned when the mechanics that make them possible were put in place.
Local is one of the biggest ones. CCP never designed Local to be an intel tool, but there you have it. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1179
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:06:00 -
[357] - Quote
Danfen Fenix wrote:Wait, the dev blog about this has been up for weeks... Why has the complaining only started now ? Because of Herr Wilkus
he is great at startign threads like this :3 My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
Pipa Porto
501
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:06:00 -
[358] - Quote
Danfen Fenix wrote:Wait, the dev blog about this has been up for weeks... Why has the complaining only started now ?
The numbers hit SISI, so we've been shown that all of the Exhumers are getting a massive, free, tank buff. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
886
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:10:00 -
[359] - Quote
YAWNS politely. "DammitGǪDonGÇÖt you dare ask God to help me."-áSaid by: Joan Crawford to her housekeeper who began to pray aloud on her deathbed. " I love you too, honey. Good luck with your show." Desi Arnaz-á |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1179
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:12:00 -
[360] - Quote
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:YAWNS politely. NERF RED JACKETS! My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
430
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:16:00 -
[361] - Quote
We all know how terribly this is going to boil over. I wonder whose idea it was at CCP to do this. One thing's for sure, they ****** up pretty royally here.
Isn't it funny how CCP Soundwave stopped posting in this thread as soon as people started calling him out on his bullshit? "Suicide ganking wasn't meant to be profitable." Yeah, because that's TOTALLY what the issue is about, and not, you know, CCP coddling highsec carebears who don't give a **** about what this game is really supposed to be about and instead think that they are entitled to some blanket of protection.
Well they got that blanket. I can't wait until the hordes of miners come onto the forums and complain that they don't bother mining anymore because ore and mineral prices have dropped so much.
CCP Soundwave: Slowly turning EVE highsec into a risk free environment. EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
Xearal
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
316
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:17:00 -
[362] - Quote
Surfin's PlunderBunny wrote:I believe I was promised bacon?
here you go.. Bacon |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam
2
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:19:00 -
[363] - Quote
Roll Sizzle Beef wrote:It has rarely been about profit. Its usually people angry they are not pvping in their game. Thus a waste of space.
But mining IS pvp ...
stoicfaux wrote:Imagine the tears when the AFK miner comes back to see that his ore hold is nearly empty and his lasers shut off ten minutes ago because you and your wolfpack stripped the rocks out from under him!
|
Danel Tosh
EVE Protection Agency Intrepid Crossing
31
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:24:00 -
[364] - Quote
mission runners dont fit thier ships with PvP in mind. why should miners?
I dont even run missions, I run sites and i do so in the most pve efficient fit possible to make the most money. Its Isk vs yeild, Personally I dont see the difference (although mining is terribly boring). |
TheSkeptic
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
18
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:27:00 -
[365] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Danfen Fenix wrote:Wait, the dev blog about this has been up for weeks... Why has the complaining only started now ? The numbers hit SISI, so we've been shown that all of the Exhumers are getting a massive, free, tank buff.
Marginal tank buff for mining ships just rebalances things after the destroyer damage buff.
|
Jed Bobby
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:30:00 -
[366] - Quote
lol @ this thread |
gfldex
569
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:32:00 -
[367] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote: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.
How do you plan to scale the HP of a freighter with the value of it's cargo? If you don't plan to do that then please tell me why miners are immune from profit seeking highsec pirates but haulers are not.
I'm in your forumz asking rhetorical questions.
When someone burns down your sandcastle, bring sausages. |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1182
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:39:00 -
[368] - Quote
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). Well, as long as you get the balance right i dont think anybody can seriously complain...
As it stands, we have cause for concern.
Just one example - Why should an Exhumer get a greater shield resists per level bonus than a HIC? My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
Alexzandvar Douglass
NUTS AND BOLTS MANUFACTURING En Garde
59
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:41:00 -
[369] - Quote
As a Ice miner I welcome the update, as finally CCP recognizes you should have some ability to not instantly die the minute anything shoots you.
All I see is miles upon miles of butthurt, with no end in sight. |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
241
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:42:00 -
[370] - Quote
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).
That's not a good metric to balance things against at all. Nobody's complaining that miners can defend themselves. What people are complaining about is you're doing it for them, by default. The hulk is getting a flat EHP buff for all fits. That's what people are annoyed about, the dumbing down of the game. I -and most people - would have no problem at all if you increased the ability of miner pilots to fit a tank if that's what they choose to do. But that's not what was done.
It's also immensely frustrating that highsec moneymaking gets buff after buff, while 0.0, which has needed better sources of individual moneymaking for the better part of a decade, gets nothing. And it's not like the problem has gone unseen: everyone admits 0.0 is broken but our fixes get pushed off to the infamous "Soon(TM)". A few miners, who can't fit their ships, get ganked and what happens? An entire line of ships is rapidly redesigned to eliminate all real risk.
The |
|
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1182
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:43:00 -
[371] - Quote
Alexzandvar Douglass wrote:As a Ice miner I welcome the update, as finally CCP recognizes you should have some ability to not instantly die the minute anything shoots you.
All I see is miles upon miles of butthurt, with no end in sight.
Would you pvp in an untanked ship?
Would you run a mission in an untanked ship?
What makes miners so special that they think they dont need to fit a tank? My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
gfldex
569
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:43:00 -
[372] - Quote
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).
So if some cunning individuals are planning on ganking officer fit mission runners, they should have to come with 600 players for one gank? I'm sorry but your logic is flawed. That means you either lie to us or to yourself.
What you have done with the plain HP buff of dedicated mining ships is to remove the risk to field those ships even outside of hulkageddon down to 0. That will have consequences. I'm not going to talk you out of it. You wont change your mind anyway and I would lose the "told you so"-option. (And the consequences of that change will act in my favour, even without any need to mine on my side.) But please keep in mind that your job is not to make the game easier for the general public. It's to make it better for all players.
When someone burns down your sandcastle, bring sausages. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
266
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:43:00 -
[373] - Quote
gfldex wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote: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. How do you plan to scale the HP of a freighter with the value of it's cargo? If you don't plan to do that then please tell me why miners are immune from profit seeking highsec pirates but haulers are not. I'm in your forumz asking rhetorical questions.
the modules dropped from an exhumer exceeds the cost of the ship destroying it. is that the same with a freighter? Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Adrenalinemax
Perkone Caldari State
23
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:45:00 -
[374] - 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).
I think what he is trying to say is suicide banking is a vital part of game mechanics that he in no way what to remove
however, it is supposed to be a measure taken to inflict pain on someone at all costs and those costs should be born by the ganker not the victim.
So go ahead and bank all you want, but if a Hulk costs 289mil, then it should take more than 289mil worth of ships to bank it
All the talk about profitability are about hull prices, not some dumbs carrying 40bil worth of a **** in a shuttle
|
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
266
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:45:00 -
[375] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:Alexzandvar Douglass wrote:As a Ice miner I welcome the update, as finally CCP recognizes you should have some ability to not instantly die the minute anything shoots you.
All I see is miles upon miles of butthurt, with no end in sight. Would you pvp in an untanked ship? Would you run a mission in an untanked ship? What makes miners so special that they think they dont need to fit a tank?
no because you're intending to go in to a combat situation, tanks are for combat. mining ships are not a combat ship.
that's like saying "would you wear a coat in the middle of summer?" "well the eskimos have to, so why don't you have to?" Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1182
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:45:00 -
[376] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:gfldex wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote: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. How do you plan to scale the HP of a freighter with the value of it's cargo? If you don't plan to do that then please tell me why miners are immune from profit seeking highsec pirates but haulers are not. I'm in your forumz asking rhetorical questions. the modules dropped from an exhumer exceeds the cost of the ship destroying it. is that the same with a freighter? If you are doing it right, the cargo should suffice My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
Adrenalinemax
Perkone Caldari State
23
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:47:00 -
[377] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:We all know how terribly this is going to boil over. I wonder whose idea it was at CCP to do this. One thing's for sure, they ****** up pretty royally here.
Isn't it funny how CCP Soundwave stopped posting in this thread as soon as people started calling him out on his bullshit? "Suicide ganking wasn't meant to be profitable." Yeah, because that's TOTALLY what the issue is about, and not, you know, CCP coddling highsec carebears who don't give a **** about what this game is really supposed to be about and instead think that they are entitled to some blanket of protection.
Well they got that blanket. I can't wait until the hordes of miners come onto the forums and complain that they don't bother mining anymore because ore and mineral prices have dropped so much.
CCP Soundwave: Slowly turning EVE highsec into a risk free environment.
highsec is not risk free, you can gank anything at anytime
It is just that you can spend 10mil to gank a 250mil ship before. Now that will no longer be possible |
Josef Djugashvilis
The Scope Gallente Federation
378
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:47:00 -
[378] - Quote
I find it amusing that some folk believe that ganking miners is only really done for profit, and that tanking a Hulk etc would make it more or less gank proof as it would not yield a profit to the gankers.
Miner tears, my dear fellow Eve pilots, and the more expensive the tears from the miner, the better. You want fries with that? |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
243
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:48:00 -
[379] - Quote
Every form of suicide ganking has repeatedly been nerfed. It's nice that you claim it's not your goal to remove it. However, your stated goals are essentially to make it a once in a blue moon action that is systematically nerfed anytime it happens more often than that (because then its clearly not costing the attacker enough).
It's clear you respond to highsec whining, which will always be there until you remove risk from highsec. You claim you won't do that: but you'll clearly keep going to be moving closer and closer and closer until there's no practical risk, just theoretical risk |
Dramaticus
Goonswarm Federation
188
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:50:00 -
[380] - 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 |
|
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
243
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:50:00 -
[381] - Quote
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. |
Adrenalinemax
Perkone Caldari State
23
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:51:00 -
[382] - Quote
EvilweaselSA wrote:Every form of suicide ganking has repeatedly been nerfed. It's nice that you claim it's not your goal to remove it. However, your stated goals are essentially to make it a once in a blue moon action that is systematically nerfed anytime it happens more often than that (because then its clearly not costing the attacker enough).
It's clear you respond to highsec whining, which will always be there until you remove risk from highsec. You claim you won't do that: but you'll clearly keep going to be moving closer and closer and closer until there's no practical risk, just theoretical risk
what is wrong with making a ganker spend 350mil to gank a ship costing 290mil?
Did you like it better when a 10mil ship could gank a ship that cost 290mil? ( I bet you did) C'mon, lemme see those tears, I can tell you are welling up |
Adrenalinemax
Perkone Caldari State
23
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:52:00 -
[383] - Quote
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 |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
266
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:52:00 -
[384] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:Dave stark wrote:gfldex wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote: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. How do you plan to scale the HP of a freighter with the value of it's cargo? If you don't plan to do that then please tell me why miners are immune from profit seeking highsec pirates but haulers are not. I'm in your forumz asking rhetorical questions. the modules dropped from an exhumer exceeds the cost of the ship destroying it. is that the same with a freighter? If you are doing it right, the cargo should suffice
that's the point though; cargo isn't factored in to this. people ganking mining barges are doing it because they make money from destroying a ship regardless of it's cargo (and even with a fully expanded and full cargo a hulk will still drop less in cargo than in modules). if you happen to be carrying a set of bpos when your charon goes pop; you're a ******* moron. if you went pop because some one gains isk from throwing a ship worth pocket change at you in exchange for scooping a bundle of modules worth more than the ship was then clearly some thing isn't right.
last time i checked (which, admittedly, was a while ago) a single t1 ice harvester turret was worth more than a thrasher. i'll wager most ships are packing t2 variants hence raising the ganker's profit even more (not to mention the insult that the mine replacing is ship is probably buying his own modules back). Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1182
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:52:00 -
[385] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:no because you're intending to go in to a combat situation, tanks are for combat. mining ships are not a combat ship. Replace the words 'DPS' with 'isk per hour'
I dont fit a mission boat for MAX dps at expense of my survivability, because if i did my shiny billion isk faction ship would explode in no time at all
yet miners fit their mining barges and exhumers for 'max mining' at expense of their survivability in the face of warnings from CCP, countless threads about sucide gankers, eternal hulkageddon, etc
then they innevitably die, and point the finger at anybody but themselves
Miners as a collective group have clearly shown that they are incapable of looking after themselves, and so CCP has stepped in to hold their hand and protect them as if they were an endangered species My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
Dramaticus
Goonswarm Federation
188
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:53:00 -
[386] - 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? |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
243
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:53:00 -
[387] - Quote
Adrenalinemax wrote:what is wrong with making a ganker spend 350mil to gank a ship costing 290mil?
Did you like it better when a 10mil ship could gank a ship that cost 290mil? ( I bet you did) C'mon, lemme see those tears, I can tell you are welling up the cost of your ship isn't part of your tank |
Karl Hobb
Stellar Ore Refinery and Crematorium
401
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:54:00 -
[388] - Quote
Simple question: If the ore bay is full and you are still mining, is the asteroid still depleted?
If so, I'm training up for a Covetor post-haste. Nothing Found |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
266
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:55:00 -
[389] - Quote
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. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Dramaticus
Goonswarm Federation
189
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:57:00 -
[390] - 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 |
|
Marconus Orion
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
339
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:57:00 -
[391] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:We all know how terribly this is going to boil over. I wonder whose idea it was at CCP to do this. One thing's for sure, they ****** up pretty royally here.
Isn't it funny how CCP Soundwave stopped posting in this thread as soon as people started calling him out on his bullshit? "Suicide ganking wasn't meant to be profitable." Yeah, because that's TOTALLY what the issue is about, and not, you know, CCP coddling highsec carebears who don't give a **** about what this game is really supposed to be about and instead think that they are entitled to some blanket of protection.
Well they got that blanket. I can't wait until the hordes of miners come onto the forums and complain that they don't bother mining anymore because ore and mineral prices have dropped so much.
CCP Soundwave: Slowly turning EVE highsec into a risk free environment.
There has always been three core things that drew me to this game. They have always been here and don't look to be changing anytime soon.
1. One server. No moving population. No different 'worlds'. Everyone is in the very same boat so anything you do or hear about everyone else experiences too.
2. When your ship blows up, there is no running back to collect everything. Death actually means something. Granted it varies depending on your point of view, but exploding represents time and effort evaporating in a glorious fire ball.
3. As long as you are undocked (and not cloaked at some safe spot); combat can happen at any given moment. Granted it could only be for a few seconds before Concord shows up to lay down the smack on someone, it still happened. No where is safe.
When any one of those three things no longer applies, I will leave this game forever. That said, those three things have remained a constant the entire time I have been playing this game and I see no evidence of them changing. So please enough with the 'Hello Kitty' jokes and other extreme nonsense. You can still suicide gank anyone you want. You just have to adjust the caliber of the slug in your elephant gun. |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1182
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:57:00 -
[392] - Quote
Also i'd like to throw into the mix that the cost of an Exhumer can NEVER be used to justify any buff to its EHP
CCP have 'promised' to tackle the Technetium problem, and as Technetium is like 70% of the price of a Hulk, these T2 ships will not likely remain the price they are now once the tech problem is dealt with My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
Adrenalinemax
Perkone Caldari State
23
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:57:00 -
[393] - Quote
EvilweaselSA wrote:Adrenalinemax wrote:what is wrong with making a ganker spend 350mil to gank a ship costing 290mil?
Did you like it better when a 10mil ship could gank a ship that cost 290mil? ( I bet you did) C'mon, lemme see those tears, I can tell you are welling up the cost of your ship isn't part of your tank
I honestly have no earthly idea what you mean
A Gank ship fits no tank as Concord will take care of it
That tank on a hulk is a minor part of the equation, maybe 10-12 mil, including a Co-pro
|
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
245
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:58:00 -
[394] - Quote
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. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
266
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:58:00 -
[395] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:Dave stark wrote:no because you're intending to go in to a combat situation, tanks are for combat. mining ships are not a combat ship. Replace the words 'DPS' with 'isk per hour' I dont fit a mission boat for MAX dps at expense of my survivability, because if i did my shiny billion isk faction ship would explode in no time at all yet miners fit their mining barges and exhumers for 'max mining' at expense of their survivability in the face of warnings from CCP, countless threads about sucide gankers, eternal hulkageddon, etc then they innevitably die, and point the finger at anybody but themselves Miners as a collective group have clearly shown that they are incapable of looking after themselves, and so CCP has stepped in to hold their hand and protect them as if they were an endangered species
no, you fit your ship to do missions as efficiently as possible. that's the same thing as fitting to mine as efficiently as possible.
i have no problem with hulkaggedon, if you want to gank me i think you're perfectly entitled to do so; provided you actually have to put some effort in to it and not just use ships costing less than the contents of my jetcan. the tears from the gankers about this buff is the fact that they're no longer able to do it in throwaway ships and have to put some kind of investment in to ******* up some one's day. hard life isn't it?
Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
245
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 14:59:00 -
[396] - Quote
I'm also relatively annoyed at how low the tradeoff for switching to a skiff from a hulk is in terms of yield but that's another issue. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
266
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 15:01:00 -
[397] - Quote
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. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Dramaticus
Goonswarm Federation
189
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 15:01:00 -
[398] - 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? |
Adrenalinemax
Perkone Caldari State
23
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 15:02:00 -
[399] - Quote
Here it is in a nutshell...
Did they stop Ganking? NO
Can you Gank a Hulk, Mack or Skiff? Hell YES
Can you do it in a rupture or a thrasher? Hell NO
|
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
241
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 15:02:00 -
[400] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:We all know how terribly this is going to boil over. I wonder whose idea it was at CCP to do this. One thing's for sure, they ****** up pretty royally here.
Isn't it funny how CCP Soundwave stopped posting in this thread as soon as people started calling him out on his bullshit? "Suicide ganking wasn't meant to be profitable." Yeah, because that's TOTALLY what the issue is about, and not, you know, CCP coddling highsec carebears who don't give a **** about what this game is really supposed to be about and instead think that they are entitled to some blanket of protection.
Well they got that blanket. I can't wait until the hordes of miners come onto the forums and complain that they don't bother mining anymore because ore and mineral prices have dropped so much.
CCP Soundwave: Slowly turning EVE highsec into a risk free environment.
Are you truly that blind to all the changes that Soundwave has made in this game that favour the griefer? This dev came from goons. He may still be goons, no way of telling.
So now he is feeling some pressure from above to even things up a bit, and you are giving him a hard time????
|
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
4364
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 15:02:00 -
[401] - Quote
Honestly the new mining barges seem pretty reasonable compared to their cost, at least for the T2. 250k EHP Skiffs are pretty lulzy, but so are 250k EHP Damnations.
MalcPredictionGäó: In 6 months time, exhumers will still be dying in hi-sec and people will still be crying about it. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1182
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 15:02:00 -
[402] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:no, you fit your ship to do missions as efficiently as possible. that's the same thing as fitting to mine as efficiently as possible.
i have no problem with hulkaggedon, if you want to gank me i think you're perfectly entitled to do so; provided you actually have to put some effort in to it and not just use ships costing less than the contents of my jetcan. the tears from the gankers about this buff is the fact that they're no longer able to do it in throwaway ships and have to put some kind of investment in to ******* up some one's day. hard life isn't it?
So you are happy that CCP are effectively throwing ship balance out of the window to 'protect' hisec miners?
Of course, i shouldnt really expect people to care about game balance when you just chew on rocks for a living My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
245
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 15:03:00 -
[403] - Quote
Dave stark wrote: if you're time limited; bring bigger guns.
My point is the argument "it kills it too quickly" is nonsensical. It's highsec: any kill must happen fast or it doesn't happen, so you can't argue it 'died too fast'. You can only argue it shouldn't have died. |
Henry Kaine
Royal Amarr Institute
9
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 15:03:00 -
[404] - Quote
This is truth, spoken quite well I might add. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
266
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 15:05:00 -
[405] - Quote
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) Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
266
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 15:06:00 -
[406] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:Dave stark wrote:no, you fit your ship to do missions as efficiently as possible. that's the same thing as fitting to mine as efficiently as possible.
i have no problem with hulkaggedon, if you want to gank me i think you're perfectly entitled to do so; provided you actually have to put some effort in to it and not just use ships costing less than the contents of my jetcan. the tears from the gankers about this buff is the fact that they're no longer able to do it in throwaway ships and have to put some kind of investment in to ******* up some one's day. hard life isn't it?
So you are happy that CCP are effectively throwing ship balance out of the window to 'protect' hisec miners? Of course, i shouldnt really expect people to care about game balance when you just chew on rocks for a living
yeah because a destroyer destroying a t2 ship worth close to 300m in a matter of seconds is perfectly balanced? ok. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1183
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 15:07:00 -
[407] - Quote
Why fit a damage control when you can just get CCP to change the stats of the ship
amirite? My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1183
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 15:07:00 -
[408] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:yeah because a destroyer destroying a t2 ship worth close to 300m in a matter of seconds is perfectly balanced? ok. When you stop attributing survivability to ship cost we might take you seriously My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
Jed Bobby
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 15:09:00 -
[409] - Quote
man i dun se how yu slaves die so often. i fly roun null all day in a executonerr an tey werp me an webife me an all that good stuff but as lon as i don jus sit der dem guys caint never kill me yer dewin it rong |
Kyra Yaken
State War Academy Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 15:09:00 -
[410] - Quote
Goons tears are best tears. Keep them comming. |
|
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
266
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 15:12:00 -
[411] - Quote
EvilweaselSA wrote:Dave stark wrote: if you're time limited; bring bigger guns.
My point is the argument "it kills it too quickly" is nonsensical. It's highsec: any kill must happen fast or it doesn't happen, so you can't argue it 'died too fast'. You can only argue it shouldn't have died.
not at all. as pointed out on the previous page an assault frigate can, and should, be able to kill a battleship. smaller ship killing bigger ship. it just shouldn't happen quickly. if we remove the time factor it comes down to who 1shots who first and small ships will never be able to take on big ships so any one that can't fly a bigger ship is instantly at a disadvantage.
i don't deny that a kill must happen fast in high sec, that doesn't mean a small ship should be able to kill a big ship in a matter of seconds though it simply means you should bring bigger guns. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Dramaticus
Goonswarm Federation
189
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 15:12:00 -
[412] - 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? |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
266
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 15:14:00 -
[413] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:Dave stark wrote:yeah because a destroyer destroying a t2 ship worth close to 300m in a matter of seconds is perfectly balanced? ok. When you stop attributing survivability to ship cost we might take you seriously
a ship destroying another ship who's modules are worth more than the ganker's ship in a matter of seconds is perfectly balanced?
ccp just stated they don't want you suicide ganking for profit, deal with it. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
266
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 15:16:00 -
[414] - Quote
Dramaticus wrote: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?
no, if you read what i wrote, then read what you replied with... Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Dramaticus
Goonswarm Federation
190
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 15:19:00 -
[415] - 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 |
Jed Bobby
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 15:22:00 -
[416] - Quote
Dramaticus wrote:I HAVE TO FLY SOMETHING OTHER THAN DIRT CHEAP SHIPS IF I WANT TO GANK SOMEONE THIS IS AN OUTRAGE CCP AS A LOYAL CUSTOMER I DEMAND SATISFACTION THIS IS AGAINST MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
dere, i dun fixed it |
Dramaticus
Goonswarm Federation
190
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 15:23:00 -
[417] - 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. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
266
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 15:23:00 -
[418] - 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
it's more to do with the fact that the hulk can't fit a tank without fitting mods that's the issue. having to tank my hulk is fine; however the hulk doesn't have the fitting requirements to do so without fitting mods.
i've never had to use fitting mods to fit a combat ship, ever. combat ships have the power grid and cpu to fill all their mid and low slots without fitting mods, why should a hulk be forced to use fitting mods to fill all the slots on the ship? Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
246
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 15:24:00 -
[419] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:a ship destroying another ship who's modules are worth more than the ganker's ship in a matter of seconds is perfectly balanced?
ccp just stated they don't want you suicide ganking for profit, deal with it. a ship destroying another ship that could have easily fit to survive (with little to no tradeoffs), that's balanced yes |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks The Marmite Collective
2040
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 15:25:00 -
[420] - Quote
I'm in favor of MOST of the changes. There has always been the trade-off between yield and tank. The Skiff is basically just CCP copying the specs of a mining battleship.
Seeing as no one seems to be posting actual specs on these ships (I'm not digging through a 20-page thread looking for them, so if I missed them....v0v) I can't comment on the specifics in SiSi right now. The Skunkworks is recruiting. -áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1540711#post1540711 |
|
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks The Marmite Collective
2041
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 15:26:00 -
[421] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:ccp just stated they don't want you suicide ganking for profit, deal with it.
Then they should probably tank the shuttles, rookie ships, and T1 industrials that people use to move expensive items from time to time.
You can't protect people from stupid. The Skunkworks is recruiting. -áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1540711#post1540711 |
Wolf Kruol
Capsuleer Legions Of New Eden GREATER ITAMO MAFIA
16
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 15:27:00 -
[422] - Quote
Nice story.. Not like ccp's tweaks will change much.. Miners will still get ganked. By smart or stupid gankers verses smart or stupid miners. Its a gamble boys and girls... let the dice roll. GÇ£If you're very very stupid? How can you possibly realize you're very very stupid?
You have to be relatively intelligent to realize how stupid you really are!GÇ¥ |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
266
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 15:29:00 -
[423] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:Dave stark wrote:ccp just stated they don't want you suicide ganking for profit, deal with it. Then they should probably tank the shuttles, rookie ships, and T1 industrials that people use to move expensive items from time to time. You can't protect people from stupid.
we've been through this in the thread already; cargo isn't included in this. a t2 ice harvester is worth more than a ganking destroyer. 1 module alone. see the issue now? it has NOTHING to do with popping haulers for cargo. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1185
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 15:29:00 -
[424] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Skippermonkey wrote:Dave stark wrote:yeah because a destroyer destroying a t2 ship worth close to 300m in a matter of seconds is perfectly balanced? ok. When you stop attributing survivability to ship cost we might take you seriously a ship destroying another ship who's modules are worth more than the ganker's ship in a matter of seconds is perfectly balanced? ccp just stated they don't want you suicide ganking for profit, deal with it. CCP shouldnt be in the business of saying what they do and dont want us to do. Their only responsibility is to maintain a fair and balanced sandbox for us to decide what we should be doing. Profitability of ganks is entirely situational.
Now, i can see how it could be argued that the current 'status quo' is biased against the miner, and as such I am not against changes to the stats of ships miners would use. (they buffed destroyers a bit, so i dont mind a mining barge buff in equal measure)
My problem is the current proposed stats, as they currenty are, pushes the balance far to much the other way.
Also, for all our sakes, stop using the 'my ship is more expensive than yours, you shouldnt be able to kill me' argument, it doesnt wash, this isnt WoW Battlegrounds or diablo3. My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks The Marmite Collective
2041
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 15:34:00 -
[425] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:we've been through this in the thread already; cargo isn't included in this. a t2 ice harvester is worth more than a ganking destroyer. 1 module alone. see the issue now? it has NOTHING to do with popping haulers for cargo.
The Mona Lisa is worth more than my pocket knife, too. The Skunkworks is recruiting. -áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1540711#post1540711 |
Adrenalinemax
Perkone Caldari State
23
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 15:35:00 -
[426] - Quote
So, if we don't use the ISK argument, if they buffed dreads and you could drop a single suicide dread on a SC and kill the SC in 2 volleys, would that be OK as well? |
Istyn
Tactical Knightmare
117
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 15:37:00 -
[427] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Skippermonkey wrote:Dave stark wrote:yeah because a destroyer destroying a t2 ship worth close to 300m in a matter of seconds is perfectly balanced? ok. When you stop attributing survivability to ship cost we might take you seriously ccp just stated they don't want you suicide ganking for profit, deal with it.
I look forward to it being impossible to stick anything worth more than a tornado in your cargohold. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
267
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 15:37:00 -
[428] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:Dave stark wrote:Skippermonkey wrote:Dave stark wrote:yeah because a destroyer destroying a t2 ship worth close to 300m in a matter of seconds is perfectly balanced? ok. When you stop attributing survivability to ship cost we might take you seriously a ship destroying another ship who's modules are worth more than the ganker's ship in a matter of seconds is perfectly balanced? ccp just stated they don't want you suicide ganking for profit, deal with it. CCP shouldnt be in the business of saying what they do and dont want us to do. Their only responsibility is to maintain a fair and balanced sandbox for us to decide what we should be doing. Profitability of ganks is entirely situational. Now, i can see how it could be argued that the current 'status quo' is biased against the miner, and as such I am not against changes to the stats of ships miners would use. (they buffed destroyers a bit, so i dont mind a mining barge buff in equal measure) My problem is the current proposed stats, as they currenty are, pushes the balance far to much the other way. Also, for all our sakes, stop using the ' my ship is more expensive than yours, you shouldnt be able to kill me' argument, it doesnt wash, this isnt WoW Battlegrounds or diablo3.
i don't disagree on some points; i do think the skiff's ehp is a little overkill. in reality all the hulk needs is enough cpu/pg to fill all of its slots without HAVING to have a fitting mod to fit a tank.
again it's not the fact that the cheap ship can kill the expensive one; it's how fast they do it. it's vital for small ships to be able to kill big ships for the balance of the game, however when they're doing it so quickly, to a ship that has no way of responding in kind... i mean, my hulk costs more than a hurricane, or a drake, or a tornado, or a multitude of other ships; however i'd be perfectly ok if a tornado or one of the other ships ganked be because we both lost out. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
267
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 15:38:00 -
[429] - Quote
Istyn wrote:Dave stark wrote:Skippermonkey wrote:Dave stark wrote:yeah because a destroyer destroying a t2 ship worth close to 300m in a matter of seconds is perfectly balanced? ok. When you stop attributing survivability to ship cost we might take you seriously ccp just stated they don't want you suicide ganking for profit, deal with it. I look forward to it being impossible to stick anything worth more than a tornado in your cargohold.
oh look; another person that doesn't understand it has nothing to do with cargo. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Istyn
Tactical Knightmare
117
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 15:39:00 -
[430] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:
oh look; another person that doesn't understand it has nothing to do with cargo.
Quote:ccp just stated they don't want you suicide ganking for profit, deal with it.
Quote: it has nothing to do with cargo
So.
Which quote did you lie in? |
|
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks The Marmite Collective
2042
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 15:40:00 -
[431] - Quote
Adrenalinemax wrote:So, if we don't use the ISK argument, if they buffed dreads and you could drop a single suicide dread on a SC and kill the SC in 2 volleys, would that be OK as well?
Exhumer = industrial / mining vessel with no armaments
Supercapital = combat ship designed to dominate other capitals.
See the difference?
Even then, I've seen a vengeance solo a tengu. It's not all about isk value. The Skunkworks is recruiting. -áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1540711#post1540711 |
Forum Clone 77777
State War Academy Caldari State
42
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 15:41:00 -
[432] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote: Tell that to the triple-digit billions I've made from ganking haulers and freighters carrying ungodly amounts of crap without a second though given to defense. I can safely say that I've caused many of those people to quit in anger. But go ahead, "adjust the numbers" if you need help with your mortgage payments.
The point is, we're not going to stop ganking until you remove aggression in high-sec, which I'm sure you'll do within the next couple of years (it's the only logical conclusion to the gradual progression that's been going on). Until that happens, we'll continue doing what we do, either by using more people, or using different, valid game mechanics. All your actions are reactionary, and are only responses to the need for short-term subscription increases. Face the facts: we know more about this game than a whole lot of people currently in charge of maintaining it, and you guys are really regretting the whole "non-consensual pvp" thing in this here year 2012. If you really want that sub spike, stop beating around the bush with these gradual let-downs, and change the game in one fell swoop. At least that way you'll leave with a bang, and a nice bonus in the bank.
Someone missed the ENTIRE point. Its not supposed to be good profits to gank a Hulk mining in a belt. OFCOURSE its still gonna be profitable to gank people hauling around valuable stuff. Or else they would need to, in theory, find a way to make it more expensive to get a ship able to gank an Ibis hauling 5 plex than whatever you might get from the drop after the Ibis is dead, which in theory could be 5 plex = 2bil + |
Ziranda Hakuli
Relativity Holding Corp
125
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 15:45:00 -
[433] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:Dave stark wrote:ccp just stated they don't want you suicide ganking for profit, deal with it. Then they should probably tank the shuttles, rookie ships, and T1 industrials that people use to move expensive items from time to time. You can't protect people from stupid. Yes you can!!! just contract your things to me i promise to move them |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
267
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 15:47:00 -
[434] - Quote
Istyn wrote:Dave stark wrote:
oh look; another person that doesn't understand it has nothing to do with cargo.
Quote:ccp just stated they don't want you suicide ganking for profit, deal with it. Quote: it has nothing to do with cargo So. Which quote did you lie in?
neither. the profitability of suicide ganking in this context has nothing to do with cargo value, stop thinking it does. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
520
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 15:48:00 -
[435] - Quote
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.
This has swung too far in the other direction. Doubling-Tripple EHP was most likely going to be the sweet spot. Increasing EHP 4-10x or more is hilariously skewed too far. |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1186
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 15:49:00 -
[436] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:neither. the profitability of suicide ganking in this context has nothing to do with cargo value, stop thinking it does.
are you really that dumb? My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
267
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 15:51:00 -
[437] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:Dave stark wrote:neither. the profitability of suicide ganking in this context has nothing to do with cargo value, stop thinking it does. are you really that dumb?
really? because ganking a 17k cargo space hulk for it's cargo means using a ship worth less than about 2-3m even a cheap destroyer would struggle to find profit in the dropped cargo. unless of course there was a source of income from that suicide gank other than the cargo.... Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Arvantis Sauril
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 15:52:00 -
[438] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:Dave stark wrote:Skippermonkey wrote:Dave stark wrote:yeah because a destroyer destroying a t2 ship worth close to 300m in a matter of seconds is perfectly balanced? ok. When you stop attributing survivability to ship cost we might take you seriously a ship destroying another ship who's modules are worth more than the ganker's ship in a matter of seconds is perfectly balanced? ccp just stated they don't want you suicide ganking for profit, deal with it. CCP shouldnt be in the business of saying what they do and dont want us to do. Their only responsibility is to maintain a fair and balanced sandbox for us to decide what we should be doing. Profitability of ganks is entirely situational. Now, i can see how it could be argued that the current 'status quo' is biased against the miner, and as such I am not against changes to the stats of ships miners would use. (they buffed destroyers a bit, so i dont mind a mining barge buff in equal measure) My problem is the current proposed stats, as they currenty are, pushes the balance far to much the other way. Also, for all our sakes, stop using the ' my ship is more expensive than yours, you shouldnt be able to kill me' argument, it doesnt wash, this isnt WoW Battlegrounds or diablo3.
100% agree.
If these changes go live, something needs to counterbalance the nigh invulnerability of these mining ships. As others have said, I fear it will have unintended consequences. You devs may be trying to help out the "little guy" but all this will do is make that "little guy's" miner subscription evaporate when their profit sinks to **** as they cannot compete with the hordes of multi account /AFK/ bot miners.
IMO, everything in EVE should be about player interaction, not pushing us all into little pockets of space. Is this game a sandbox or is it a theme park? Is it an economic and space warfare simulator or is it a "farm and stat boost" role playing game?
I propose a heavy tax on all activity in Hi-Sec. Missions, mining, production, everything. I severely doubt the US gov't and all the powerful corporations in the us would allow me to go mining for gold wherever I wanted somewhere in New Jersey and that if I did find something that I wouldn't immediately be pressured/sued/incarcerated into selling the rights to the land or never going near where I found the gold again. Something needs to sustain these empires and Concord, right? If you want to AFK mine, fine, go ahead, but if you do so in Hi-Sec you should net very little if any profit after huge taxes for doing so in Empire space. It is their asteroid after all.
Or just keep segregating us. I made an account last summer, played the game for a month or 2, had almost zero interaction with anyone else, got bored, and quit. I came back last month, and while FW has been fun, and I plan on finding an actual human corp whenever I get some more free time to do so, I am telling you that as someone who cares about gameplay, rewarding those who stubbornly and ignorantly refuse to adhere to the current gameplay is a terrible idea. All you will be left with in a year's time will be mining bots.
I'm pretty sure that isn't working out well for Zynga... |
Danny Diamonds
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 15:52:00 -
[439] - Quote
Thank you CCP for commenting in this thread. Confirmed what I have been saying for weeks. |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1186
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 15:52:00 -
[440] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Skippermonkey wrote:Dave stark wrote:neither. the profitability of suicide ganking in this context has nothing to do with cargo value, stop thinking it does. are you really that dumb? really? because ganking a 17k cargo space hulk for it's cargo means using a ship worth less than about 2-3m even a cheap destroyer would struggle to find profit in the dropped cargo. unless of course there was a source of income from that suicide gank other than the cargo.... I think you need to realise that suiciders gank people FOR MORE THAN ONE REASON AT ONCE
jeez My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
|
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
267
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 15:54:00 -
[441] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:Dave stark wrote:Skippermonkey wrote:Dave stark wrote:neither. the profitability of suicide ganking in this context has nothing to do with cargo value, stop thinking it does. are you really that dumb? really? because ganking a 17k cargo space hulk for it's cargo means using a ship worth less than about 2-3m even a cheap destroyer would struggle to find profit in the dropped cargo. unless of course there was a source of income from that suicide gank other than the cargo.... I think you need to realise that suiciders gank people FOR MORE THAN ONE REASON AT ONCE jeez
what does people's reasons for ganking have to do with it's profitability? are you really that dumb? Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Adrenalinemax
Perkone Caldari State
23
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 15:57:00 -
[442] - Quote
Arvantis Sauril wrote:Skippermonkey wrote:Dave stark wrote:Skippermonkey wrote:Dave stark wrote:yeah because a destroyer destroying a t2 ship worth close to 300m in a matter of seconds is perfectly balanced? ok. When you stop attributing survivability to ship cost we might take you seriously a ship destroying another ship who's modules are worth more than the ganker's ship in a matter of seconds is perfectly balanced? ccp just stated they don't want you suicide ganking for profit, deal with it. CCP shouldnt be in the business of saying what they do and dont want us to do. Their only responsibility is to maintain a fair and balanced sandbox for us to decide what we should be doing. Profitability of ganks is entirely situational. Now, i can see how it could be argued that the current 'status quo' is biased against the miner, and as such I am not against changes to the stats of ships miners would use. (they buffed destroyers a bit, so i dont mind a mining barge buff in equal measure) My problem is the current proposed stats, as they currenty are, pushes the balance far to much the other way. Also, for all our sakes, stop using the ' my ship is more expensive than yours, you shouldnt be able to kill me' argument, it doesnt wash, this isnt WoW Battlegrounds or diablo3. 100% agree. If these changes go live, something needs to counterbalance the nigh invulnerability of these mining ships. As others have said, I fear it will have unintended consequences. You devs may be trying to help out the "little guy" but all this will do is make that "little guy's" miner subscription evaporate when their profit sinks to **** as they cannot compete with the hordes of multi account /AFK/ bot miners. IMO, everything in EVE should be about player interaction, not pushing us all into little pockets of space. Is this game a sandbox or is it a theme park? Is it an economic and space warfare simulator or is it a "farm and stat boost" role playing game? I propose a heavy tax on all activity in Hi-Sec. Missions, mining, production, everything. I severely doubt the US gov't and all the powerful corporations in the us would allow me to go mining for gold wherever I wanted somewhere in New Jersey and that if I did find something that I wouldn't immediately be pressured/sued/incarcerated into selling the rights to the land or never going near where I found the gold again. Something needs to sustain these empires and Concord, right? If you want to AFK mine, fine, go ahead, but if you do so in Hi-Sec you should net very little if any profit after huge taxes for doing so in Empire space. It is their asteroid after all. Or just keep segregating us. I made an account last summer, played the game for a month or 2, had almost zero interaction with anyone else, got bored, and quit. I came back last month, and while FW has been fun, and I plan on finding an actual human corp whenever I get some more free time to do so, I am telling you that as someone who cares about gameplay, rewarding those who stubbornly and ignorantly refuse to adhere to the current gameplay is a terrible idea. All you will be left with in a year's time will be mining bots. I'm pretty sure that isn't working out well for Zynga...
When/IF these changes go live, what is stopping you from ganking ever Exhumer and mining barge in new eden? NOTHING
Nothing has changed, except you won't be able to use a Thrasher anymore, you will need quite a few friends
NOTHING ELSE HAS CHANGED |
Istyn
Tactical Knightmare
117
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 15:57:00 -
[443] - Quote
CCP SOUNDWAVE -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAXqwewejwU&feature=player_embedded#t=1670s
I'LL FORGIVE YOU IF YOU LET ME DO THIS TO MINERS IN STATIONS.
HOP TO IT. |
Jed Bobby
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 15:58:00 -
[444] - Quote
what if they're buffing up ships to introduce super mega huge new death rays and stuff |
Xercodo
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam
1260
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 15:59:00 -
[445] - Quote
Aryth 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.
This has swung too far in the other direction. Doubling-Tripple EHP was most likely going to be the sweet spot. Increasing EHP 4-10x or more is hilariously skewed too far.
Wait....where?
You mean on the skiff right?
Cause the hulk didn't gain very much. And the tank is now the skiff's specific role... The Drake is a Lie |
Ditra Vorthran
State War Academy Caldari State
86
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:00:00 -
[446] - Quote
Why is it okay for gankers to tell miners that we should bring 'moar tank,' but when miners tell gankers to bring 'moar dps' they're somehow out of line? "Miners mine so I don't have to." ~Metal Icarus |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
407
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:01:00 -
[447] - Quote
Dave stark wrote: i don't disagree on some points; i do think the skiff's ehp is a little overkill. in reality all the hulk needs is enough cpu/pg to fill all of its slots without HAVING to have a fitting mod to fit a tank.
I can't take it anymore - You keep saying that Hulks need to fit 'fitting mods' to survive a Catalyst gank.
This is utter bullcrap and you need to stop repeating it.
Dave Stark- let me introduce you to the Damage Control II.
Damage Control II: meet the Hulk.
Hulk - you now have enough EHP to survive a T2 Catalyst gank with perfect skills in highsec - and you STILL have 1 Low slot, 4 mid slots and two rig slots left to work with.
So dispense with the misinformation, please.
|
Danny Diamonds
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:02:00 -
[448] - Quote
Ditra Vorthran wrote:Why is it okay for gankers to tell miners that we should bring 'moar tank,' but when miners tell gankers to bring 'moar dps' they're somehow out of line?
Crazy ideas you have. Logic does not work against the few vocal gankers here in GD. |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks The Marmite Collective
2044
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:03:00 -
[449] - Quote
Ditra Vorthran wrote:Why is it okay for gankers to tell miners that we should bring 'moar tank,' but when miners tell gankers to bring 'moar dps' they're somehow out of line? Because....uhhh...they're miners? And...MINERS ARE DUMB, OKAY?!
The Skunkworks is recruiting. -áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1540711#post1540711 |
gfldex
570
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:05:00 -
[450] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:the modules dropped from an exhumer exceeds the cost of the ship destroying it. is that the same with a freighter?
Well, yes? When someone burns down your sandcastle, bring sausages. |
|
Pipa Porto
506
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:05:00 -
[451] - Quote
TheSkeptic wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Danfen Fenix wrote:Wait, the dev blog about this has been up for weeks... Why has the complaining only started now ? The numbers hit SISI, so we've been shown that all of the Exhumers are getting a massive, free, tank buff. Marginal tank buff for mining ships just rebalances things after the destroyer damage buff.
Destroyer buff was the counter to insurance nerf. Pre-Crucible, people used Thoraxes which cost less to gank with than T2 Destroyers and put out more DPS. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Pipa Porto
506
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:08:00 -
[452] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Skippermonkey wrote:Alexzandvar Douglass wrote:As a Ice miner I welcome the update, as finally CCP recognizes you should have some ability to not instantly die the minute anything shoots you.
All I see is miles upon miles of butthurt, with no end in sight. Would you pvp in an untanked ship? Would you run a mission in an untanked ship? What makes miners so special that they think they dont need to fit a tank? no because you're intending to go in to a combat situation, tanks are for combat. mining ships are not a combat ship. that's like saying "would you wear a coat in the middle of summer?" "well the eskimos have to, so why don't you have to?"
EVE is a combat situation. If you didn't bother to bring a gun to the gunfight, whose fault is that?
When the forecast calls for rain and you don't bring an umbrella, whose fault is it that you get wet? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Xercodo
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam
1260
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:09:00 -
[453] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Dave stark wrote: i don't disagree on some points; i do think the skiff's ehp is a little overkill. in reality all the hulk needs is enough cpu/pg to fill all of its slots without HAVING to have a fitting mod to fit a tank.
I can't take it anymore - You keep saying that Hulks need to fit 'fitting mods' to survive a Catalyst gank. This is utter bullcrap and you need to stop repeating it. Dave Stark- let me introduce you to the Damage Control II. Damage Control II: meet the Hulk. Hulk - you now have enough EHP to survive a T2 Catalyst gank with perfect skills in highsec - and you STILL have 1 Low slot, 4 mid slots and two rig slots left to work with. So dispense with the misinformation, please.
I think his point is the hulk's inability to fit two MSEs at once without powergrid mods, rigs, and implants. The Drake is a Lie |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1443
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:09:00 -
[454] - Quote
Ditra Vorthran wrote:Why is it okay for gankers to tell miners that we should bring 'moar tank,' but when miners tell gankers to bring 'moar dps' they're somehow out of line?
because the miners did nothing for it? a rogue goon |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1186
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:10:00 -
[455] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Skippermonkey wrote:Dave stark wrote:Skippermonkey wrote:Dave stark wrote:neither. the profitability of suicide ganking in this context has nothing to do with cargo value, stop thinking it does. are you really that dumb? really? because ganking a 17k cargo space hulk for it's cargo means using a ship worth less than about 2-3m even a cheap destroyer would struggle to find profit in the dropped cargo. unless of course there was a source of income from that suicide gank other than the cargo.... I think you need to realise that suiciders gank people FOR MORE THAN ONE REASON AT ONCE jeez what does people's reasons for ganking have to do with it's profitability? are you really that dumb? Reasons to suicide a ship for: THE LULZ THE CARGO THE MODS THE SALVAGE THE TEARS ANNOYING A SHIPTOASTER FROM THE FORUMS
I really dont know what you are trying to argue anymore, other than your expensive ship shouldnt ever die to anything with a lower value? My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
267
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:10:00 -
[456] - Quote
gfldex wrote:Dave stark wrote:the modules dropped from an exhumer exceeds the cost of the ship destroying it. is that the same with a freighter? Well, yes?
i meant modules dropped from ship's fittings, not from ship's cargo. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
pussnheels
480
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:11:00 -
[457] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:pussnheels wrote:adapt or leave ahahahaha that's the same advice we gave to the miners, "fit a tank" "try drones that don't mine" "try not going AFK" but they felt entitled to have their max-yield fits AND a damnation-sized tank so they cried to CCP i didn't asked for your opinion nor do i want your opinion , eventually it will be crybabies and white trash teenagers , the ones your alliance is mostly made of will kill this game , now sod off I do not agree with what you are saying , but i will defend to the death your right to say it...... Voltaire |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks The Marmite Collective
2044
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:11:00 -
[458] - Quote
How to properly tank a hulk.
You can increase your EHP by 150% from the base hulk. You just have to give up cargo expanders and the ~15% yield boost from MLUs. Welcome to balance, where you have to choose between productivity and security. The Skunkworks is recruiting. -áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1540711#post1540711 |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1443
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:12:00 -
[459] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Skippermonkey wrote:Dave stark wrote:no, you fit your ship to do missions as efficiently as possible. that's the same thing as fitting to mine as efficiently as possible.
i have no problem with hulkaggedon, if you want to gank me i think you're perfectly entitled to do so; provided you actually have to put some effort in to it and not just use ships costing less than the contents of my jetcan. the tears from the gankers about this buff is the fact that they're no longer able to do it in throwaway ships and have to put some kind of investment in to ******* up some one's day. hard life isn't it?
So you are happy that CCP are effectively throwing ship balance out of the window to 'protect' hisec miners? Of course, i shouldnt really expect people to care about game balance when you just chew on rocks for a living yeah because a destroyer destroying a t2 ship worth close to 300m in a matter of seconds is perfectly balanced? ok.
yes, it is, if the guy in the 300m ship did nothing to repel that gank
CCP is literally throwing ship balance out the window. a rogue goon |
Pipa Porto
506
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:14:00 -
[460] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Skippermonkey wrote:Dave stark wrote:no, you fit your ship to do missions as efficiently as possible. that's the same thing as fitting to mine as efficiently as possible.
i have no problem with hulkaggedon, if you want to gank me i think you're perfectly entitled to do so; provided you actually have to put some effort in to it and not just use ships costing less than the contents of my jetcan. the tears from the gankers about this buff is the fact that they're no longer able to do it in throwaway ships and have to put some kind of investment in to ******* up some one's day. hard life isn't it?
So you are happy that CCP are effectively throwing ship balance out of the window to 'protect' hisec miners? Of course, i shouldnt really expect people to care about game balance when you just chew on rocks for a living yeah because a destroyer destroying a t2 ship worth close to 300m in a matter of seconds is perfectly balanced? ok.
If the owner of said T2 Ship doesn't bother to fit a tank, sure it's balanced. Because that's what's required for a T2 fit Destroyer to kill a Hulk. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8765
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:15:00 -
[461] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:a ship destroying another ship who's modules are worth more than the ganker's ship in a matter of seconds is perfectly balanced? Yes.
Cost is not a balancing factor. The worth or value of a ship's modules is utterly irrelevant. Soundwave repeating the mistakes of old and forgetting this very simple and perennially true fact is thoroughly heart-rending.
Ditra Vorthran wrote:Why is it okay for gankers to tell miners that we should bring 'moar tank,' but when miners tell gankers to bring 'moar dps' they're somehow out of line? Because the miners never did it and thus aren't a party in the conversation. Had miners ever been intelligent enough to fit a tank, and gankers whined that suddenly ships survived, then the miners could have countered with that argument, just like how gankers countered the miner's whines with GÇ£fit a tankGÇ¥.
What we have here, though, is that the miners never did anything to warrant the need to tell the gankers what to do. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1443
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:16:00 -
[462] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Cost is not a balancing factor. The worth or value of a ship's modules is utterly irrelevant. Soundwave repeating the mistakes of old and forgetting this very simple and perennially true fact is thoroughly heart-rending.
If Soundwave wasn't either trolling or using the wrong words, well, his post is pretty much the death of the PvP MMO. a rogue goon |
Arvantis Sauril
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:17:00 -
[463] - Quote
Quote:
When/IF these changes go live, what is stopping you from ganking ever Exhumer and mining barge in new eden? NOTHING
Nothing has changed, except you won't be able to use a Thrasher anymore, you will need quite a few friends
NOTHING ELSE HAS CHANGED
That is the definition of change my friend. What once was possible, is no longer.
Risk vs reward. Effort vs AFK.
Why should an unarmed mining ship feel like it is 100% safe in space? Space is so unbelievably massive that it is impossible to comprehend. Why should one lone miner in an exhumer feel 100% safe from possible attack while mining some asteroids? As Mara Rin (spelling?) said, the separation of smart, active miners, from those who choose to always fit for yield is effectively destroyed by this change. Hi sec mining becomes only about how many characters you can throw at the rocks. (And maybe it always was, but with these changes there is no longer predation, of any kind.)
These changes point at the game becoming more segregated, which is a terrible idea, imo. I understand that a great many mining players were very unhappy at losing their expensive ships to incentivized predation, but this is about the worst possible way to address that issue. A minor buff to the mining ships to help them not get obliterated by a destroyer and instead require a gank cruiser? Fine. But this? This is...a bit much.
If there was some huge fee that you had to pay to Concord for protection, or if all the asteroids in hi-sec vanished, then, ok, but creating or rewarding any kind of activity with low player interaction while at the same time making DEV Blogs about changing Moon goo due to the high rewards vs low interaction it requires on a micro scale, that just makes me wonder why I bothered getting a 3 month sub 4 days ago. You cannot reward it on one side and punish it on the other. When you do that you are no different than WoW devs tuning the "knobs" when encounters are too difficult. is this a theme park or is it a space sandbox? |
Pipa Porto
506
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:20:00 -
[464] - Quote
Dave stark wrote: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 it's more to do with the fact that the hulk can't fit a tank without fitting mods that's the issue. having to tank my hulk is fine; however the hulk doesn't have the fitting requirements to do so without fitting mods. i've never had to use fitting mods to fit a combat ship, ever. combat ships have the power grid and cpu to fill all their mid and low slots without fitting mods, why should a hulk be forced to use fitting mods to fill all the slots on the ship?
The following combat ships require at least one fitting mod. Arty Cane Every Logistics ship Ever. Hellcats (that T2 Elutrition rig? That's a fitting mod) 100mn Tengus (Officer Fitting mods, even). Stealth Bombers Fleet Dictors AHACs (Zealots need their RCU) Sniper HACs
You haven't flown many combat ships, have you? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Danny Diamonds
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:20:00 -
[465] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Tippia wrote:Cost is not a balancing factor. The worth or value of a ship's modules is utterly irrelevant. Soundwave repeating the mistakes of old and forgetting this very simple and perennially true fact is thoroughly heart-rending. If Soundwave wasn't either trolling or using the wrong words, well, his post is pretty much the death of the PvP MMO.
So increasing the EHP on Exhumers killed EVE?
*dies laughing*
Richard Desturned Troll is best troll. |
Ditra Vorthran
State War Academy Caldari State
87
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:21:00 -
[466] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:because the miners did nothing for it?
I disagree. I had to do a lot to get my hulk. A heck of a lot more than people have to do to get destroyers. "Miners mine so I don't have to." ~Metal Icarus |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
121
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:22:00 -
[467] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Because the miners never did it and thus aren't a party in the conversation. Had miners ever been intelligent enough to fit a tank, and gankers whined that suddenly ships survived, then the miners could have countered with that argument, just like how gankers countered the miner's whines with GÇ£fit a tankGÇ¥.
Do you want to test your theory? |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1443
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:22:00 -
[468] - Quote
Ditra Vorthran wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:because the miners did nothing for it? I disagree. I had to do a lot to get my hulk. A heck of a lot more than people have to do to get destroyers.
Great, did you do anything to protect it from being suicide ganked? No. a rogue goon |
Pipa Porto
506
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:22:00 -
[469] - Quote
Forum Clone 77777 wrote: Someone missed the ENTIRE point. Its not supposed to be good profits to gank a Hulk mining in a belt. OFCOURSE its still gonna be profitable to gank people hauling around valuable stuff. Or else they would need to, in theory, find a way to make it more expensive to get a ship able to gank an Ibis hauling 5 plex than whatever you might get from the drop after the Ibis is dead, which in theory could be 5 plex = 2bil +
It's not profitably at all to gank a Hulk mining in a belt, unless the Hulk pilot chooses not to protect their investment by fitting a proper tank. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1443
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:23:00 -
[470] - Quote
Danny Diamonds wrote:So increasing the EHP on Exhumers killed EVE?
*dies laughing*
Richard Desturned Troll is best troll.
Not necessarily, but Soundwave saying "well you should lose more than the victim in hisec" along with what I've seen of their intentions with the insurance nerf, Crimewatch, this dumbing down of the game - yeah, welcome to a risk-free hisec. a rogue goon |
|
Pipa Porto
506
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:25:00 -
[471] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Tippia wrote:Because the miners never did it and thus aren't a party in the conversation. Had miners ever been intelligent enough to fit a tank, and gankers whined that suddenly ships survived, then the miners could have countered with that argument, just like how gankers countered the miner's whines with GÇ£fit a tankGÇ¥. Do you want to test your theory?
9,000 Exhumer kills says that most miners don't bother taking any steps to safeguard their 300m investment. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Kyra Yaken
State War Academy Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:25:00 -
[472] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Ditra Vorthran wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:because the miners did nothing for it? I disagree. I had to do a lot to get my hulk. A heck of a lot more than people have to do to get destroyers. Great, did you do anything to protect it from being suicide ganked? No.
Sweet, nor did gankers to fit dessy. Now gankers will have to work harder for thier kills |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8765
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:26:00 -
[473] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Do you want to test your theory? What theory?
Kyra Yaken wrote:Sweet, nor did gankers to fit dessy. Fun fact: a destroyer could never kill a Hulk unless the Hulk pilot actively chose to make it happen. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
dexington
81
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:27:00 -
[474] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote: ... this dumbing down of the game - yeah, welcome to a risk-free hisec.
How can it be dumping down the game, when they make it harder for the gankers? GÇ£The best way to keep something bad from happening is to see it ahead of time, and you can't see it if you refuse to face the possibility.GÇ¥-á |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1443
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:28:00 -
[475] - Quote
dexington wrote:Richard Desturned wrote: ... this dumbing down of the game - yeah, welcome to a risk-free hisec. How can it be dumping down the game, when they make it harder for the gankers?
oh right, I forgot that gankers are actually the only players in the equation here
hint: they made it easier for the miners a rogue goon |
Danny Diamonds
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:29:00 -
[476] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Danny Diamonds wrote:So increasing the EHP on Exhumers killed EVE?
*dies laughing*
Richard Desturned Troll is best troll. Not necessarily, but Soundwave saying "well you should lose more than the victim in hisec" along with what I've seen of their intentions with the insurance nerf, Crimewatch, this dumbing down of the game - yeah, welcome to a risk-free hisec.
So you can't be bothered to bring more dps to the fight? I fail to see the issue.
Or are you mad that cycling alts due to SEC status loss wont be as fast anymore because you need more than one? Maybe you could just grind your SEC status back up (as intended) instead of just using ALTS like ammo? |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1443
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:31:00 -
[477] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:The following combat ships require at least one fitting mod. Arty Cane Every Logistics ship Ever. Hellcats (that T2 Elutrition rig? That's a fitting mod) 100mn Tengus (Officer Fitting mods, even). Stealth Bombers Fleet Dictors AHACs (Zealots need their RCU) Sniper HACs
You haven't flown many combat ships, have you?
let's not forget that amarr battleships can't fit a full rack of tachyon lasers (that's without a plate or anything else) without fitting mods or ACR rigs
oh and virtually every t1/t2/faction frigate fitting needs at least an MAPC, i don't get why dudes are whining about "i need fitting mods and that doesn't let me fit MY MLUS because I shouldn't make sacrifices to fit a tank like everyone else in this game because I am a special snowflake, a miner" a rogue goon |
Ditra Vorthran
State War Academy Caldari State
87
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:32:00 -
[478] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Great, did you do anything to protect it from being suicide ganked? No.
Unless you've been staring over my shoulder watching how/when/where I mine, you can't answer that question, so stop putting words in my mouth.
And no, no one has ever successfuly ganked me. "Miners mine so I don't have to." ~Metal Icarus |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
121
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:34:00 -
[479] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Not necessarily, but Soundwave saying "well you should lose more than the victim in hisec" along with what I've seen of their intentions with the insurance nerf, Crimewatch, this dumbing down of the game - yeah, welcome to a risk-free hisec.
Soundwave didn't say that.
If you find a shuttle full of PLEXes or freighter full of officer mods go ahead and do whatever you want. If they're stupid enough to haul those they really deserve to lose it. How much is salvage worth? Not much. Most of your profit comes from items dropped from cargohold.
Ganking a Hulk and getting 25M worth of salvage from wreck is different story.
Or just go shoot people in lowsec/nullsec/wormhole. Very good chance that some of them might shoot back. |
Sarcasim
The Southern Gentleman's Social Club Event Horizon Protocol
2
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:34:00 -
[480] - Quote
Would someone please call the WHAAAAMBULANCE...we seem to have alot of butthurt people in eve. |
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1443
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:34:00 -
[481] - Quote
Ditra Vorthran wrote:Unless you've been staring over my shoulder watching how/when/where I mine, you can't answer that question, so stop putting words in my mouth.
And no, no one has ever successfuly ganked me.
Great, and if you put effort towards not getting ganked, you benefited from doing so - you definitely had an advantage over the miners who refused to fit a tank, refused to not go AFK and kept losing Hulks considering that prices of low-ends are through the roof.
Now, you won't gain any advantage from not going AFK. Your ship is equally safe whether you are vigilant at your keyboard or doing your laundry and shoveling your driveway. a rogue goon |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
267
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:35:00 -
[482] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Dave stark wrote: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 it's more to do with the fact that the hulk can't fit a tank without fitting mods that's the issue. having to tank my hulk is fine; however the hulk doesn't have the fitting requirements to do so without fitting mods. i've never had to use fitting mods to fit a combat ship, ever. combat ships have the power grid and cpu to fill all their mid and low slots without fitting mods, why should a hulk be forced to use fitting mods to fill all the slots on the ship? The following combat ships require at least one fitting mod. Arty Cane Every Logistics ship Ever. Hellcats (that T2 Elutrition rig? That's a fitting mod) 100mn Tengus (Officer Fitting mods, even). Stealth Bombers Fleet Dictors AHACs (Zealots need their RCU) Sniper HACs You haven't flown many combat ships, have you?
none on that list, no. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
pussnheels
481
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:35:00 -
[483] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:This is a factual post if you ignore the fact that all 3 exhumers could be tanked, the rise in ships was mostly down to massive inflation and minerals jumped due to drone alloy nerf. Or in other words, you just lied.
i didn't asked nor do i want the opinion of a goon or one of their puppies , it are the crybabies that make up most of your alliances that keeps EVE from evolving into a total game where there is a place for ALL sort of playstyles
sure you can tank any exhumer but that isn't the point my point is that none of you pvp zealots can give a solid answer on why people should not be allowed to afk mine maybe earning 10 mil / hour at beqst all the while you nullseccers can afk your moon goo I do not agree with what you are saying , but i will defend to the death your right to say it...... Voltaire |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1186
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:36:00 -
[484] - Quote
http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/8131/herrwhenidowilkuss.png My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8766
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:37:00 -
[485] - Quote
Danny Diamonds wrote:So you can't be bothered to bring more dps to the fight? I fail to see the issue. Maybe if you tried reading.
It has nothing to do with DPS. It has to do with the lead game designer using a thoroughly and completely discredited balance concept that became obsolete somewhere in the early Triassic era GÇö a view on balance that simply does not work, and which has been proven beyond any doubt not to work time and time again (and which is responsible for one of the most egregious imbalances this game has offered GÇö one that they are struggling to correct to this day). GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Danny Diamonds
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:37:00 -
[486] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:... Very good chance that some of them might shoot back.
I think this is the major issue for the gankers; they don't want a fair fight or even a target. They just want free loot, guaranteed to be worth more than their calculated loss. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1443
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:37:00 -
[487] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Not necessarily, but Soundwave saying "well you should lose more than the victim in hisec" along with what I've seen of their intentions with the insurance nerf, Crimewatch, this dumbing down of the game - yeah, welcome to a risk-free hisec. Soundwave didn't say that. If you find a shuttle full of PLEXes or freighter full of officer mods go ahead and do whatever you want. If they're stupid enough to haul those they really deserve to lose it. How much is salvage worth? Not much. Most of your profit comes from items dropped from cargohold. Ganking a Hulk and getting 25M worth of salvage from wreck is different story. Or just go shoot people in lowsec/nullsec/wormhole. Very good chance that some of them might shoot back.
You haven't heard of Crimewatch, have you?
And quit saying "well if u wan2 pvp go to lo/nul/wh cuz thts whar evry1 pvps" - I haven't suicide ganked anything in hisec since our ice interdiction, but I don't believe that hisec should be a safe, fun, happy carebear land. a rogue goon |
Danny Diamonds
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:39:00 -
[488] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Danny Diamonds wrote:So you can't be bothered to bring more dps to the fight? I fail to see the issue. Maybe if you tried reading. It has nothing to do with DPS. It has to do with the lead game designer using a thoroughly and completely discredited balance concept that became obsolete somewhere in the early Triassic era GÇö a view on balance that simply does not work, and which has been proven beyond any doubt not to work time and time again (and which is responsible for one of the most egregious imbalances this game has offered GÇö one that they are struggling to correct to this day).
I don't think his comments were off mark in any way *IF* we consider context. If it is a blanket statement, then I might be more curious/concerned. But I am not. |
dexington
83
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:40:00 -
[489] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:dexington wrote:Richard Desturned wrote: ... this dumbing down of the game - yeah, welcome to a risk-free hisec. How can it be dumping down the game, when they make it harder for the gankers? oh right, I forgot that gankers are actually the only players in the equation here hint: they made it easier for the miners
hint: primarily in hi-sec, where it should be hard to gank miners... somehow it makes sense.
if anything the game was dumped down so the self proclaimed hardcore pvp'ers could gank miners in hi-sec, now that it's going to take just a little skills/brains to find someone to gank, the same people are crying "the end of eve"... GÇ£The best way to keep something bad from happening is to see it ahead of time, and you can't see it if you refuse to face the possibility.GÇ¥-á |
Xercodo
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam
1260
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:43:00 -
[490] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:
yes, it is, if the guy in the 300m ship did nothing to repel that gank
CCP is literally throwing ship balance out the window.
A) Can you provide ANY other case where a destroyer can suicide gank a ship of similar value besides a hulk? The "gank balance" on the current hulk is horribly out of wack, even when using 3 destroyers to kill a tanked hulk. Look at the values of some other common ganked ships. Pimped marauders, pimped faction BSes, freighters, orcas, industrials. Compared to the hull price these ship types require quite a bit of damage from several ships to be taken down with the exception of the indies which in most cases have a hull value less than a single destroyer.
By this logic it should only take maybe 6-8 destroyers at most to kill an orca but even an untanked orca should be able to shrug that off.
B) Ship balance is a concept and not a physical object, it cannot be thrown anywhere. The Drake is a Lie |
|
Pipa Porto
506
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:45:00 -
[491] - Quote
dexington wrote:hint: primarily in hi-sec, where it should be hard to gank miners... somehow it makes sense.
if anything the game was dumped down so the self proclaimed hardcore pvp'ers could gank miners in hi-sec, now that it's going to take just a little skills/brains to find someone to gank, the same people are crying "the end of eve"...
It is exactly as hard to gank miners in HS as they make it.
If you fit a moderately tanked Hulk and mine in a highish sec band, you can't be profitably ganked. If you mine aligned, you can't be ganked at all. If you fit a brick tank you your Hulk, you can mine wherever you want in HS, and you can't be profitably ganked. If you bring RR, ECM (including drones), or a blap Nado friend, your moderately tanked Hulk won't be able to be profitably ganked anywhere either (even including the GSF bounties).
It's only easy to gank miners in HS because the miners don't do anything at all to protect themselves. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8766
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:45:00 -
[492] - Quote
dexington wrote:hint: primarily in hi-sec, where it should be hard to gank miners Why?
Or, more precisely: why does it need to be harder than it is, seeing as how the miners already have to actively choose to make it worth-while?
Danny Diamonds wrote:I don't think his comments were off mark in any way *IF* we consider context. The context doesn't matter. He's either using it as a blanket statement, or he's using it about a specific group, meaning that for some reason, they should abide by different rules than the rest of the game. Either way, it's the same deeply flawed balancing concept that has only ever managed to make things unbalanced. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
pussnheels
481
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:45:00 -
[493] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:[quote=Richard Desturned] Or just go shoot people in lowsec/nullsec/wormhole. Very good chance that some of them might shoot back. You haven't heard of Crimewatch, have you? And quit saying "well if u wan2 pvp go to lo/nul/wh cuz thts whar evry1 pvps" - I haven't suicide ganked anything in hisec since our ice interdiction, but I don't believe that hisec should be a safe, fun, happy carebear land.
and you are right about high sec shouldn't; any other way and it will kill the whole game and i be"lieve it will never be
i only believe that people should play how they want to play yhe game and not being forced to do things they donj't like and if they refuse to mine smart they will fall victim sooner or later even with these new barges/exhumers
I do not agree with what you are saying , but i will defend to the death your right to say it...... Voltaire |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
122
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:47:00 -
[494] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:You haven't heard of Crimewatch, have you?
And quit saying "well if u wan2 pvp go to lo/nul/wh cuz thts whar evry1 pvps" - I haven't suicide ganked anything in hisec since our ice interdiction, but I don't believe that hisec should be a safe, fun, happy carebear land.
It's "safe, happy carebear land" if you let it to be.
1) Get GCC'd 2) I'll show you how safe it really is 3) ??? 4) Profit |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
408
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:47:00 -
[495] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:http://img338.imageshack.us/img338/8131/herrwhenidowilkuss.png
lol.
I try.....at least until the ISD gets a hold of them. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1443
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:47:00 -
[496] - Quote
Xercodo wrote:A) Can you provide ANY other case where a destroyer can suicide gank a ship of similar value besides a hulk? The "gank balance" on the current hulk is horribly out of wack, even when using 3 destroyers to kill a tanked hulk. Look at the values of some other common ganked ships. Pimped marauders, pimped faction BSes, freighters, orcas, industrials. Compared to the hull price these ship types require quite a bit of damage from several ships to be taken down with the exception of the indies which in most cases have a hull value less than a single destroyer.
By this logic it should only take maybe 6-8 destroyers at most to kill an orca but even an untanked orca should be able to shrug that off.
B) Ship balance is a concept and not a physical object, it cannot be thrown anywhere.
So because a Hulk costs 300 million ISK, I should be able to outmine it in a faction battleship, simply because it costs more. a rogue goon |
Pipa Porto
506
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:47:00 -
[497] - Quote
Xercodo wrote:A) Can you provide ANY other case where a destroyer can suicide gank a ship of similar value besides a hulk?
Fit the same way as most of the Hulks on the GSF KB, yes. Every AHAC. Every Recon.
Fit a Tank on your Hulk, and you tank as well as most AHACs (quite a bit better than the Vaga or Deimos, in fact). EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1186
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:48:00 -
[498] - Quote
Xercodo wrote:A) Can you provide ANY other case where a destroyer can suicide gank a ship of similar value besides a hulk? pretty much any untanked T2 cruiser My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
Lyron-Baktos
Selective Pressure Rote Kapelle
283
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:50:00 -
[499] - Quote
ITT, failed pvp'ers crying about not being able to kill miners On holiday. -áIn some other world. Where the music of the radio was a labyrinth of sonorous colours. To a bright centre of absolute convicton where the dripping patchouli was more than scent, It was a sun-á |
Danny Diamonds
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:50:00 -
[500] - Quote
Tippia wrote:dexington wrote:hint: primarily in hi-sec, where it should be hard to gank miners Why? Or, more precisely: why does it need to be harder than it is, seeing as how the miners already have to actively choose to make it worth-while? Danny Diamonds wrote:I don't think his comments were off mark in any way *IF* we consider context. The context doesn't matter. He's either using it as a blanket statement, or he's using it about a specific group, meaning that for some reason, they should abide by different rules than the rest of the game. Either way, it's the same deeply flawed balancing concept that has only ever managed to make things unbalanced. I hereby demand that it should take at least 10bn worth of ships to kill my Nomad.
You are trying very hard to make this a bigger issue than it really is. Want to gank Exhumers in Hisec? Bring more dps. This is the only potential change we have any notion of related to the OP. As of right now, we don't even have the final numbers. |
|
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1186
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:53:00 -
[501] - Quote
Danny Diamonds wrote:You are trying very hard to make this a bigger issue than it really is. Adapting the game to fit the miners instead of adapting the miners to fit the game is acceptable for you? My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8769
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:54:00 -
[502] - Quote
Danny Diamonds wrote:You are trying very hard to make this a bigger issue than it really is. It is a bigger issue.
Again, a senior game designer is following a balancing concept that has only ever managed to create massive imbalances.
It doesn't really get any bigger than that. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Nikodiemus
Jokulhlaup
47
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:54:00 -
[503] - Quote
And now the other mining ships will be worth using again depending on differing circumstances. Sounds like more options and flexibility to the players. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1443
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:57:00 -
[504] - Quote
Nikodiemus wrote:And now the other mining ships will be worth using again depending on differing circumstances. Sounds like more options and flexibility to the players.
Increasing options and flexibility would have involved giving the ships the ability to FIT a tank at the expense of yield, not simply GIVING them one on a silver platter. a rogue goon |
Kyra Yaken
State War Academy Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:58:00 -
[505] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Nikodiemus wrote:And now the other mining ships will be worth using again depending on differing circumstances. Sounds like more options and flexibility to the players. Increasing options and flexibility would have involved giving the ships the ability to FIT a tank at the expense of yield, not simply GIVING them one on a silver platter.
Wasnt that same as when CCP gave gankers tier3 on silver plate? |
Arvantis Sauril
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 16:59:00 -
[506] - Quote
dexington wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:dexington wrote:Richard Desturned wrote: ... this dumbing down of the game - yeah, welcome to a risk-free hisec. How can it be dumping down the game, when they make it harder for the gankers? oh right, I forgot that gankers are actually the only players in the equation here hint: they made it easier for the miners hint: primarily in hi-sec, where it should be hard to gank miners... somehow it makes sense. if anything the game was dumped down so the self proclaimed hardcore pvp'ers could gank miners in hi-sec, now that it's going to take just a little skills/brains to find someone to gank, the same people are crying "the end of eve"...
As long as there is little incentive for players to mine in Hi-Sec, then yes, it should be hard to gank in Hi-Sec. The game works. If however, you can find the same return on mining (or missioning or ratting or whatever it is you do)in Hi-Sec that you can in Null and Low, then the game stops functioning and is now broken. How do you not understand this?
If unkillable-hi-sec-miner-minerals were only allowed to be sold to NPC factions at some pittance, and restricted from entering the player markets, then the system could work. But they won't be and the system won't work.
You can't have it both ways. (Well you can, but once you do the game stops being compelling and...)
I understand there is pain and a feeling of shock and rage at the loss of an expensive ship, but why would you fly that expensive ship if you couldn't adequately protect it? ISk/hour? Greed? I thought this game was all about risk vs reward. Calculations. High learning curve. Don't fly what you can't afford to lose.
No one wins with these changes. A newbie miner who only ever mines, would never make enough isk to graduate up the ORE chain the way minerals will likely tank. Already established self sufficient solo miners will pound away for hours and barely make enough ISK to pay for all their logistics costs. A massive influx of minerals will reduce ship costs, making ship losses even less important than they already are, and increasing the number of Super Caps in the game. The game will stretch even further between the have's and have not's.
The only ones who benefit from this will be the AFK botter mine armies and the already established Null Alliances who will triple their Super numbers and make SOV warfare even more pointless than it already is.
Nothing good will come of this.
How can you not see this?
|
Jed Bobby
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 17:00:00 -
[507] - Quote
General consensus says. People are mad that its possible to have options AND still do well in a game
apparently: there MUST be ONE ship that wins EVE |
Danny Diamonds
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 17:00:00 -
[508] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:Danny Diamonds wrote:You are trying very hard to make this a bigger issue than it really is. Adapting the game to fit the miners instead of adapting the miners to fit the game is acceptable for you?
I find the currently known changes to be "Acceptable", yes. I would have preferred they left the Hulk's EHP alone and implement all the other changes as they are proposed (Ore cargo hold changes, EHP on skiff and Mak are all good IMO). But it wasn't my decision to make.
Alternatively, they could have given the Hulk 1 or 2 more low slots so it could fit MLU's and still have room for a DC2 and whatever. But again, this is a decent alternative.
All we are talking about is increase in EHP. I fail to see why this is such a big deal. Bring more dps. |
Pipa Porto
506
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 17:00:00 -
[509] - Quote
Kyra Yaken wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Nikodiemus wrote:And now the other mining ships will be worth using again depending on differing circumstances. Sounds like more options and flexibility to the players. Increasing options and flexibility would have involved giving the ships the ability to FIT a tank at the expense of yield, not simply GIVING them one on a silver platter. Wasnt that same as when CCP gave gankers tier3 on silver plate?
You mean when they removed Insurance payouts for Suicide ganking, resulting in an overall increase in the cost of ganking things even taking t3s and the Dessy buff into account?
That's some awfully tarnished silver. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1443
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 17:02:00 -
[510] - Quote
Kyra Yaken wrote:Wasnt that same as when CCP gave gankers tier3 on silver plate?
tell me when you see a tier 3 BC ganking a hulk a rogue goon |
|
Jed Bobby
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 17:03:00 -
[511] - Quote
commiting a crime is in VIOLATION of your insurance policy.
Why should you get paid for being a criminal? dumbass |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8769
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 17:03:00 -
[512] - Quote
Kyra Yaken wrote:Wasnt that same as when CCP gave gankers tier3 on silver plate? Tier-3s came with inherent (and significant) drawbacks to compensate for the advantages they provide.
So no. It's not quite the same.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1443
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 17:06:00 -
[513] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Kyra Yaken wrote:Wasnt that same as when CCP gave gankers tier3 on silver plate? Tier-3s came with inherent (and significant) drawbacks to compensate for the advantages they provide, which is why they aren't all that popular for ganking. So no. It's not quite the same.
and the dude you quoted assumes that tier 3 BCs are only ever used for hisec ganking a rogue goon |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1443
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 17:07:00 -
[514] - Quote
Danny Diamonds wrote:Bring more dps.
Miners are just going to whine when it's 6 Catalysts killing their Hulks and Mackinaws instead of 1 or 2. Then CCP will implement more changes to nerf suicide ganking. What's the difference? a rogue goon |
Danny Diamonds
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 17:15:00 -
[515] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Danny Diamonds wrote:Bring more dps. Miners are just going to whine when it's 6 Catalysts killing their Hulks and Mackinaws instead of 1 or 2. Then CCP will implement more changes to nerf suicide ganking. What's the difference?
Crazy idea, but why not go find challenging targets to shoot? You know, maybe those that are allowed to be fitted with guns? Or maybe haulers with tasty loots? When it takes 6 destroyers to take out a miner, I don't think there will be much support for the whiner. They surely wont have my support (not that it means much; I am just one EVE player). |
Kyra Yaken
State War Academy Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 17:16:00 -
[516] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Danny Diamonds wrote:Bring more dps. Miners are just going to whine when it's 6 Catalysts killing their Hulks and Mackinaws instead of 1 or 2. Then CCP will implement more changes to nerf suicide ganking. What's the difference?
So you are admiting that the ganking will stil be going with dessies. Why are you so concern about new tank for miners? |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1444
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 17:17:00 -
[517] - Quote
Danny Diamonds wrote:Crazy idea, but why not go find challenging targets to shoot? You know, maybe those that are allowed to be fitted with guns? Or maybe haulers with tasty loots? When it takes 6 destroyers to take out a miner, I don't think there will be much support for the whiner. They surely wont have my support (not that it means much; I am just one EVE player).
miners will whine whether it takes 6 catalysts to kill them or 6 vindicators
they will whine about dying until the day CCP hamfistedly removes the ability to aggress a ship in hisec outside of wardecs
and they'll still whine about getting popped by wartargets until that's nuked as well a rogue goon |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1444
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 17:18:00 -
[518] - Quote
Kyra Yaken wrote:So you are admiting that the ganking will stil be going with dessies. Why are you so concern about new tank for miners?
the direction they're taking, treating miners (hiseccers in general, with crimewatch) as a protected class who get to fly ships that were originally meant to be paper-thin but can now tank better than command ships
welcome to EVE Online: Nonconsensual Ganking Eliminated (NGE for short) a rogue goon |
Xercodo
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam
1260
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 17:19:00 -
[519] - Quote
Unfitted Zealot: Jita Price: 174,996,056.98 Base EHP with all 5s: 10,843 ISK per EHP: 16,139.08
Unfitted Hulk: Jita Price: 279,893,053.00 Base EHP with all 5s: 9,217 ISK per EHP: 30,367.04
Vagabond: 17,948.77 Pilgrim: 22,595.88 Sacrilege: 10,963.04 Rapier: 26,249.02
The claim that T2 cruisers are just as bad has some merit to it given that you also ignore the fact that the recons I posted can also use a covert cloak.
The combat recons are already significantly lower in the case of the Curse: 18,213.24
Thus making the Hulk's "ISK per base EHP ratio" should be closer to 20,000 instead of 30,000. This means that the base EHP of the hulk, with all level 5 skills and no modules fitted at all, should be around 13,994 EHP, give or take a few 100.
Not completely unreasonable is it?
In the same breath I also ask...how many of you fly T2 cruisers with nothing but tank on it? In the case of recons you're gonna have some ewar on there, in the case of HACs you're gonna have some dmg mods and TEs on there possibly. If you ARE purely tank then you're bait and hardly do any damage compared to the guys that DO fit dmg mods.
The other problem we have is that those ships also have MUCH better fitting. The hulk's best option for tanking uses two SMALL shield extenders. I dunno about you but I'm pretty sure that all the T2 cruisers can fit a LSE or a 800mm plate while still doing decent damage with a dmg mod.
So if you're going to compare the hulk to T2 cruisers I would ask that the hulk be able to be fitted similarly to a T2 cruiser's tank relative to it's ability to do it's main function (ewar or damage) before you make that sort of claim. By this logic not only should the base EHP of an unfitted hulk should be higher it should also have the ability to fit at least ONE LSE while also fitting one MLU besides a damage control. In this way it would then be much closer to the effectiveness of a T2 cruiser that has fitted a tank and a dmg mod. The Drake is a Lie |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1187
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 17:21:00 -
[520] - Quote
I found a way of summing up the entire 'buff the hulk' brigade
http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/250x250/23999039.jpg My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
122
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 17:22:00 -
[521] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Miners are just going to whine when it's 6 Catalysts killing their Hulks and Mackinaws instead of 1 or 2. Then CCP will implement more changes to nerf suicide ganking. What's the difference?
If you use 5 or 6 destroyers to destroy one ship kudos to you sir. That's effort, not just easy profit.
No way I would cry after that especially if you bought those destroyers from me. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1445
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 17:28:00 -
[522] - Quote
the difference between recons and hulks is that the recons take active measures to protect themselves
call me when a recon can mine 3000 ore/minute or do literally anything that generates wealth
unlike a recon, a hulk pays for itself a rogue goon |
Ginseng Jita
PAN-EVE TRADING COMPANY
1674
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 17:31:00 -
[523] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Kyra Yaken wrote:So you are admiting that the ganking will stil be going with dessies. Why are you so concern about new tank for miners? the direction they're taking, treating miners (hiseccers in general, with crimewatch) as a protected class who get to fly ships that were originally meant to be paper-thin but can now tank better than command ships welcome to EVE Online: Nonconsensual Ganking Eliminated (NGE for short)
Right on mate. I'm a high-seccer and I approve of this message.
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
122
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 17:35:00 -
[524] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:the difference between recons and hulks is that the recons take active measures to protect themselves
call me when a recon can mine 3000 ore/minute or do literally anything that generates wealth
unlike a recon, a hulk pays for itself
I've heard Pilgrim is quite good for exploration. |
gfldex
570
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 17:37:00 -
[525] - Quote
pussnheels wrote:my point is that none of you pvp zealots can give a solid answer on why people should not be allowed to afk mine maybe earning 10 mil / hour at beqst all the while you nullseccers can afk your moon goo
Because of the interaction of PLEX and AFK mining. With PLEX one can scale up "AFK" mining to a point where it becomes game breaking. You can't scale up moon mining because there is a hard cap on the moons. When someone burns down your sandcastle, bring sausages. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1445
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 17:39:00 -
[526] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:I've heard Pilgrim is quite good for exploration.
how much effort is required for exploration compared to, say, warping a hulk to your favorite bookmark and setting the lasers free on three different asteroids for ~max afkness~ a rogue goon |
Danny Diamonds
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 17:40:00 -
[527] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Danny Diamonds wrote:Crazy idea, but why not go find challenging targets to shoot? You know, maybe those that are allowed to be fitted with guns? Or maybe haulers with tasty loots? When it takes 6 destroyers to take out a miner, I don't think there will be much support for the whiner. They surely wont have my support (not that it means much; I am just one EVE player). miners will whine whether it takes 6 catalysts to kill them or 6 vindicators they will whine about dying until the day CCP hamfistedly removes the ability to aggress a ship in hisec outside of wardecs and they'll still whine about getting popped by wartargets until that's nuked as well
Yes, they will whine regardless. Much like how you will whine on GD every time any change is proposed, anywhere unless you came up with the idea. |
Jed Bobby
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 17:41:00 -
[528] - Quote
isn't that what the games about? playing how you want to >.> otherwise we'd all play wow |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
480
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 17:41:00 -
[529] - Quote
Richard Desturned 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). so you're saying that it should literally cost half a billion to kill an afk mining hulk, one with nothing fitted as far as a tank, absolutely nothing trained as far as tanking skills and no effort taken to mitigate the risk of being blown up i'm not trying to put words in your mouth but that sounds like what you're trying to say by "it should cost more to kill a ship than what the ship is worth"
Yes eve is not fair goon.
If you want to kill miners war dec them... And if you cant then advocate for a npc corp nerf like I am... Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
Danny Diamonds
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 17:41:00 -
[530] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:I've heard Pilgrim is quite good for exploration. how much effort is required for exploration compared to, say, warping a hulk to your favorite bookmark and setting the lasers free on three different asteroids for ~max afkness~
In both cases, more effort is required than ganking a Hulk with a catalyst on a disposable alt. |
|
Arvantis Sauril
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 17:42:00 -
[531] - Quote
gfldex wrote:pussnheels wrote:my point is that none of you pvp zealots can give a solid answer on why people should not be allowed to afk mine maybe earning 10 mil / hour at beqst all the while you nullseccers can afk your moon goo Because of the interaction of PLEX and AFK mining. With PLEX one can scale up "AFK" mining to a point where it becomes game breaking. You can scale up moon mining because there is a hard cap on the moons.
Also, it takes a lot of effort to acquire said moon. I don't know how intensive it is to reap the rewards once you have it, but it takes quite a bit of coordination, effort, time, resources to get there in the first place, and no way is it done alone. AFK mining however takes no such commitment.
Both are bad. But one should not be rewarded while the other is punished. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1445
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 17:42:00 -
[532] - Quote
Danny Diamonds wrote:In both cases, more effort is required than ganking a Hulk with a catalyst on a disposable alt.
have you ever done this? a rogue goon |
Xercodo
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam
1261
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 17:43:00 -
[533] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:the difference between recons and hulks is that the recons take active measures to protect themselves call me when a recon can mine 3000 ore/minute or do literally anything that generates wealth unlike a recon, a hulk pays for itself
I've used a passive shield tanked pilgrim for ninja ratting in null sec. Since it's drones do most of the work I can fit mostly for tank and not lose out on much.
In the case of the pilgrim and other recons their intended goal is to be support ships that specialize in ewar in PVP. Assuming this, you then have to have fits that are going to balance the tank and ewar effectiveness of those ships. The rapier and huginn are a good example of having to sacrifice effectiveness for tanking. If you get a huginn in your fleet that has only one web fitted cause he used the rest of his mids for tanking then you'll likely ***** him out for not doing his role properly. On the other hand if he fits NOTHING but webs he will likely die the second he gets primaried by anything and his ship results in being less effective for the fleet (especially if they have to reimburse him, he becomes a detriment).
For the argument for "show me a recon that makes money" the huggin is also a great incursion ship, for webbing and TPing the smaller targets so that the DPS BSes can pop them easily.
It could also be argued that any PVP ship can make money from FW and/or being a merc. These are professions that reward that ship for being good at its role. The Drake is a Lie |
Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy Black Sun Alliance
289
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 17:44:00 -
[534] - Quote
wait you forgot the best part of the story!
Then the "little" miner noticed that the big bad ganker hypocrit with many alts had sooo many passive income flows that he didn't need to do much work at all to make many hundreds of millions more an hour than the "little" miner and in complete safety - leaving him way too much boring time on his hands which the ganker used to take advantage of improvements in all combat ships to gank and gank and gank with ease. The "little" miner knew that mining vessels had not had a single modification to their power/survival since they were released, allowing the combat ships to unfairly become unbalanced against them in the extreme.
The "little" miner had no representation on the CSM so he did the only ting left to him; he voiced his concerns on the forums... to which the angry and hypocritical ganker posted, "you mad bro, you might as well bio-scrap your sorry character and go play ::insert name of childs game here::" The hypocritical ganker made a point of flaunting every advantage they gained over time with the assistance of their representation on the CSM.. claiming to live on "little" miner tears even though everyone knew that a diet of tears was completely unheatlhy even for gankers.
Finally, the big bad ganker so over played his hand that it became obvious to all who looked on that the "little" miner was being unfairly treated.. most of his freinds had left the game and the eve population had shrunk due to the fact that nearly 70% of the population of eve had been made up or "little" miners.
The fairy stepped in to balance the unfairness the best she could, reducing the hypocritical gankers passive income a little and giving the "little" miner an overdue balance in ship design... The hypocritical ganker cried big elephant tears for weeks and made up stories casting miners in a negative light in order to try to win a nerf for he and all the other hypocritical gankers and others like the nerfherders and and the smack-griefers.
Somewhere in her magic castle, the fairy isn't even finished casting her spell and already the crying ganker is complaining bitterly in his maudlin sobbing madness. How will it end..? The ganker, being a vindictive sort will plan and plot his revenge as the hot tears run down his dirty face.. but we'll have to see what happens next. [IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG] |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8769
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 17:44:00 -
[535] - Quote
Danny Diamonds wrote:In both cases, more effort is required than ganking a Hulk with a catalyst on a disposable alt. Since the latter is impossible without the Hulk pilot's permission, I find that pretty hard to believeGǪ
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Guttripper
State War Academy Caldari State
167
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 17:45:00 -
[536] - Quote
Perhaps someone could refresh this old timer's memory...
I remember long ago CCP boosted the shield, armor, and structure for all ships in the game. Were the mining ships included?
About a year or two ago, CCP removed the -25% rate of fire from the Destroyer class ships. Recently and as stated numerous times during this past Alliance Tournament, frigates were boosted - especially the Merlin.
So has anyone done number crunching comparisons based on the old stats to the new stats? I can understand if CCP boosted the mining ships in a similar percentage. But based upon what I saw in terms of numbers thrown out there, my first thoughts besides the obvious ones of disbelief were CCP just made the Orca irrelavent short of being a booster ship.
I do apologize if all of this has been discussed, but 27 pages to peruse will be quite daunting for a semi-interested reader. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
122
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 17:46:00 -
[537] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:how much effort is required for exploration compared to, say, warping a hulk to your favorite bookmark and setting the lasers free on three different asteroids for ~max afkness~
I don't know. You should ask from Ishtar pilots because it's more afk friendly than Pilgrim.
And, mining with couple of Hulks and max Orca boost is far from "max afkness". |
Hicksimus
Slaxtopia Reverberation Project
122
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 17:46:00 -
[538] - Quote
Exploration pays me roughly 10x as much as hulk mining arkonor does. Even a C1 site that takes me 10-15 minutes in a ship worth 1/5th the price of a hulk hull pays me 20-80m isk while the arkonor hulk at 5x the price pays me 30m isk per hour. For that matter I can make triple that ratting in a 0.2 system in an oracle if I don't get a faction spawn. If somebody wants to afk hulk mine veldspar all day and not be ganked I can't see why they shouldn't be able to. At the end of the day letting them do this gives me cheaper ships to pvp with anyway.
Edit: Max AFK'ness is moon mining. Things I have realized from the EvE forums: Many people beleive cost means money and only money |
hungrymanbreakfast
Xion Limited Primal Force
6
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 17:47:00 -
[539] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Pipa Porto wrote: People don't throw away Isk on Suicide ganking like miners seem to think they do. It's done for profit, and Suicide Ganking has always been done for profit (whether Freighters, Industrials, or Barges).
To be fair, either you are mistaken or some of your peers are lying. Goonswarm Propaganda not being totally accurate about their motives? Whaaaaaa??? Anyway, I will qualify it. It's only done on a large scale for profit. How many not-for-profit Freighter ganks happen? It's not simply limited to the words of Goonswarm, perhaps zealous individuals that believe the propaganda? But then that still makes it true even if self fulfilling. Also in the case of freighters the damage necessary to kill the base hull will cost well beyond the rewards the wreck will leave. The same isn't true of any of the current exhumers. So perhaps that is a bad example. Maybe transport ships? The new Skiff's going to have 2/3rds the EHP of a Freighter. How many properly tanked Hulks do you see in lossmails in 1.0 space (where you need 3 Nados at a cost of 200m)?
Lots. 2 nados take down a max tank hulk kiddo. Just fit some DPS implants and pew - pew - *BAYSPLOSIONS* - hulk dead
Also notice how max tank hulks need max tanking skills? Without you get a crappy tank. With less than max tanking skills someone can easily fit a tank on a bc or bs and also have a full rack of magstabs/heatsinks/gyrostabs. Try fitting a tank and getting even 1 mining laser upgrade online. Not happening. I'm happy that CCP has finally done something about this. Ganks will still happen and regularly but we will have to find out how many thrashers we need again :) |
Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy Black Sun Alliance
290
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 17:49:00 -
[540] - Quote
creative.. wrong and twisted but creative. [IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG] |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8771
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 17:49:00 -
[541] - Quote
Hicksimus wrote:Edit: Max AFK'ness is moon mining. It's fairly impressive how much flying back and forth is required for something that's supposedly AFK.
hungrymanbreakfast wrote:Lots. 2 nados take down a max tank hulk kiddo. No, they really don't, unless by GÇ£max tankGÇ¥ you mean GÇ£less tank than it can haveGÇ¥.
Quote:Also notice how max tank hulks need max tanking skills? Yes. That's generally good practice to have if you intend to undock. As luck would have it, those skills are very cheap and quick to get. Like everyone else, someone who flies a BC or BS will get them too in short order to get the most out of their ships. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1447
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 17:50:00 -
[542] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:I don't know. You should ask from Ishtar pilots because it's more afk friendly than Pilgrim.
an ishtar that isn't fit for passive shield regen will get murdered with one volley of EMP/Fusion L
next dumb comparison between a mining ship and a combat ship, please a rogue goon |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1706
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 17:50:00 -
[543] - Quote
Makari Aeron wrote: My reasoning is this: 1. so much whining about getting ganked by CONCORD and not making a profit 2. so much whining about miners having too much tank
Solution: Don't gank in hi-sec for profit. Get out of your comfort zones and go to lo-sec and/or 0.0 where you don't get blown up by CONCORD and you can make a profit without dying if you're awesome enough. Higher risk, higher reward.
Oh noes! That would require to clear that horrific prompt that warns the though hi sec PvPer is about to stepping out of hi sec! Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Yimodo
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 17:50:00 -
[544] - Quote
Even more fun look at the corp name of the guy who made the post.... het is providing Tears (how ever they are his own this time) |
Makari Aeron
The Shadow's Of Eve TSOE Consortium
27
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 17:55:00 -
[545] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Makari Aeron wrote: My reasoning is this: 1. so much whining about getting ganked by CONCORD and not making a profit 2. so much whining about miners having too much tank
Solution: Don't gank in hi-sec for profit. Get out of your comfort zones and go to lo-sec and/or 0.0 where you don't get blown up by CONCORD and you can make a profit without dying if you're awesome enough. Higher risk, higher reward.
Oh noes! That would require to clear that horrific prompt that warns the though hi sec PvPer is about to stepping out of hi sec!
My point exactly. Pew Pew Pew! |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8772
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 17:55:00 -
[546] - Quote
Makari Aeron wrote: My reasoning is this: 1. so much whining about getting ganked by CONCORD and not making a profit 2. so much whining about miners having too much tank
Solution: Don't gank in hi-sec for profit.
Problem: highsec is where the profitable targets are. Moving outside of highsec means more risk for less reward. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
122
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 17:57:00 -
[547] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Makari Aeron wrote: My reasoning is this: 1. so much whining about getting ganked by CONCORD and not making a profit 2. so much whining about miners having too much tank
Solution: Don't gank in hi-sec for profit.
Problem: highsec is where the profitable targets are. Moving outside of highsec means more risk for less reward.
Is there a problem? |
arcca jeth
Dark Alliance Dark Empire Alliance
111
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 17:57:00 -
[548] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:Suqq Madiq wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:I'm saying they don't need a tank buff because they're fine as they are. 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? Wow remember Incarna just because CCP does something doesn't mean its the right thing to do.
just because your leader has a hardon for killing miners to increase his empires profitability, and is willing to pay random people to carry out his bidding, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.
BTW There is a whole thread of people who diasgree with you about incarna. If you care to read it, last i checked it was very very long. might want to put on a pot of coffee and eat some popcorn.
But back on topic, there are a lot of people who are happy about these barge changes. Let me put something into perspective, if you spent all this time training to fly a BS and the best one required BS 5 then you realized for a few more hours you could fly a Marauder, would you fly the other ships if the Marauder did the job better for a few more hours and higher price tag? Especially if it virtually let you run L4 missions with nearly no effort or challenge? ....... sure you would
|
Sarik Olecar
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 17:57:00 -
[549] - Quote
I think the biggest problem with this argument is the assumption that mining profits will plummet and be bots will run rampant. The truth is though that hulkaggeddons impact on the mineral market is negligible - even more so since everyone got bored of it. Max yield isn't increasing so the only thing that might drive prices down is more people deciding they wanna start mining. Ganking just effects too few people to really be a factor, whether bot or human.
Honestly, all this change will do is gives players more options. A large portion of them will still fit max yield no tank hulks and probably not even realize anything was buffed. (I mean have you seen the rage in S&I from that guy who thinks this is somehow a nerf to hulks?) The rest of the players however will see the value in the increased tank/convenience and switch out, probably decreasing the total aggregate yield of all miners, realizing that a hulk is better saved for mining ops with friends/alts.
Funny how I always thought the goonies 'exploited' (whether actual or perceived) game mechanics in an attempt to force the developers to fix them, but now that CCP sees that mining ships do in fact need an ehp buff, it's tears time. Unless of course that's just a guise for the dicketry, and they actually are only doing it because techs so broken they get stupidspacerich off it. But I know they would never lie...
So enough with the strawmen guys, this buffs not going to lead to super-passive-afk-no-risk-billion-isk-per-hour-happy-carebea-rfunland-hisec-time-end-of-1337pvp. Stupid miners will still die, and smart miners get the ability to not have to stare at they're strips cycling and spam dscan every five seconds (And yes, your stupid if you think anyone should actually do that...) |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1449
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 18:00:00 -
[550] - Quote
Sarik Olecar wrote:I think the biggest problem with this argument is the assumption that mining profits will plummet and be bots will run rampant. The truth is though that hulkaggeddons impact on the mineral market is negligible - even more so since everyone got bored of it. Max yield isn't increasing so the only thing that might drive prices down is more people deciding they wanna start mining. Ganking just effects too few people to really be a factor, whether bot or human.
so since hulkageddon is irrelevant why should mining barges have their HP buffed? a rogue goon |
|
Hicksimus
Slaxtopia Reverberation Project
122
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 18:00:00 -
[551] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Hicksimus wrote:Edit: Max AFK'ness is moon mining. It's fairly impressive how much flying back and forth is required for something that's supposedly AFK.
I have to be logged in to mine, I don't have to be logged in to moon mine. My mining also requires the transport of many more m3 with much higher frequency. But I don't expect you to get it because you didn't understand why trying to use a single window UI with many windows didn't work.
Things I have realized from the EvE forums: Many people beleive cost means money and only money |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1706
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 18:01:00 -
[552] - Quote
gfldex wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote: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. How do you plan to scale the HP of a freighter with the value of it's cargo? If you don't plan to do that then please tell me why miners are immune from profit seeking highsec pirates but haulers are not. I'm in your forumz asking rhetorical questions.
How much do you earn when you kill a freighter with 8 ice blocks inside? Scale that amount down by a factor of freigther cost / mining ship cost and you have a ballpark amount telling how much a ganker should make.
Wait, that amount is negligible because the only freigthers worth ganking are those with valuable cargo? Too bad, the same principle applies to other ships too. You don't gank a meta 4 fitted mission Raven right? It has to be either pimped and / or hold some very valuable stuff. Exhumers that have T1 fittings should be as unprofitable to gank as a meta 4 fitted Raven is. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8772
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 18:01:00 -
[553] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Is there a problem? Yes. His proposed solution is counter-productive.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1706
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 18:02:00 -
[554] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Makari Aeron wrote: My reasoning is this: 1. so much whining about getting ganked by CONCORD and not making a profit 2. so much whining about miners having too much tank
Solution: Don't gank in hi-sec for profit.
Problem: highsec is where the profitable targets are. Moving outside of highsec means more risk for less reward.
Outside hi sec is where Though Guys PvP is at.
Embrace what you pay your Though Guys sub for. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
arcca jeth
Dark Alliance Dark Empire Alliance
111
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 18:04:00 -
[555] - 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.
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? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8772
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 18:04:00 -
[556] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Outside hi sec is where Though Guys PvP is at. GǪand the profit is in highsec. So that's hardly relevant, now is it? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
hungrymanbreakfast
Xion Limited Primal Force
6
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 18:04:00 -
[557] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:I don't know. You should ask from Ishtar pilots because it's more afk friendly than Pilgrim. an ishtar that isn't fit for passive shield regen will get murdered with one volley of EMP/Fusion L next dumb comparison between a mining ship and a combat ship, please
The AFK domi is a perfect example. More tank than a crappy ishtar and yes it can withstand a bs gank. Also left alone since it only costs ~100 mil to make and also makes more isk/hr than any hulk |
Mara Tessidar
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
642
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 18:05:00 -
[558] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Sarik Olecar wrote:I think the biggest problem with this argument is the assumption that mining profits will plummet and be bots will run rampant. The truth is though that hulkaggeddons impact on the mineral market is negligible - even more so since everyone got bored of it. Max yield isn't increasing so the only thing that might drive prices down is more people deciding they wanna start mining. Ganking just effects too few people to really be a factor, whether bot or human. so since hulkageddon is irrelevant why should mining barges have their HP buffed?
hahaha get owned EveO is a circus train that is for bafflingly unclear reasons also carrying tanks of chlorine gas,-ácrashing and exploding in the middle of a small midwestern town. -áCalling it a mere train wreck gives neither the entertainment nor the horror it offers its proper due. |
Blawrf McTaggart
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1327
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 18:05:00 -
[559] - Quote
goon NOOBs |
Sarik Olecar
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 18:05:00 -
[560] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote: so since hulkageddon is irrelevant why should mining barges have their HP buffed?
Its irrelevant to mineral prices. For the individual miner its very annoying to have to go about your chosen profession in a paper thin spaceship. Especially one that takes oh so much tasty tech to build... |
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1706
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 18:05:00 -
[561] - Quote
Adrenalinemax wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:We all know how terribly this is going to boil over. I wonder whose idea it was at CCP to do this. One thing's for sure, they ****** up pretty royally here.
Isn't it funny how CCP Soundwave stopped posting in this thread as soon as people started calling him out on his bullshit? "Suicide ganking wasn't meant to be profitable." Yeah, because that's TOTALLY what the issue is about, and not, you know, CCP coddling highsec carebears who don't give a **** about what this game is really supposed to be about and instead think that they are entitled to some blanket of protection.
Well they got that blanket. I can't wait until the hordes of miners come onto the forums and complain that they don't bother mining anymore because ore and mineral prices have dropped so much.
CCP Soundwave: Slowly turning EVE highsec into a risk free environment. highsec is not risk free, you can gank anything at anytime It is just that you can spend 10mil to gank a 250mil ship before. Now that will no longer be possible
Yeah now it'll take 1 more catalyst to kill the same Hulk. /wrist Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Makari Aeron
The Shadow's Of Eve TSOE Consortium
27
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 18:06:00 -
[562] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Makari Aeron wrote: My reasoning is this: 1. so much whining about getting ganked by CONCORD and not making a profit 2. so much whining about miners having too much tank
Solution: Don't gank in hi-sec for profit.
Problem: highsec is where the profitable targets are. Moving outside of highsec means more risk for less reward.
Except in 0.0 there are MORE targets. Trust me, I've seen entire faction fit mining fleets destroyed (orca and all) by gankers. I've also seen entire mining fleets jump through a friendly gate camp right into gankers.
So maybe the INDIVIDUAL ship is worth less, but typically speaking if someone is AFK mining in 0.0 (yes, it happens A LOT) they have many accounts. AND you don't lose your ship if you loot the wreck and get away before the miner's friends show up.
Lo-sec/0.0 possibly less Income per miner (some are faction/Deadpsace fit) - (theoretically) no ship loss - ammo cost (if applicable)
Hi-sec possibly more Income - guaranteed ship loss - ammo cost Pew Pew Pew! |
Sarcasim
The Southern Gentleman's Social Club Event Horizon Protocol
3
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 18:06:00 -
[563] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Danny Diamonds wrote:Crazy idea, but why not go find challenging targets to shoot? You know, maybe those that are allowed to be fitted with guns? Or maybe haulers with tasty loots? When it takes 6 destroyers to take out a miner, I don't think there will be much support for the whiner. They surely wont have my support (not that it means much; I am just one EVE player). miners will whine whether it takes 6 catalysts to kill them or 6 vindicators they will whine about dying until the day CCP hamfistedly removes the ability to aggress a ship in hisec outside of wardecs and they'll still whine about getting popped by wartargets until that's nuked as well
The force is STRONG in this one.....he can see the future....wait? wrong game. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
122
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 18:06:00 -
[564] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Yes. His proposed solution is counter-productive.
So risk free, high profit is best for the game? |
hungrymanbreakfast
Xion Limited Primal Force
6
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 18:08:00 -
[565] - Quote
Tippia wrote:hungrymanbreakfast wrote:Lots. 2 nados take down a max tank hulk kiddo. No, they really don't, unless by GÇ£max tankGÇ¥ you mean GÇ£less tank than it can haveGÇ¥.
If you need more deeps you dont have implants or aren't scanning their fit first and picking the ammo needed or are using meta 0 guns. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1706
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 18:09:00 -
[566] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:Dave stark wrote:no because you're intending to go in to a combat situation, tanks are for combat. mining ships are not a combat ship. Replace the words 'DPS' with 'isk per hour' I dont fit a mission boat for MAX dps at expense of my survivability, because if i did my shiny billion isk faction ship would explode in no time at all
Super tank fitted mission boats are for botters (see the parallel?) or newbs whose tank skills suck.
I have done most L4 missions in a 800mm super gank fit maelstrom with only 1 invuln field II as tank. I optimized income a lot doing this. If you are unable to do the same, though luck.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8772
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 18:09:00 -
[567] - Quote
Makari Aeron wrote:Except in 0.0 there are MORE targets. Funny, the highsec miners tend to want to claim the opposite and use that as an argument why highsec needs to be changedGǪ
Volume makes up for individual value.
Jorma Morkkis wrote:So risk free, high profit is best for the game? Good thing, then, that it's neither risk-free nor particularly high-profit.
hungrymanbreakfast wrote:If you need more deeps you dont have implants or aren't scanning their fit first and picking the ammo needed or are using meta 0 guns. What are you responding to here? We're talking about a max-tank Hulk. Picking the right ammo and using high-meta guns still doesn't let you kill one with two tornadoes. They just don't put enough damage. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1450
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 18:09:00 -
[568] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:So risk free, high profit is best for the game?
I know right? Nerf L4s to the ground, remove incursions from hisec and nerf hisec exploration into the ground. Then we'll talk about how bad "risk-free, high-profit" gameplay is for the game. a rogue goon |
Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy Black Sun Alliance
291
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 18:10:00 -
[569] - Quote
Sarik Olecar wrote:I think the biggest problem with this argument is the assumption that mining profits will plummet and be bots will run rampant. The truth is though that hulkaggeddons impact on the mineral market is negligible - even more so since everyone got bored of it....)
this! [IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG] |
arcca jeth
Dark Alliance Dark Empire Alliance
111
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 18:11:00 -
[570] - Quote
Herr Hammer Draken wrote: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 their 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.
the people who will use them and care about the changes, are the new players training up for the Hulk, having actual useful ships to fly in the meantime as well as different roles, or well, more defined roles for the various ships that they gain access to along the way. Otherwise, like before those changes, someone will tell a new miner, don't bother flying anything other than a hulk. so that's 30 days or so of training that this new pilot is paying for and not learning anything about mining nor gaining any experience. once they finally afford one, since they have no experience, it get's popped, because they have no experience.
This all makes the growing pains for those who do have an interest in mining a little bit easier on the training grind.
|
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1450
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 18:11:00 -
[571] - Quote
Barbara Nichole wrote:Sarik Olecar wrote:I think the biggest problem with this argument is the assumption that mining profits will plummet and be bots will run rampant. The truth is though that hulkaggeddons impact on the mineral market is negligible - even more so since everyone got bored of it....) this!
Again, since Hulkageddon had no impact, why are mining barges being changed? a rogue goon |
Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy Black Sun Alliance
291
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 18:13:00 -
[572] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Sarik Olecar wrote:I think the biggest problem with this argument is the assumption that mining profits will plummet and be bots will run rampant. The truth is though that hulkaggeddons impact on the mineral market is negligible - even more so since everyone got bored of it. Max yield isn't increasing so the only thing that might drive prices down is more people deciding they wanna start mining. Ganking just effects too few people to really be a factor, whether bot or human. so since hulkageddon is irrelevant why should mining barges have their HP buffed?
It called rebalance. using this logic maybe cruisers, frigs and destroyers should have their armor reduced instead? [IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG] |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
549
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 18:13:00 -
[573] - Quote
Richard Desturned 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). so you're saying that it should literally cost half a billion to kill an afk mining hulk, one with nothing fitted as far as a tank, absolutely nothing trained as far as tanking skills and no effort taken to mitigate the risk of being blown up
Unless you recall your toon Aura I don't think anyone in the game can or will recognise you whatever right you think you have to tell people how to play the game. Ganking as a whole is broken and a mindless mongoloid idiot activity. With actual changes this will require you to put some :effort: thus bring some balance, just stop crying and embarrassing yourselves with such fake arguments to justify your single pleasure in game consisting in beating up the weak, because whatever argument you can pull out of your arse will always turn in to begging weaker so you can beat them up for low to null consequence.
You still want to gank? -go ahead, use more Tornados, after all you do it for lols right?
Quote:i'm not trying to put words in your mouth but that sounds like what you're trying to say by "it should cost more to kill a ship than what the ship is worth"
You're not trying hard enough because that's exactly what you're doing and if a non English native like me can see it in a blink of a eye... Seriously, you guys should stop embarrassing yourselves. brb |
hungrymanbreakfast
Xion Limited Primal Force
6
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 18:13:00 -
[574] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:So risk free, high profit is best for the game? I know right? Nerf L4s to the ground, remove incursions from hisec and nerf hisec exploration into the ground. Then we'll talk about how bad "risk-free, high-profit" gameplay is for the game.
When did highsec exploration get nerfed? Last I saw it got a huge buff so asshats couldn't hold the sites open all day to prevent people from getting the items they were trying to sell. Also didn't they just add more sites? I'm confused. Could swear that as soon as that changed it went from no sites in a 10 system spread to at least 100m isk/hr in highsec sites |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
122
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 18:14:00 -
[575] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:I know right? Nerf L4s to the ground, remove incursions from hisec and nerf hisec exploration into the ground. Then we'll talk about how bad "risk-free, high-profit" gameplay is for the game.
I meant gankers.
In case you didn't know PVE Tengus don't have much tank to speak about. One volley from Nado's 1400s and Tengu pops. Talk about risk free... |
Arvantis Sauril
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 18:16:00 -
[576] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Tippia wrote:Makari Aeron wrote: My reasoning is this: 1. so much whining about getting ganked by CONCORD and not making a profit 2. so much whining about miners having too much tank
Solution: Don't gank in hi-sec for profit.
Problem: highsec is where the profitable targets are. Moving outside of highsec means more risk for less reward. Is there a problem?
Yes.
This game, and the narratives and enjoyment found therein are built upon a fully functional player driven economy. If one of the core concepts of that economy (risk vs reward) is being ignored to placate players who suffered mining losses, then the game as a whole will suffer and its long term health must be questioned.
This game, and the narratives and enjoyment found therein are built upon player interaction. If one of the core concepts of that player interaction is being changed to placate players who suffered mining losses, then the game as a whole will suffer and its long term health must be questioned.
I have no problem with mining vessels getting a boost to their tank capabilities. But I have a problem when said mining vessels become so hardy that it is literally infeasible to attack one in hi security space. I wouldn't have a problem if said hi security space was suddenly devoid of minerals or the mining of said minerals was subject to such onerus taxation that mining vessels were more frequently seen in lo security space, because that would mean more player interaction.
That would mean things like the new war decc mechanics and mercenary system that CCP is trying to employ might actually see some use. Mining vessels with much more tank could actually be "saved' from gankers by mercenary protectors, or if not, perhaps at least avenge those brave miners whose newly buffed tanks required the use of a Battleship on part of the gankers to destroy.
I understand that many players like the relaxation of just going out and mining some rocks, but making such activity as risk and effort free as possible will have bad consequences for the whole of the game. Miners may be rejoicing now, but when their profits hit an all time low, and the sheer volume they will have to overturn to make a fraction of the profit they currently enjoy, occurs, I wonder what you will be saying then. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8772
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 18:16:00 -
[577] - Quote
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:Ganking as a whole is broken and a mindless mongoloid idiot activity. How so? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1451
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 18:16:00 -
[578] - Quote
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:Ganking as a whole is broken and a mindless mongoloid idiot activity.
first you talk about "abloo gankers are telling us how to play the game"
now you're telling gankers how to play the game
gankers are obviously mongoloids who can't figure out any of the more complex parts of the game, like mining
"f1-f3, move ore to orca every 5 minutes, refine with refining alt, haul to jita" is something so complex that a ganker couldn't figure out in a lifetime, unlike the sophisticates who mine a rogue goon |
Sarik Olecar
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 18:17:00 -
[579] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Barbara Nichole wrote:Sarik Olecar wrote:I think the biggest problem with this argument is the assumption that mining profits will plummet and be bots will run rampant. The truth is though that hulkaggeddons impact on the mineral market is negligible - even more so since everyone got bored of it....) this! Again, since Hulkageddon had no impact, why are mining barges being changed?
I noticed you neglected my reply, so I shall repeat:
Its negligible to mineral prices. They might spike for a week due to market speculators but your ganking doesn't really affect them.
On the other hand, for the minors that due get ganked, the lack of ehp on these ships is a huge issue. Maybe the macks tank is a little overboard, but beforehand they were battleship-sized frigates. You just couldn't tank them effectively without all lvl V's and a boosting orca. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1451
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 18:20:00 -
[580] - Quote
Sarik Olecar wrote:I noticed you neglected my reply, so I shall repeat:
Its negligible to mineral prices. They might spike for a week due to market speculators but your ganking doesn't really affect them.
On the other hand, for the minors that due get ganked, the lack of ehp on these ships is a huge issue. Maybe the macks tank is a little overboard, but beforehand they were battleship-sized frigates. You just couldn't tank them effectively without all lvl V's and a boosting orca.
So why'd they increase the HP to ridiculous levels instead of simply giving them the ability to fit a tank at the expense of yield, just like everyone else in the game has to find some balance between tank, utility and damage yield?
Is it because miners only know what "modulated strip miner II," "mining laser upgrade II" and "medium cargohold optimization I/II" can do? a rogue goon |
|
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
549
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 18:23:00 -
[581] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:Ganking as a whole is broken and a mindless mongoloid idiot activity. first you talk about "abloo gankers are telling us how to play the game" now you're telling gankers how to play the game gankers are obviously mongoloids who can't figure out any of the more complex parts of the game, like mining "f1-f3, move ore to orca every 5 minutes, refine with refining alt, haul to jita" is something so complex that a ganker couldn't figure out in a lifetime, unlike the sophisticates who mine
Actually what are you complaining about? You can gank those mining barges so what's your problem? -because now you will not make profits from those? Seems some dev just posted a few pages ago that ganking wasn't intended to be profitable, so you just used a broken/badly implemented mechanic. Things get rebalanced and you can still gank, so again where's your problem? brb |
Danny Diamonds
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 18:23:00 -
[582] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Sarik Olecar wrote:I noticed you neglected my reply, so I shall repeat:
Its negligible to mineral prices. They might spike for a week due to market speculators but your ganking doesn't really affect them.
On the other hand, for the minors that due get ganked, the lack of ehp on these ships is a huge issue. Maybe the macks tank is a little overboard, but beforehand they were battleship-sized frigates. You just couldn't tank them effectively without all lvl V's and a boosting orca. So why'd they increase the HP to ridiculous levels instead of simply giving them the ability to fit a tank at the expense of yield, just like everyone else in the game has to find some balance between tank, utility and damage yield? Is it because miners only know what "modulated strip miner II," "mining laser upgrade II" and "medium cargohold optimization I/II" can do?
I am just guessing here, but I am willing to bet they chose this route to avoid "Creative" use of said Exhumers. Giving them more slots to fit a tank or more yield may have other implications (using one for tackle?). Just a guess, nothing more. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8772
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 18:26:00 -
[583] - Quote
Sarik Olecar wrote:On the other hand, for the minors that due get ganked, the lack of ehp on these ships is a huge issue. The lack of EHP on my Crow is a huge issue for meGǪ
Also, I want it to cost 10bn to blow up my Nomad.
Danny Diamonds wrote:I am just guessing here, but I am willing to bet they chose this route to avoid "Creative" use of said Exhumers. Giving them more slots to fit a tank or more yield may have other implications (using one for tackle?). Just a guess, nothing more. Creative uses are what makes the game great. The only thing they said they wanted to avoid is having barges compete with industrials in carrying stuff, and the use of ore bays solved that issue. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1118
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 18:26:00 -
[584] - Quote
After looking at the new ship stats... CCP you messed up.
The Hulk is fine as it is in TQ. It could fit a decent tank and be unprofitable to gank. Hell it could tank rats in Null. Its good enough in that department. Maybe it could use better fitting options (CPU/PG), but it does not need more HP. The Covetor IMO just needed more PG/CPU so it could be in the range of the Hulk for tankability.
The Mack/Ret could use a little tank buff so that they passed the Hulk base, but not as much as they got. Ore bay is good though, IMO.
The Skiff/Proc have needed the most help. The tank on them is fine (a little high but if they were the only ones with massive tanks, I would not have any issue), but their ore bay is pretty insane as well.
The reason the changes are bad. As it stands on Sisi, unless you plan to be afk mining ice for a really long time, there will be no reason at all to fly anything other than a Hulk/Cov (based on skills for which one).
This is the exact opposite of the stated goals (to make the other barges potentially valuable). All you've succeeded in doing is make an afk barge that tanks well (Mack/Ret) and an at the computer Barge that tanks well (Hulk/Cov). Unless you plan to mine in a level 4 mission, there is no reason to use the Skiff/Proc.
The ships are too close together in their stats.
If I were doing this...
All ships would have the same base yield (being able to fit 3 strip 2s).
The Hulk/Cov would be the only ones that got a yield bonus (or getting a significantly higher bonus for yield than the other barges), making them the choice for mining a lot of ore. They would have close to the tank they have now on TQ (better fitting options, especially for the Cov), and an Ore bay about the size of their cargo bay. They are meant for fleet mining ops so they don't need a lot of space.
The Skiff/Proc would be the only barges with tank bonuses. Their tank would be close to what Sisi offers, with fitting options for more. Their ore bay would be very close to the amount the Hulk/Cov has, if not the same. They are meant for mining in hostile areas (either solo or in a group). Examples: HS during a war dec with some support, low sec with support, null sec either way, sleeper sights. They would also have a higher agility than the others, on par with a cruiser/BC (haven't decided yet).
The Mack/Ret would be the perfect solo miners. Their tank would be greater than the Hulk's (not as much as Sisi though), with better fittings than now on TQ. Their ore bay would be about the same as a jet can (made even so that at max yield, unbonused by Orca/implants, no ice is wasted). Its purpose is solo mining. Or afk mining for those who do such things.
All three classes would be unprofitable to gank (Hulk would need to be fit for tank rather than yield, but that is a choice up to the miner) but would not step on the roles of the other.
Also all ships would have a special cargo hold that could fit at least 3 of each mining crystal. This would only be able to fit mining crystals.
All ships woudl have close to the same cargo space. About as much as the Hulk has now.
All ships would have 50m3 drone bay. That way they could either go with 5 lights combat and 5 miners (or some other Ewar combo) or 5 medium combat for low/null ops.
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1453
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 18:28:00 -
[585] - Quote
Danny Diamonds wrote:I am just guessing here, but I am willing to bet they chose this route to avoid "Creative" use of said Exhumers. Giving them more slots to fit a tank or more yield may have other implications (using one for tackle?). Just a guess, nothing more.
hint: they don't need more mids to fit a better tank, just a slight bump in CPU and some grid. a rogue goon |
Sarik Olecar
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 18:29:00 -
[586] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:So why'd they increase the HP to ridiculous levels instead of simply giving them the ability to fit a tank at the expense of yield, just like everyone else in the game has to find some balance between tank, utility and damage yield?
Is it because miners only know what "modulated strip miner II," "mining laser upgrade II" and "medium cargohold optimization I/II" can do?
There is still plenty of room for that balance. Its just the buff to there raw stats is so huge that you can't see it. Perhaps CCPs new vision for mining barges is for the average exhumer to have 50K+ ehp. Maybe they see what I do, which is a reason to use them in more dangerous space. I know I'd be a lot more willing to mine in low if I knew I could survive long enough to for my corpies to come help if I got jumped, instead of popping like a wet tissue (which honestly, if you jumped into a mining op wouldn't you primary the hulks?)
My guess is this is the first step towards a total rebalance of industry and an attempt to push people out of empire. Its the same with alchemy, don't bite there heads off until we see the whole picture... |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
266
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 18:29:00 -
[587] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:
If I were doing this...
All ships would have the same base yield (being able to fit 3 strip 2s).
[snip]
All ships would have 50m3 drone bay. That way they could either go with 5 lights combat and 5 miners (or some other Ewar combo) or 5 medium combat for low/null ops.
they do have the same base yield after the change.
and they all have 50m3 drone bays after the change. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1118
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 18:30:00 -
[588] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:
If I were doing this...
All ships would have the same base yield (being able to fit 3 strip 2s).
[snip]
All ships would have 50m3 drone bay. That way they could either go with 5 lights combat and 5 miners (or some other Ewar combo) or 5 medium combat for low/null ops.
they do have the same base yield after the change. and they all have 50m3 drone bays after the change. Yeah I was being thorough. Didn't want to leave anything out else someone assume that I forgot something. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1453
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 18:31:00 -
[589] - Quote
Sarik Olecar wrote:There is still plenty of room for that balance. Its just the buff to there raw stats is so huge that you can't see it. Perhaps CCPs new vision for mining barges is for the average exhumer to have 50K+ ehp. Maybe they see what I do, which is a reason to use them in more dangerous space. I know I'd be a lot more willing to mine in low if I knew I could survive long enough to for my corpies to come help if I got jumped, instead of popping like a wet tissue (which honestly, if you jumped into a mining op wouldn't you primary the hulks?)
My guess is this is the first step towards a total rebalance of industry and an attempt to push people out of empire. Its the same with alchemy, don't bite there heads off until we see the whole picture...
Outside of hisec, gimping a Hulk's yield to fit a tank is pretty silly considering that you're screwed whenever your tank "matters."
In hisec, there is only so much damage that you can be dealt before CONCORD comes in. a rogue goon |
Danny Diamonds
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 18:33:00 -
[590] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Danny Diamonds wrote:I am just guessing here, but I am willing to bet they chose this route to avoid "Creative" use of said Exhumers. Giving them more slots to fit a tank or more yield may have other implications (using one for tackle?). Just a guess, nothing more. hint: they don't need more mids to fit a better tank, just a slight bump in CPU and some grid.
True for the Hulk, but not all of the Exhumers. One of the goals of the re-balance is to make ships within a group all have a well-defined role.
Just adding some grid and cpu to all of them would not solve their lack of individual roles. |
|
arcca jeth
Dark Alliance Dark Empire Alliance
111
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 18:35:00 -
[591] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:stoicfaux wrote:So... the moral of the story is that the Big Bad Wolf has gone from being a windbag to a crybaby?
Nope, this Big Bad Wolf will probably go back to ganking haulers. (until Crimewatch kills that profession off) And there are always Tengus to pop. But Exhumers will likely be off the menu. Sure, there will be the odd holdout 5 or 6 man dessie team. But really, the last (and ONLY) credible threat to miners in high-sec has been largely removed. Most gankers are sharp enough to realize that spending 300M for a 'chance' to pop a 180M ISK Mackinaw is an abject waste. Orcas are rarely attacked as well - same principle. No drops + massive EHP + relatively cheap cost = waste of time. As for the AFKer and bots, while being like cockroaches (they NEVER go away) - at least you could have fun squashing them and earn a little ISK doing it. Now - they will operate with complete impunity, 60K EHP Mackinaw, HO!!!! Has nothing to do with 'adjusting' or 'being smart' about ganking. There is no way to 'trick' anyone in this process. (unlike ninja salvaging - which, also repeatedly nerfed, I fear is breathing its last....safeties anyone?) Ganking is all hard numbers, proper scouting, and execution - but its clear what side of the scale CCP's thumb is on. Eventually you are simply beating your head against endless nerfs, ISK disincentives and massive EHP. Yeah, THATS creative - force all gankers exclusively into roving packs of Catalysts. Yet other 'clever' tactics and tricks have been all been removed, by one means or another - in record time, the minute CCP discovers them.... So spare me the crybaby comments. The Goons are right on this one.
No sir, the goons are never right. In the gaming world as a whole, they are known for massive trolling of gaming mechanics. Ever watch the youtube video of them inviting everyone to a captains deck in STO, and killing anyone and everyone who boarded the ship? lmao. yes it was a funny video and it made a lot of people mad. But ultimately, Goons are trolls. it is the nature of what they do in every game they play. In their forums, they discuss all sorts of ideas where they get some people together and go join a game only to cause trouble for laughs. They could care less about the games they play nor the everlasting impact that it has on the games they troll in. They are a virus in the gaming world. Sometimes there are positive game changes because of their actions sometimes not so positive. It all depends on what side of the fence you are on and what your perspective is.
so when people say that the shoe is on the other foot for once, it means that finally CCP is making changes to the game that actually have substantial meaning to players who mine. regardless of whether the goons support it or not. It is refreshing to see something like this happen. The only people against it are gankers who only want to gank for profit and goons + pets.
You talk about forcing gankers in to roving packs? Isn't that what gankers have been telling miners for years? "get some friends, it's an MMO. Sorry you cannot solo mine in safety anymore. Get some people together and do something about it" lol shoe's on the other foot now. So, you wanna keep ganking? Get SOME FRIENDS and HTFU
Goons in STO
|
Ginseng Jita
PAN-EVE TRADING COMPANY
1674
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 18:36:00 -
[592] - Quote
Sarik Olecar wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:So why'd they increase the HP to ridiculous levels instead of simply giving them the ability to fit a tank at the expense of yield, just like everyone else in the game has to find some balance between tank, utility and damage yield?
Is it because miners only know what "modulated strip miner II," "mining laser upgrade II" and "medium cargohold optimization I/II" can do? There is still plenty of room for that balance. Its just the buff to there raw stats is so huge that you can't see it. Perhaps CCPs new vision for mining barges is for the average exhumer to have 50K+ ehp. Maybe they see what I do, which is a reason to use them in more dangerous space. I know I'd be a lot more willing to mine in low if I knew I could survive long enough to for my corpies to come help if I got jumped, instead of popping like a wet tissue (which honestly, if you jumped into a mining op wouldn't you primary the hulks?) My guess is this is the first step towards a total rebalance of industry and an attempt to push people out of empire. Its the same with alchemy, don't bite there heads off until we see the whole picture...
This is not a push to get miners to leave Empire. High-seccers are not going to leave high-sec. All this will do is promote AFK mining and more botting. Park a mack in the ice fields with the new set up and walk away from the computer. You have instant AFK mining machine - with zero fear of gank.
|
Jada Maroo
Mysterium Astrometrics
787
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 18:39:00 -
[593] - Quote
ORE is in the business of making isk and responding to the needs of their customers. Any corporation that doesn't respond to their customers' needs will eventually find a competitor doing it for them and will soon find themselves out of business.
The customers of ORE would have demanded more sturdy mining vessels to protect their operations after rampant ganking. ORE has responded as any business would. It made their customers happy.
Mining barge buff makes perfect sense. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1453
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 18:39:00 -
[594] - Quote
The gankers will continue to blow you up. You will continue to cry. It will be the same until CCP removes the possibility of aggressing a player in hisec. a rogue goon |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
413
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 18:40:00 -
[595] - Quote
Danny Diamonds wrote:
I am just guessing here, but I am willing to bet they chose this route to avoid "Creative" use of said Exhumers. Giving them more slots to fit a tank or more yield may have other implications (using one for tackle?). Just a guess, nothing more.
No, no, NO.
I already explained this on the first post.
Here's a little joke:
Q: How would you 'nerf the Hulk? A: Give it an extra low slot.
If you give the average in'duhh'vidual Hulk Miner an extra low slot, he'll cram in another Cargohold Expander in and make his tank even worse.
If you give him more grid and mid slots, the large majority of miners will continue to fit them with Civilian Shield Boosters and Cap Recharger IIs.
CCP understood that buffing Exhumers with more 'options' would simply lead to most miners getting ganked. Because they make bad choices - and furthermore, feel entitled to make those bad choices. Stupiditiy is one thing. Determined Stupidity is another.
CCP came to a simple conclusion:
A mere 'Buff' for Mining Barges wasn't enough - they had to make them 'IDIOT-PROOF'.
Its not Exhumers that are broken, its 'most' of the people who pilot them. All one has to do is read some of these replies to understand that. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1453
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 18:41:00 -
[596] - Quote
Jada Maroo wrote:ORE is in the business of making isk and responding tot he needs of their customers. Any corporation that doesn't respond to their customers' needs will eventually find a competitor doing it for them and will soon find themselves out of business.
The customers of ORE would have demanded more sturdy mining vessels to protect their operations after rampant ganking. ORE has responded as any business would. It made their customers happy.
Mining barge buff makes perfect sense.
yeah so ore magically found a way to change every existing ship that they've sold the blueprints to produce
let's face it, lore justifications are bullshit
it's more like "CCP wants to remove all risk from hisec" a rogue goon |
Ginseng Jita
PAN-EVE TRADING COMPANY
1674
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 18:45:00 -
[597] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Danny Diamonds wrote:
I am just guessing here, but I am willing to bet they chose this route to avoid "Creative" use of said Exhumers. Giving them more slots to fit a tank or more yield may have other implications (using one for tackle?). Just a guess, nothing more.
No, no, NO.I already explained this on the first post.Here's a little joke: Q: How would you 'nerf the Hulk?A: Give it an extra low slot.
If you give the average in'duhh'vidual Hulk Miner an extra low slot, he'll cram in another Cargohold Expander in and make his tank even worse. If you give him more grid and mid slots, the large majority of miners will continue to fit them with Civilian Shield Boosters and Cap Recharger IIs. CCP understood that buffing Exhumers with more 'options' would simply lead to most miners getting ganked. Because they make bad choices - and furthermore, feel entitled to make those bad choices. Stupiditiy is one thing. Determined Stupidity is another. CCP came to a simple conclusion:
A mere 'Buff' for Mining Barges wasn't enough - they had to make them 'IDIOT-PROOF'.Its not Exhumers that are broken, its 'most' of the people who pilot them. All one has to do is read some of these replies to understand that.
Exactly. Go out right now and find a miner, scan their ship, almost 90% of the time, they'll have MLU's and cargo expanders and zero tanks. |
Jada Maroo
Mysterium Astrometrics
788
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 18:47:00 -
[598] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:
yeah so ore magically found a way to change every existing ship that they've sold the blueprints to produce
let's face it, lore justifications are bullshit
Thousands of years in the future, in an age of nanobot upgrades? Makes perfect sense, actually. |
Jed Bobby
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 18:47:00 -
[599] - Quote
lore never works out, when the Amarr rose to power didn't the Jove knock them down a notch. Now its happening to the goonpoo |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
4061
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 18:48:00 -
[600] - Quote
So... are we talking abotu warbarges?
|
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1453
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 18:49:00 -
[601] - Quote
Jada Maroo wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:
yeah so ore magically found a way to change every existing ship that they've sold the blueprints to produce
let's face it, lore justifications are bullshit
Thousands of years in the future, in an age of nanobot upgrades? Makes perfect sense, actually.
thousands of years in the future the empires also sell the blueprints for their most expensive ships with zero consideration as to how much they'd risk their fleet if their enemies got a hold of those specs
again, lore is bullshit unless you're a roleplayer a rogue goon |
Karash Amerius
Sutoka
63
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 18:51:00 -
[602] - Quote
Eve is dead.
Long live Eve.
Karash Amerius Operative, Sutoka |
Jed Bobby
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 18:53:00 -
[603] - Quote
we can buy blueprints for concord ships? |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1706
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 18:55:00 -
[604] - Quote
Arvantis Sauril wrote: I propose a heavy tax on all activity in Hi-Sec. Missions, mining, production, everything. I severely doubt the US gov't and all the powerful corporations in the us would allow me to go mining for gold wherever I wanted somewhere in New Jersey and that if I did find something that I wouldn't immediately be pressured/sued/incarcerated into selling the rights to the land or never going near where I found the gold again. Something needs to sustain these empires and Concord, right? If you want to AFK mine, fine, go ahead, but if you do so in Hi-Sec you should net very little if any profit after huge taxes for doing so in Empire space. It is their asteroid after all.
What happens in real world when one of those pseudo-socialist countries impose the next tax is that capital and big corps move to less stupid countries. See France. See Italy. And more.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
DrSmegma
Smegma United Asgard Supplies and Logistics
63
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 18:56:00 -
[605] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Arvantis Sauril wrote: I propose a heavy tax on all activity in Hi-Sec. Missions, mining, production, everything. I severely doubt the US gov't and all the powerful corporations in the us would allow me to go mining for gold wherever I wanted somewhere in New Jersey and that if I did find something that I wouldn't immediately be pressured/sued/incarcerated into selling the rights to the land or never going near where I found the gold again. Something needs to sustain these empires and Concord, right? If you want to AFK mine, fine, go ahead, but if you do so in Hi-Sec you should net very little if any profit after huge taxes for doing so in Empire space. It is their asteroid after all.
What happens in real world when one of those pseudo-socialist countries impose the next tax is that capital and big corps move to less stupid countries. See France. See Italy. And more.
.........so be it. I don't really want to troll you. If I trolled you anyway, I'll probably edit it out as soon as the rage fades. |
Killian Redbeard
Mindhead Cosmic Conditioning
5
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 18:58:00 -
[606] - Quote
Here is my thought on mining. I would not change the barge/exhumer EHP.
I would take Ice Mining out of Ice Belts and put it into Planetary Interaction. Ice Planets would be where you would find abundant Heavy water and liquid ozone. The race specific isotopes would be a P2 item. Each race requiring a different P1 item mixed with whatever P1 generic isotope is.
Require Asteroid belts to be scanned down and change the location and systems at down time. No longer can you just right click and warp to Asteroid belt.
I would then only suggest the Ice barge/exhumer be modified to a new role. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1706
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 18:58:00 -
[607] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Dave stark wrote: i don't disagree on some points; i do think the skiff's ehp is a little overkill. in reality all the hulk needs is enough cpu/pg to fill all of its slots without HAVING to have a fitting mod to fit a tank.
I can't take it anymore - You keep saying that Hulks need to fit 'fitting mods' to survive a Catalyst gank. This is utter bullcrap and you need to stop repeating it. Dave Stark- let me introduce you to the Damage Control II. Damage Control II: meet the Hulk. Hulk - you now have enough EHP to survive a T2 Catalyst gank with perfect skills in highsec - and you STILL have 1 Low slot, 4 mid slots and two rig slots left to work with. So dispense with the misinformation, please.
Yet we are presented with those LOL YOU MUST HAVE 32 K EHP OR YOU PLAY WRONG LOL fittings and they use a MAPC. End of MLU.
In the meanwhile I don't recall EVER having had to fit a MLU in any of my other PvP or PvE ships. And I have loads. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Guttripper
State War Academy Caldari State
167
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:00:00 -
[608] - Quote
After attempting to catch up on this thread, I concluded this thread is worse that pounding down hard liquor when it comes to killing brain cells... |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1706
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:01:00 -
[609] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Tippia wrote:Cost is not a balancing factor. The worth or value of a ship's modules is utterly irrelevant. Soundwave repeating the mistakes of old and forgetting this very simple and perennially true fact is thoroughly heart-rending. If Soundwave wasn't either trolling or using the wrong words, well, his post is pretty much the death of the PvP MMO.
He's an former Goon. He too is out to ruin YOUR game. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1453
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:04:00 -
[610] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Yet we are presented with those LOL YOU MUST HAVE 32 K EHP OR YOU PLAY WRONG LOL fittings and they use a MAPC. End of MLU.
In the meanwhile I don't recall EVER having had to fit a MLU in any of my other PvP or PvE ships. And I have loads.
yeah no PvP ship needs an MLU because, you see, it's not going anywhere close to an asteroid a rogue goon |
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1706
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:04:00 -
[611] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Dave stark wrote: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 it's more to do with the fact that the hulk can't fit a tank without fitting mods that's the issue. having to tank my hulk is fine; however the hulk doesn't have the fitting requirements to do so without fitting mods. i've never had to use fitting mods to fit a combat ship, ever. combat ships have the power grid and cpu to fill all their mid and low slots without fitting mods, why should a hulk be forced to use fitting mods to fill all the slots on the ship? The following combat ships require at least one fitting mod. Arty Cane Every Logistics ship Ever. Hellcats (that T2 Elutrition rig? That's a fitting mod) 100mn Tengus (Officer Fitting mods, even). Stealth Bombers Fleet Dictors AHACs (Zealots need their RCU) Sniper HACs You haven't flown many combat ships, have you?
I have all sorts of ary canes and no one ever used a fitting mod.
Maybe that's some specialty fitting but guess what, if I don't like it I can choose one of 1000 other cane fittings that don't need it.
What can I fit instead of a MAPC or bulkheads in a Hulk to get it to those fabled "T2 tank ships" levels? Nothing. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
480
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:05:00 -
[612] - Quote
i'm going to see if i can get a fleet of battle skiffs together... set them for pvp...
you can still fit nuets on the highs right and use the drones for dps?
would be epic null sec roams... kinda pricy but worth it for the lulz Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1706
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:05:00 -
[613] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Yet we are presented with those LOL YOU MUST HAVE 32 K EHP OR YOU PLAY WRONG LOL fittings and they use a MAPC. End of MLU.
In the meanwhile I don't recall EVER having had to fit a MLU in any of my other PvP or PvE ships. And I have loads. yeah no PvP ship needs an MLU because, you see, it's not going anywhere close to an asteroid
Sorry I meant MAPC. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1454
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:06:00 -
[614] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Yet we are presented with those LOL YOU MUST HAVE 32 K EHP OR YOU PLAY WRONG LOL fittings and they use a MAPC. End of MLU.
In the meanwhile I don't recall EVER having had to fit a MLU in any of my other PvP or PvE ships. And I have loads. yeah no PvP ship needs an MLU because, you see, it's not going anywhere close to an asteroid Sorry I meant MAPC.
if you think nobody fits MAPCs on pvp ships you've probably never flown a ship in PvP
almost every t1/t2/faction frigate fitting has an MAPC a rogue goon |
Jake Warbird
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1636
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:07:00 -
[615] - Quote
So is this about the new mining barges? How much tears do they hold now? |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
550
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:08:00 -
[616] - Quote
Ginseng Jita wrote:You have instant AFK mining machine - with zero fear of gank.
False, they're not invulnerable and you can still use same mechanics to gank them.
brb |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1706
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:08:00 -
[617] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Danny Diamonds wrote:So you can't be bothered to bring more dps to the fight? I fail to see the issue. Maybe if you tried reading. It has nothing to do with DPS. It has to do with the lead game designer using a thoroughly and completely discredited balance concept that became obsolete somewhere in the early Triassic era GÇö a view on balance that simply does not work, and which has been proven beyond any doubt not to work time and time again (and which is responsible for one of the most egregious imbalances this game has offered GÇö one that they are struggling to correct to this day).
Then the answer is the same your ilk has always given to everybody else: adapt or quit. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1454
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:09:00 -
[618] - Quote
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:Ginseng Jita wrote:You have instant AFK mining machine - with zero fear of gank. False, they're not invulnerable and you can still use same mechanics to gank them.
lmao "they can still be ganked guys! you only need 20 tornadoes" a rogue goon |
Arvantis Sauril
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:09:00 -
[619] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Arvantis Sauril wrote: I propose a heavy tax on all activity in Hi-Sec. Missions, mining, production, everything. I severely doubt the US gov't and all the powerful corporations in the us would allow me to go mining for gold wherever I wanted somewhere in New Jersey and that if I did find something that I wouldn't immediately be pressured/sued/incarcerated into selling the rights to the land or never going near where I found the gold again. Something needs to sustain these empires and Concord, right? If you want to AFK mine, fine, go ahead, but if you do so in Hi-Sec you should net very little if any profit after huge taxes for doing so in Empire space. It is their asteroid after all.
What happens in real world when one of those pseudo-socialist countries impose the next tax is that capital and big corps move to less stupid countries. See France. See Italy. And more.
Exactly. A capsuleer is supposed to be a demigod in space. If the income generation in hi sec was far less than it is, people would be out in low and null and be forced to interact. Leave Hi-sec for the truly new players or for trading hubs. Limit ship size in Hi sec, I see no reason why these vast NPC empires would allow self obsessed lunatic immortals to fly around in Battleships. The only thing Hi-Sec should retain, imo, as an advantage over Low and Null is in industry production. We need more reasons to interact with one another and more tension over resources. Not more reasons to go hide in our mission rooms and Worm Holes and Asteroid belts feeling 100% safe all the time. |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
550
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:09:00 -
[620] - Quote
Jake Warbird wrote:So is this about the new mining barges? How much tears do they hold now?
Several thousands of M3 of delicious stuff, can't finish one pint another is already waiting. brb |
|
Sarik Olecar
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:09:00 -
[621] - Quote
Jake Warbird wrote:So is this about the new mining barges? How much tears do they hold now?
Only about ~500m3, since the rest has to be ore... |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1454
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:09:00 -
[622] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Then the answer is the same your ilk has always given to everybody else: adapt or quit.
yeah but at least your mining bots can operate in peace :shobon: a rogue goon |
Drone 16
Law Dogz
1
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:10:00 -
[623] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Arvantis Sauril wrote: I propose a heavy tax on all activity in Hi-Sec. Missions, mining, production, everything. I severely doubt the US gov't and all the powerful corporations in the us would allow me to go mining for gold wherever I wanted somewhere in New Jersey and that if I did find something that I wouldn't immediately be pressured/sued/incarcerated into selling the rights to the land or never going near where I found the gold again. Something needs to sustain these empires and Concord, right? If you want to AFK mine, fine, go ahead, but if you do so in Hi-Sec you should net very little if any profit after huge taxes for doing so in Empire space. It is their asteroid after all.
What happens in real world when one of those pseudo-socialist countries impose the next tax is that capital and big corps move to less stupid countries. See France. See Italy. And more.
In the real world the citizens would complain about the pirates making commodities more expensive and the Navy would take action.
Don't give me the nonsense that since capsuleers are immortal it wouldn't matter what the Navy did either. Some Navy snipers and a head shot every time a ganker showed his face in a station and gankers would be playing Groundhog Day every day.
But we were discussing Eve and not real life...do continue...
|
Jake Warbird
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1636
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:11:00 -
[624] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:Ginseng Jita wrote:You have instant AFK mining machine - with zero fear of gank. False, they're not invulnerable and you can still use same mechanics to gank them. lmao "they can still be ganked guys! you only need 20 tornadoes" Math is hard. |
Sarik Olecar
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:11:00 -
[625] - Quote
Also, I'd like to think this thread - which has giving many carebears their first taste of tears - will go on to inspire all sorts of crazy shenanigans as they desperately try to feed the new-found addiction... |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1706
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:12:00 -
[626] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Kyra Yaken wrote:Wasnt that same as when CCP gave gankers tier3 on silver plate? tell me when you see a tier 3 BC ganking a hulk
Yesterday in Sirseshin, several times. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
arcca jeth
Dark Alliance Dark Empire Alliance
112
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:12:00 -
[627] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Zagdul wrote:Gone are the days where EVE is a dangerous place. I seem to have missed the part when they made all player ships immune to damage. 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. What about punishing people who fit poorly? This suicide ganking ship:ship ratio is only off because people refuse to change. This is a social problem not a balance problem.
you must be really bored if all you care about is punishing people who fit poorly. people who fit poorly will suffer the consequences on their own in one way or another. it may be less of "people who refuse to change" and more of "people who could care less to change"
i mean do you really not see the error in your point of view? you want to punish people for fitting their ship poorly, which is essentially, someone playing the game how they want to. regardless if you see it as right or wrong. so you want to be the punisher? lol Goons really do need an Eden Vs Goons war, if not for laughs to see them put under pressure but more to give them something to do. too much time on your hands for your own good. One day you will implode on yourselves because the real PvP'rs will get bored and decide that Goons really are easy targets in their own space. And, maybe that is really what needs to be done here.
|
JamesCLK
Lone Star Exploration Lone Star Partners
191
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:12:00 -
[628] - Quote
I hope CCP Fozzie (as I understand it he is on the balancing team) wasn't the unfortunate one that made these changes; I love his balls of steel, but he might be biting off more than he can chew? |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
550
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:13:00 -
[629] - Quote
Arvantis Sauril wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Arvantis Sauril wrote: I propose a heavy tax on all activity in Hi-Sec. Missions, mining, production, everything. I severely doubt the US gov't and all the powerful corporations in the us would allow me to go mining for gold wherever I wanted somewhere in New Jersey and that if I did find something that I wouldn't immediately be pressured/sued/incarcerated into selling the rights to the land or never going near where I found the gold again. Something needs to sustain these empires and Concord, right? If you want to AFK mine, fine, go ahead, but if you do so in Hi-Sec you should net very little if any profit after huge taxes for doing so in Empire space. It is their asteroid after all.
What happens in real world when one of those pseudo-socialist countries impose the next tax is that capital and big corps move to less stupid countries. See France. See Italy. And more. Exactly. A capsuleer is supposed to be a demigod in space. If the income generation in hi sec was far less than it is, people would be out in low and null and be forced to interact. Leave Hi-sec for the truly new players or for trading hubs. Limit ship size in Hi sec, I see no reason why these vast NPC empires would allow self obsessed lunatic immortals to fly around in Battleships. The only thing Hi-Sec should retain, imo, as an advantage over Low and Null is in industry production. We need more reasons to interact with one another and more tension over resources. Not more reasons to go hide in our mission rooms and Worm Holes and Asteroid belts feeling 100% safe all the time.
The day every null sec player is not aloud by any means starting by NPC or Alt corporations to have full industrial organisations in high sec, mission corporations, shipping corporations, trading alts, High sec research/invention POS's and more funky stuff, then yep it will be time to change high sec. But as far as every major null alliance has hundreds/thousands of those in high sec and don't stop crying about high sec they will always be laughed at for not being serious for one second. brb |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1454
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:13:00 -
[630] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Yesterday in Sirseshin, several times.
a tornado is a pretty expensive way to kill a hulk
it seems that you're angry because hulks are able to die in hisec??????? a rogue goon |
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1454
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:14:00 -
[631] - Quote
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:The day every null sec player is not aloud by any means starting by NPC or Alt corporations to have full industrial organisations in high sec, mission corporations, shipping corporations, trading alts, High sec research/invention POS's and more funky stuff, then yep it will be time to change high sec. But as far as every major null alliance has hundreds/thousands of those in high sec and don't stop crying about high sec they will always be laughed at for not being serious for one second.
"let's punish people for playing in nullsec"
get out lmao a rogue goon |
Jed Bobby
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:15:00 -
[632] - Quote
this thread will be all I need to plea insanity |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
481
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:16:00 -
[633] - Quote
so whats the price of a skiff nowadays?
i wanna make a fleet of battle skiffs... (maybe for null sec bait ship)
can someone punch this into EFT and let me know its stats?
low: dcu II nano II
mids: 1 mwd 1 long point 1 shield extender 1 invul
highs: 1 nuet
3 warrior II Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
Ginseng Jita
PAN-EVE TRADING COMPANY
1674
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:18:00 -
[634] - Quote
Just slapping more EHP is not the answer. All that does is make it easier for players to AFK and bot there way through the game. CCP needs to totally look at barges and exhumers and make them work using existing design parameters and tweaking them as need.
Add a little more PU and CPU, and maybe another rig slot. Then make sure that people wanting to make use of these ships understand that they are industrial ships - not ******* armor clad machines of war. That you as the miner have a choice....either you fit the ship to give it armor to protect it - or you give it better yield capabilities. If you choose to neglect the risk and go for yield...you chose to take the risk - you chose.
Make it quite clear the purpose and use of the ships. If players do not want to listen than it it their fault.
This ideal that mining barges are going to have better yield and armor like a cruiser or BS is - BS. CCP is going to make AFK mining and botting surge like never before. The ones this will hurt are the players that do actually stay at their computers and play the game as intended.
This will also have a huge impact on mineral and ore prices - and make mining even more of a chore than it all ready is. There is a solution - just not the way CCP intends to do it. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
413
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:18:00 -
[635] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Yet we are presented with those LOL YOU MUST HAVE 32 K EHP OR YOU PLAY WRONG LOL fittings and they use a MAPC. End of MLU.
In the meanwhile I don't recall EVER having had to fit a MLU in any of my other PvP or PvE ships. And I have loads.
You don't fit MLU's into PvP ships. You fit Gyrostabilizers/TE's. And Nanos.
You balance Tank with Yield and Cargo - just as combat ships balance Tank with Speed and Firepower.
Gank ships are effective because they pile everything onto Firepower - to the exclusion of almost everything else, simply because Tank and Speed are useless vs the godlike CONCORD. Combat ships do not get to pick all three (unless they are Minmatar).
When a miner gets to pick all three - its no longer balanced. Except this is worse: you aren't even picking them with mods and rigs - they are being handed to you right off of the factory floor.
My reaction when I find miners learning and 'doing it right' is actually quite positive. It means they are playing the game smart and I respect that.
If they warp out. I don't get mad. I think, 'Great - they were paying attention - good for them." When I find a Hulk, clad in a DCII, MSEII and Shield Rigs - I don't cry about it - I respect it, and go looking for another target. (and there is ALWAYS another target....)
I just don't understand why as a group, why these 'intelligent' miners are such an extreme minority.
Is it just blind 'Goon hatred?' Or are these people who lost an Exhumer 3 weeks ago (or 2 years ago in the case of Krixtal Icefluxor) - and rather than learn from it, they just get mad and lose sight of the forest for the trees?
|
Jed Bobby
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:20:00 -
[636] - Quote
this game seems pretty AFK friendly in lots of aspects.
why complain? i wonder how many people still play eve because of the fact that they can progress yet do not have to glue their face to the screen the entire time. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
481
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:21:00 -
[637] - Quote
Ginseng Jita wrote:Just slapping more EHP is not the answer. All that does is make it easier for players to AFK and bot there way through the game. CCP needs to totally look at barges and exhumers and make them work using existing design parameters and tweaking them as need.
Add a little more PU and CPU, and maybe another rig slot. Then make sure that people wanting to make use of these ships understand that they are industrial ships - not ******* armor clad machines of war. That you as the miner have a choice....either you fit the ship to give it armor to protect it - or you give it better yield capabilities. If you choose to neglect the risk and go for yield...you chose to take the risk - you chose.
Make it quite clear the purpose and use of the ships. If players do not want to listen than it it their fault.
This ideal that mining barges are going to have better yield and armor like a cruiser or BS is - BS. CCP is going to make AFK mining and botting surge like never before. The ones this will hurt are the players that do actually stay at their computers and play the game as intended.
This will also have a huge impact on mineral and ore prices - and make mining even more of a chore than it all ready is. There is a solution - just not the way CCP intends to do it.
sandbox...
its obvious you have never been in a fleet of itty v... we once got a carrier to SD due to our tactics...
eveyship in eve is pvp
Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1706
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:22:00 -
[638] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Outside hi sec is where Though Guys PvP is at. GǪand the profit is in highsec. So that's hardly relevant, now is it?
Not miners (or anyone else's) problem you can't find profit outside killing chinkens in hi sec.
I heard some 0.0 alliances like PL and Goons found a secret way to make profits even in the desperate slums of 0.0 sec. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Arvantis Sauril
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:23:00 -
[639] - Quote
Drone 16 wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Arvantis Sauril wrote: I propose a heavy tax on all activity in Hi-Sec. Missions, mining, production, everything. I severely doubt the US gov't and all the powerful corporations in the us would allow me to go mining for gold wherever I wanted somewhere in New Jersey and that if I did find something that I wouldn't immediately be pressured/sued/incarcerated into selling the rights to the land or never going near where I found the gold again. Something needs to sustain these empires and Concord, right? If you want to AFK mine, fine, go ahead, but if you do so in Hi-Sec you should net very little if any profit after huge taxes for doing so in Empire space. It is their asteroid after all.
What happens in real world when one of those pseudo-socialist countries impose the next tax is that capital and big corps move to less stupid countries. See France. See Italy. And more. In the real world the citizens would complain about the pirates making commodities more expensive and the Navy would take action. Don't give me the nonsense that since capsuleers are immortal it wouldn't matter what the Navy did either. Some Navy snipers and a head shot every time a ganker showed his face in a station and gankers would be playing Groundhog Day every day. But we were discussing Eve and not real life...do continue...
Umm...piracy happens everyday. Seizure of physical goods. Kidnapping. These things are very real and as is evidenced by the real world, they are nigh impossible to stop when you consider the size of the oceans. These things also occur on land, everyday. Navy ships can only be in so many places at one time. Space is infinitely vaster.
If a player wants near instant and swift protection and justice from would be pirates and gankers, that should come at a COST. Not be free of charge, included with subscription, please go about your business sir. If there was some "Platinum Concord Protection Plan" bought and sold in Jita, then that's one thing. But there isn't.
|
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
550
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:27:00 -
[640] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:The day every null sec player is not aloud by any means starting by NPC or Alt corporations to have full industrial organisations in high sec, mission corporations, shipping corporations, trading alts, High sec research/invention POS's and more funky stuff, then yep it will be time to change high sec. But as far as every major null alliance has hundreds/thousands of those in high sec and don't stop crying about high sec they will always be laughed at for not being serious for one second. "let's punish people for playing in nullsec"
You're reading backwards, try again and once again try to answer correctly instead of rabble the same old story you're pushing out now for a couple days.
Mining barges and ganking mechanic were clearly not balanced, it's not me who says it but some Dev knowing this game more decently then you or I do, balance will hit and now you'll have to put some effort instead of doing brainless stuff. There's no problem with this, the only problem is your math knowledge and ability to recognise something wrong is going now in the right direction. You used and abused of a badly implemented stuff, they're about to correct it, you should be happy for your game.
And your bot argument you know where you can put it right? -I'm sure Shreegs gets a mad laugh at each post he reads because of this buff we're going to see more bots, jesus how can you guys be that dumb?
brb |
|
Sarik Olecar
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:28:00 -
[641] - Quote
Anyone else get an honest-to-god real headache from reading this??? I think I need to go outside more... |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
414
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:29:00 -
[642] - Quote
Sarik Olecar wrote:Also, I'd like to think this thread - which has giving many carebears their first taste of tears - will go on to inspire all sorts of crazy shenanigans as they desperately try to feed the new-found addiction...
What, 'crazy shenanigans' like whining even harder to CCP for more beneficial game mechanic changes and insane EHP buffs?
As an expert in 'tears' - must be some strange new definition of 'harvesting tears' that I am unaware of. I thought that tears were something you earned 'in game', not through the petition process or the forums.... |
JamesCLK
Lone Star Exploration Lone Star Partners
191
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:30:00 -
[643] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote: I just don't understand why as a group, why these 'intelligent' miners are such an extreme minority.
Is it just blind 'Goon hatred?' Or are these people who lost an Exhumer 3 weeks ago (or 2 years ago in the case of Krixtal Icefluxor) - and rather than learn from it, they just get mad and lose sight of the forest for the trees?
'Intelligent' miners don't make forum posts, they aren't very vocal because they have no real need to be (it's a minority of a minority). The rest get mad and lose sight of New Eden for the roids (They are winning at EVE apparently).
These changes - in their initial sisi deployment glory - are very much a load of bull. |
Jed Bobby
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:30:00 -
[644] - Quote
I just harvested like at least 3 tears from your post |
Ginseng Jita
PAN-EVE TRADING COMPANY
1674
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:30:00 -
[645] - Quote
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:The day every null sec player is not aloud by any means starting by NPC or Alt corporations to have full industrial organisations in high sec, mission corporations, shipping corporations, trading alts, High sec research/invention POS's and more funky stuff, then yep it will be time to change high sec. But as far as every major null alliance has hundreds/thousands of those in high sec and don't stop crying about high sec they will always be laughed at for not being serious for one second. "let's punish people for playing in nullsec" You're reading backwards, try again and once again try to answer correctly instead of rabble the same old story you're pushing out now for a couple days. Mining barges and ganking mechanic were clearly not balanced, it's not me who says it but some Dev knowing this game more decently then you or I do, balance will hit and now you'll have to put some effort instead of doing brainless stuff. There's no problem with this, the only problem is your math knowledge and ability to recognise something wrong is going now in the right direction. You used and abused of a badly implemented stuff, they're about to correct it, you should be happy for your game. And your bot argument you know where you can put it right? -I'm sure Shreegs gets a mad laugh at each post he reads because of this buff we're going to see more bots, jesus how can you guys be that dumb?
Your ideal of balance means you want 0 risk in high-sec so you can AFK mine to your hearts content.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8773
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:32:00 -
[646] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Yet we are presented with those LOL YOU MUST HAVE 32 K EHP OR YOU PLAY WRONG LOL fittings and they use a MAPC. GǪwhich are a response to the GÇ£but it's meaningless, they'll bring moreGÇ¥ argument. It's not something you have to do GÇö it's an escalation in response to their escalation that disproves a completely different myth about the tankability of Hulks.
Quote:Then the answer is the same your ilk has always given to everybody else: adapt or quit. Answer to what? It has nothing to do with what you quoted. In fact, the issues caused by this fundamentally flawed concept of cost-balancing were fundamentally flawed exactly because there was no adaptation to it, and that's why they had to actually fix it by using some real balance measures.
When people tell miners to adapt or quit, it's because there are ways of adapting. The miners generally refuse to and instead argue about cost and other irrelevancies. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1222
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:32:00 -
[647] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:I just don't understand why as a group, why these 'intelligent' miners are such an extreme minority.
Is it just blind 'Goon hatred?' Or are these people who lost an Exhumer 3 weeks ago (or 2 years ago in the case of Krixtal Icefluxor) - and rather than learn from it, they just get mad and lose sight of the forest for the trees? Krixtal Icefluxor... ? Now that's a name you don't see totally all the time. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Drone 16
Law Dogz
1
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:32:00 -
[648] - Quote
Arvantis Sauril wrote:Drone 16 wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Arvantis Sauril wrote: I propose a heavy tax on all activity in Hi-Sec. Missions, mining, production, everything. I severely doubt the US gov't and all the powerful corporations in the us would allow me to go mining for gold wherever I wanted somewhere in New Jersey and that if I did find something that I wouldn't immediately be pressured/sued/incarcerated into selling the rights to the land or never going near where I found the gold again. Something needs to sustain these empires and Concord, right? If you want to AFK mine, fine, go ahead, but if you do so in Hi-Sec you should net very little if any profit after huge taxes for doing so in Empire space. It is their asteroid after all.
What happens in real world when one of those pseudo-socialist countries impose the next tax is that capital and big corps move to less stupid countries. See France. See Italy. And more. In the real world the citizens would complain about the pirates making commodities more expensive and the Navy would take action. Don't give me the nonsense that since capsuleers are immortal it wouldn't matter what the Navy did either. Some Navy snipers and a head shot every time a ganker showed his face in a station and gankers would be playing Groundhog Day every day. But we were discussing Eve and not real life...do continue... Umm...piracy happens everyday. Seizure of physical goods. Kidnapping. These things are very real and as is evidenced by the real world, they are nigh impossible to stop when you consider the size of the oceans. These things also occur on land, everyday. Navy ships can only be in so many places at one time. Space is infinitely vaster. If a player wants near instant and swift protection and justice from would be pirates and gankers, that should come at a COST. Not be free of charge, included with subscription, please go about your business sir. If there was some "Platinum Concord Protection Plan" bought and sold in Jita, then that's one thing. But there isn't.
Ummm..in real life pirates do what they do to survive. They don't go out in a small boat into the unforgiving ocean and risk a sniper's bullet to the head for the "lulz".
Similarly, suicide ganking should be a means of demonstrating to an individual or organization that you dislike their actions so much that you would literally throw money away just to cause them misery. It should be done for strategic, tactical or retributive considerations not just because you can. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1222
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:34:00 -
[649] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Yet we are presented with those LOL YOU MUST HAVE 32 K EHP OR YOU PLAY WRONG LOL fittings and they use a MAPC. GǪwhich are a response to the GÇ£but it's meaningless, they'll bring moreGÇ¥ argument. It's not something you have to do GÇö it's an escalation in response to their escalation that disproves a completely different myth about the tankability of Hulks. Quote:Then the answer is the same your ilk has always given to everybody else: adapt or quit. Answer to what? It has nothing to do with what you quoted. In fact, the issues caused by this fundamentally flawed concept of cost-balancing were fundamentally flawed exactly because there was no adaptation to it, and that's why they had to actually fix it by using some real balance measures. When people tell miners to adapt or quit, it's because there are ways of adapting. The miners generally refuse to and instead argue about cost and other irrelevancies. We should argue about the cost of supercaps .... at least that makes them rare compared to untanked.badly tanked hulks... Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1706
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:34:00 -
[650] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Yet we are presented with those LOL YOU MUST HAVE 32 K EHP OR YOU PLAY WRONG LOL fittings and they use a MAPC. End of MLU.
In the meanwhile I don't recall EVER having had to fit a MLU in any of my other PvP or PvE ships. And I have loads. yeah no PvP ship needs an MLU because, you see, it's not going anywhere close to an asteroid Sorry I meant MAPC. if you think nobody fits MAPCs on pvp ships you've probably never flown a ship in PvP almost every t1/t2/faction frigate fitting has an MAPC
I had to fit a MAPC on a couple of imposed large scale PvP ships: it was to make them uber for those roles (typically some boosted arty fits). Exhumers? Need a MAPC just to not suck complete balls. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
|
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
550
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:34:00 -
[651] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Sarik Olecar wrote:Also, I'd like to think this thread - which has giving many carebears their first taste of tears - will go on to inspire all sorts of crazy shenanigans as they desperately try to feed the new-found addiction... What, 'crazy shenanigans' like whining even harder to CCP for more beneficial game mechanic changes and insane EHP buffs? As an expert in 'tears' - must be some strange new definition of 'harvesting tears' that I am unaware of. I thought that tears were something you earned 'in game', not through the petition process or the forums....
You clearly show yourself as an expert in tears stuff, cry me another river plz?
brb |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1706
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:35:00 -
[652] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Then the answer is the same your ilk has always given to everybody else: adapt or quit. yeah but at least your mining bots can operate in peace :shobon:
I don't have vast 0.0 safe space where to place mining bots and ratting bots like you do. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8773
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:35:00 -
[653] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Exhumers? Need a MAPC just to not suck complete balls. Incorrect.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tuireann Naari
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
13
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:36:00 -
[654] - Quote
What, this again? |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1223
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:36:00 -
[655] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Sarik Olecar wrote:Also, I'd like to think this thread - which has giving many carebears their first taste of tears - will go on to inspire all sorts of crazy shenanigans as they desperately try to feed the new-found addiction... What, 'crazy shenanigans' like whining even harder to CCP for more beneficial game mechanic changes and insane EHP buffs? As an expert in 'tears' - must be some strange new definition of 'harvesting tears' that I am unaware of. I thought that tears were something you earned 'in game', not through the petition process or the forums.... There's so many forums tears I don't think they're worth much anymore. It's odd. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
551
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:37:00 -
[656] - Quote
Ginseng Jita wrote:Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:The day every null sec player is not aloud by any means starting by NPC or Alt corporations to have full industrial organisations in high sec, mission corporations, shipping corporations, trading alts, High sec research/invention POS's and more funky stuff, then yep it will be time to change high sec. But as far as every major null alliance has hundreds/thousands of those in high sec and don't stop crying about high sec they will always be laughed at for not being serious for one second. "let's punish people for playing in nullsec" You're reading backwards, try again and once again try to answer correctly instead of rabble the same old story you're pushing out now for a couple days. Mining barges and ganking mechanic were clearly not balanced, it's not me who says it but some Dev knowing this game more decently then you or I do, balance will hit and now you'll have to put some effort instead of doing brainless stuff. There's no problem with this, the only problem is your math knowledge and ability to recognise something wrong is going now in the right direction. You used and abused of a badly implemented stuff, they're about to correct it, you should be happy for your game. And your bot argument you know where you can put it right? -I'm sure Shreegs gets a mad laugh at each post he reads because of this buff we're going to see more bots, jesus how can you guys be that dumb? Your ideal of balance means you want 0 risk in high-sec so you can AFK mine to your hearts content.
Yet as you claim, you're the one running mining fleets.
And yet as I said several times, I play in null sec and have enough targets over there to have fun but you know, solo in null means always enormous risks witch obviously you don't want to take by staying depleting rocks and ice blocs in high sec.
Just say'in brb |
JamesCLK
Lone Star Exploration Lone Star Partners
191
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:38:00 -
[657] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Exhumers? Need a DCU II just to not suck complete balls. FYP |
DrSmegma
Smegma United Asgard Supplies and Logistics
63
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:39:00 -
[658] - Quote
Can't titans be taken down by frigates btw? Where's the cost efficiency? I don't really want to troll you. If I trolled you anyway, I'll probably edit it out as soon as the rage fades. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1707
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:39:00 -
[659] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Yesterday in Sirseshin, several times. a tornado is a pretty expensive way to kill a hulk it seems that you're angry because hulks are able to die in hisec???????
I am not angry, you seem to be a lot, though.
I have all the exhumers and all their mods BPCs or BPOs for invention AND Tornado BPOs AND destroyers BPOs.
So for what I care they can swing the nerf bat wherever they want I will still make money of the chumps who kill each other.
What I find tasty is the hypocrisy exposed, the though guys who are out to Reform EvE now crying orders of magnitude than the 4-5 idiot miners who create a cry thread a month. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc Goonswarm Federation
107
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:41:00 -
[660] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Tippia wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Yet we are presented with those LOL YOU MUST HAVE 32 K EHP OR YOU PLAY WRONG LOL fittings and they use a MAPC. GǪwhich are a response to the GÇ£but it's meaningless, they'll bring moreGÇ¥ argument. It's not something you have to do GÇö it's an escalation in response to their escalation that disproves a completely different myth about the tankability of Hulks. Quote:Then the answer is the same your ilk has always given to everybody else: adapt or quit. Answer to what? It has nothing to do with what you quoted. In fact, the issues caused by this fundamentally flawed concept of cost-balancing were fundamentally flawed exactly because there was no adaptation to it, and that's why they had to actually fix it by using some real balance measures. When people tell miners to adapt or quit, it's because there are ways of adapting. The miners generally refuse to and instead argue about cost and other irrelevancies. We should argue about the cost of supercaps .... at least that makes them rare compared to untanked.badly tanked hulks...
The best thing about the barge/exhumer changes is that low end minerals are going to be hilariously low meaning for hilariously cheap supers.
I can't ******* wait :3 |
|
Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy Black Sun Alliance
294
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:42:00 -
[661] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Tippia wrote:Yes. His proposed solution is counter-productive. So risk free, high profit is best for the game?
ask the goons.. they should know since that's how they profit. [IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG] |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1707
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:43:00 -
[662] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Yet we are presented with those LOL YOU MUST HAVE 32 K EHP OR YOU PLAY WRONG LOL fittings and they use a MAPC. End of MLU.
In the meanwhile I don't recall EVER having had to fit a MLU in any of my other PvP or PvE ships. And I have loads.
You don't fit MLU's into PvP ships. You fit Gyrostabilizers/TE's. And Nanos. You balance Tank with Yield and Cargo - just as combat ships balance Tank with Speed and Firepower. Gank ships are effective because they pile everything onto Firepower - to the exclusion of almost everything else, simply because Tank and Speed are useless vs the godlike CONCORD. Combat ships do not get to pick all three (unless they are Minmatar). When a miner gets to pick all three - its no longer balanced. Except this is worse: you aren't even picking them with mods and rigs - they are being handed to you right off of the factory floor. My reaction when I find miners learning and 'doing it right' is actually quite positive. It means they are playing the game smart and I respect that. If they warp out. I don't get mad. I think, 'Great - they were paying attention - good for them." When I find a Hulk, clad in a DCII, MSEII and Shield Rigs - I don't cry about it - I respect it, and go looking for another target. (and there is ALWAYS another target....) I just don't understand why as a group, why these 'intelligent' miners are such an extreme minority. Is it just blind 'Goon hatred?' Or are these people who lost an Exhumer 3 weeks ago (or 2 years ago in the case of Krixtal Icefluxor) - and rather than learn from it, they just get mad and lose sight of the forest for the trees?
Way to create a blurb off an obvious copy paste typo (MLU <=> MAPC).
Also, when I see a DCII and shield rigs Hulk I think: "what a moron" or "what an overtank AFKer". Not respect. He's making easily 30% less than everybody else, who can get a ship exploded every now and then but make it back in 2 days and come well ahead off the overtanked scared afker.
The real risk vs reward does not come from having zero deaths in your life but from earning much more than you lose. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Mara Tessidar
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
643
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:43:00 -
[663] - Quote
evil goonie overlord checking in EveO is a circus train that is for bafflingly unclear reasons also carrying tanks of chlorine gas,-ácrashing and exploding in the middle of a small midwestern town. -áCalling it a mere train wreck gives neither the entertainment nor the horror it offers its proper due. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8773
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:44:00 -
[664] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:What I find tasty is the hypocrisy exposed You mean the GÇ£adapt or gtfoGÇ¥ dribble now coming from the exact class of people who could never adapt and who had to be helped by CCP to no longer be idiots? The dribble directed at those who have proven time and a gain that they can adapt just fine?
Yes, it's pretty hypocritical. But then, their lack of cognitive clarity was the entire problem to begin with and why their preferred tools apparently needed to be made idiot-proof. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy Black Sun Alliance
295
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:45:00 -
[665] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Yesterday in Sirseshin, several times. a tornado is a pretty expensive way to kill a hulk it seems that you're angry because hulks are able to die in hisec???????
but not unfairly expensive..considering the price of the target. Belly up to the bar if you want to drink otherwise move on.
An untanked T1 battle crusier will have nearly double the tank of an untanked T2 hulk... seems fine to me. [IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG] |
Arvantis Sauril
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:46:00 -
[666] - Quote
Quote:
The day every null sec player is not aloud by any means starting by NPC or Alt corporations to have full industrial organisations in high sec, mission corporations, shipping corporations, trading alts, High sec research/invention POS's and more funky stuff, then yep it will be time to change high sec. But as far as every major null alliance has hundreds/thousands of those in high sec and don't stop crying about high sec they will always be laughed at for not being serious for one second.
Alts of every shape, kind, and variety are definitely a problem. On the one hand its awesome to think about how this feature or that feature could make EVE into an even more complicated and intensive Space War Economy game, but you are correct, for every such feature, someone will "alt" their way around any consequences for their behavior.
Its a problem in almost every online game I can think of. Kills are rewarded. Losses are reimbursed, or marginalized. Die? Respawn. Punishments are evaded by logging out or logging in a new account. Even the most heinously one sided game of Counter Strike will eventually end and then you can just escape out and never go back to that server again. Having ramifications for behavior in a game, and enforcing those ramifications, will always be an issue. As there will always be people who just really want to ruin someone else's fun, I'm not sure what the answer is. But super buffing every tank of every mining ship, while leaving the mining asteroids themselves unchanged, definitely isn't the answer. |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
551
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:46:00 -
[667] - Quote
Haquer wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:Tippia wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Yet we are presented with those LOL YOU MUST HAVE 32 K EHP OR YOU PLAY WRONG LOL fittings and they use a MAPC. GǪwhich are a response to the GÇ£but it's meaningless, they'll bring moreGÇ¥ argument. It's not something you have to do GÇö it's an escalation in response to their escalation that disproves a completely different myth about the tankability of Hulks. Quote:Then the answer is the same your ilk has always given to everybody else: adapt or quit. Answer to what? It has nothing to do with what you quoted. In fact, the issues caused by this fundamentally flawed concept of cost-balancing were fundamentally flawed exactly because there was no adaptation to it, and that's why they had to actually fix it by using some real balance measures. When people tell miners to adapt or quit, it's because there are ways of adapting. The miners generally refuse to and instead argue about cost and other irrelevancies. We should argue about the cost of supercaps .... at least that makes them rare compared to untanked.badly tanked hulks... The best thing about the barge/exhumer changes is that low end minerals are going to be hilariously low meaning for hilariously cheap supers. I can't ******* wait :3
Nothing show your claiming is true, what is true on the other hand is that now you will be able to mine in low/null and have enough tank so your friends come help you, this is good for the game.
Now you need REAL organisations and EFFORT to achieve the same ganking, leading to more ships destroyed witch is also good for the game.
As you can see, there's no problem, just cry babies tears by millions of M3 brb |
Andre Jean Sarpantis
University of Caille Gallente Federation
36
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:46:00 -
[668] - Quote
reading the whole thing i come to the conclusion CCP did a well thougth change if Gankers are whinning that hard in this thread.
Ahhh yes!! Ganker tears so delicious and tasty...so sweet and enjoyable.
Well...to be honest....as it is rigth now before the changes kicking in its far t easy to kill a Exhumer, even if the pilot to tries acting best as possible, even with tank fit....currently Exhumers are simply to easy killable.
So with the changes are kicking in 8th of august, Gankers just need to bring in more Firepower and more efforts to bring down this lousy Miner pilot and collect his tears...so what....its a fair change...More efforts needed...adapt or look out new easier prey!
sincerly
Andre Jean Sarpantis ( Roleplayed nephew from the Serpentis founder ) |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1707
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:48:00 -
[669] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Yet we are presented with those LOL YOU MUST HAVE 32 K EHP OR YOU PLAY WRONG LOL fittings and they use a MAPC. GǪwhich are a response to the Gǣbut it's meaningless, they'll bring moreGǥ argument.
... which is a wrong adding to a wrong. Does not make it a right.
Tippia wrote: When people tell miners to adapt or quit, it's because there are ways of adapting. The miners generally refuse to and instead argue about cost and other irrelevancies.
Well when you tell gankers to adapt or quit, it's because there are ways of adapting. The gankers generally refuse to and instead argue about cost (of bringing *1* more catalyst for 1 hulk) and other irrelevancies. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8773
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:49:00 -
[670] - Quote
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:Nothing show your claiming is true, what is true on the other hand is that now you will be able to mine in low/null and have enough tank so your friends come help you, this is good for the game. No. Far more sturdier ships than these are lost already because the difference in rules means that the friends will not get there in timeGǪ
Quote:Now you need REAL organisations and EFFORT to achieve the same ganking, leading to more ships destroyed witch is also good for the game. Not really, no. Unless you're talking about highsec, in which case what you said is already true if you choose to make it so. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
|
DrSmegma
Smegma United Asgard Supplies and Logistics
63
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:49:00 -
[671] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Tippia wrote: When people tell miners to adapt or quit, it's because there are ways of adapting. The miners generally refuse to and instead argue about cost and other irrelevancies.
Well when you tell gankers to adapt or quit, it's because there are ways of adapting. The gankers generally refuse to and instead argue about cost (of bringing *1* more catalyst for 1 hulk) and other irrelevancies.
This is simply wrong as the gankers are not arguing like that. It has more to do with miners having an average IQ of about 75 (which is sadly too low to survive in a game of social darwinism like EvEO) and being unable to adapt, then crying until CCP makes the game idiot-proof for them which it was never meant to be.
But guys, we can blame miners all we want. Who really ****** up is CCP. I don't really want to troll you. If I trolled you anyway, I'll probably edit it out as soon as the rage fades. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1707
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:50:00 -
[672] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Tippia wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Yet we are presented with those LOL YOU MUST HAVE 32 K EHP OR YOU PLAY WRONG LOL fittings and they use a MAPC. GǪwhich are a response to the GÇ£but it's meaningless, they'll bring moreGÇ¥ argument. It's not something you have to do GÇö it's an escalation in response to their escalation that disproves a completely different myth about the tankability of Hulks. Quote:Then the answer is the same your ilk has always given to everybody else: adapt or quit. Answer to what? It has nothing to do with what you quoted. In fact, the issues caused by this fundamentally flawed concept of cost-balancing were fundamentally flawed exactly because there was no adaptation to it, and that's why they had to actually fix it by using some real balance measures. When people tell miners to adapt or quit, it's because there are ways of adapting. The miners generally refuse to and instead argue about cost and other irrelevancies. We should argue about the cost of supercaps .... at least that makes them rare compared to untanked.badly tanked hulks...
The PL screenshot in the EvE news should show how rare are supercaps these days... Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1707
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:50:00 -
[673] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Exhumers? Need a MAPC just to not suck complete balls. Incorrect.
Had it been incorrect they'd not change the mining ships. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1707
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:52:00 -
[674] - Quote
JamesCLK wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Exhumers? Need a DCU II just to not suck complete balls. FYP
No, because the DCU does not enable fitting shield mods to get to those conservative 30k EHP. The MAPC does. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
269
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:53:00 -
[675] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Tippia wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Exhumers? Need a MAPC just to not suck complete balls. Incorrect. Had it been incorrect they'd not change the mining ships.
don't try and argue the point with them, they just keep coming up with the same crap. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy Black Sun Alliance
295
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:54:00 -
[676] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Then the answer is the same your ilk has always given to everybody else: adapt or quit. yeah but at least your mining bots can operate in peace :shobon:
strawman: you know mining bots are against the EULA. [IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG] |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1707
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:55:00 -
[677] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:What I find tasty is the hypocrisy exposed You mean the GÇ£adapt or gtfoGÇ¥ dribble now coming from the exact class of people who could never adapt and who had to be helped by CCP to no longer be idiots? The dribble directed at those who have proven time and a gain that they can adapt just fine?
Then harden up and adapt. Your adaptable superiority should show, having it been proven time and again.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8773
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:56:00 -
[678] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:... which is a wrong adding to a wrong. Does not make it a right. No. It's a right correcting a wrong, making it right. Whether or not it's actually a good solution isn't the question GÇö it's whether or not the initial claim has any basis in reality (which it doesn't).
Quote:Well when you tell gankers to adapt or quit, it's because there are ways of adapting. GǪexcept that we're talking about the general failed strategy of cost-balancing, to which there is no adaptation. It is not an answer to the quote in question.
Quote:Had it been incorrect they'd not change the mining ships. Fallacy. It can be (and is) just as correct anyway, especially if the decision behind the change is driven by a fundamentally flawed and disproven balancing concept.
Quote:No, because the DCU does not enable fitting shield mods to get to those conservative 30k EHP. GǪexcept, of course, that 30k EHP isn't the qualifier for Gǣnot sucking ballsGǥ. The DCII is quite sufficient, and an MAPC isn't needed.
Quote:Then harden up and adapt. So you agree that the barge EHP changes are completely unnecessary then. Good. A but confusing given your previous statements, but still good. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Arvantis Sauril
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:56:00 -
[679] - Quote
Quote:
Nothing show your claiming is true, what is true on the other hand is that now you will be able to mine in low/null and have enough tank so your friends come help you, this is good for the game.
Now you need REAL organisations and EFFORT to achieve the same ganking, leading to more ships destroyed witch is also good for the game.
As you can see, there's no problem, just cry babies tears by millions of M3
This is good for the game!!!!
But only if there are more reasons for people to be out in low and null. Mining, missioning, whatever. If everyone is generating income behind Concord, this game doesn't happen. I'm just worried, with what I understand of CCP's track record, that even if this is their vision (Which would be a good vision) it will take 2 + years to get there... |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1457
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:57:00 -
[680] - Quote
Barbara Nichole wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Yesterday in Sirseshin, several times. a tornado is a pretty expensive way to kill a hulk it seems that you're angry because hulks are able to die in hisec??????? but not unfairly expensive..considering the price of the target. Belly up to the bar if you want to drink otherwise move on. An untanked T1 battle crusier will have nearly double the tank of an untanked T2 hulk... seems fine to me.
isk balancing is ******* stupid hope this helps a rogue goon |
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1457
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:57:00 -
[681] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:JamesCLK wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Exhumers? Need a DCU II just to not suck complete balls. FYP No, because the DCU does not enable fitting shield mods to get to those conservative 30k EHP. The MAPC does.
use both in tandem and you get a rogue goon |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
552
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 19:59:00 -
[682] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:Nothing show your claiming is true, what is true on the other hand is that now you will be able to mine in low/null and have enough tank so your friends come help you, this is good for the game. No. Far more sturdier ships than these are lost already because the difference in rules means that the friends will not get there in timeGǪ
What about considering these mining barges changes as the beginning of industry changes, just a step. New changes will hit over time like ring mining so yes these ships will be used lore in those regions. Then, and as many people claim it should happen and will probably happen, high sec minerals available amount and respawn time can/will probably also be tweaked.
But then, the same crying about mining barges buffs will cry because they will have to mine in low/null because :tears: isk/h
Quote:Now you need REAL organisations and EFFORT to achieve the same ganking, leading to more ships destroyed witch is also good for the game. Not really, no. Unless you're talking about highsec, in which case what you said is already true if you choose to make it so.[/quote]
Yep was about high sec just forgot to mention it, sry. And yes it's already the case for some gank activities, not in what concerns mining barges, this is shown by thousands and thousands of KM's where you can fit as much tank as you wish you can simple blow up whatever mining barge with minimal effort, this was wrong and needed changes. Bot argument is a false argument and goes against and makes fools of gankers rather than suit their arguments.
brb |
Ginseng Jita
PAN-EVE TRADING COMPANY
1675
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:01:00 -
[683] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Tippia wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Exhumers? Need a MAPC just to not suck complete balls. Incorrect. Had it been incorrect they'd not change the mining ships. don't try and argue the point with them, they just keep coming up with the same crap.
Because you are too stupid to fit a proper tank on your barge.
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1457
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:02:00 -
[684] - Quote
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:Bot argument is a false argument and goes against and makes fools of gankers rather than suit their arguments.
yeah nobody bots in hisec a rogue goon |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
269
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:04:00 -
[685] - Quote
Ginseng Jita wrote:Dave stark wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Tippia wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Exhumers? Need a MAPC just to not suck complete balls. Incorrect. Had it been incorrect they'd not change the mining ships. don't try and argue the point with them, they just keep coming up with the same crap. Because you are too stupid to fit a proper tank on your barge.
considering i've lost 0 hulks in my entire eve career, i disagree. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy Black Sun Alliance
295
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:05:00 -
[686] - Quote
Danny Diamonds wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Danny Diamonds wrote:I am just guessing here, but I am willing to bet they chose this route to avoid "Creative" use of said Exhumers. Giving them more slots to fit a tank or more yield may have other implications (using one for tackle?). Just a guess, nothing more. hint: they don't need more mids to fit a better tank, just a slight bump in CPU and some grid. True for the Hulk, but not all of the Exhumers. One of the goals of the re-balance is to make ships within a group all have a well-defined role. Just adding some grid and cpu to all of them would not solve their lack of individual roles.
...and space training out better..while giving them continued value as a character progresses. the lowest yield exhumers will have better tanks.. the T2 hulks wiht the best yields will change a little in tanking but still have about as much tank as a T1 battlecrusier. [IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG] |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1708
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:06:00 -
[687] - Quote
Tippia wrote:No. It's a right correcting a wrong, making it right.
Your opinion. Not absolute.
Tippia wrote:Fallacy. It can be (and is) just as correct anyway, especially if the decision behind the change is driven by a fundamentally flawed and disproven balancing concept.
You know that same Dev was an EvE player (a Goon none the less). You may as well send a curriculum and replace him and make your opinions law for the Higher Good of EvE.
Till that day, HE decides and YOU adapt or stop playing.
Tippia wrote:GǪexcept, of course, that 30k EHP isn't the qualifier for Gǣnot sucking ballsGǥ. The DCII is quite sufficient, and an MAPC isn't needed.
Care to share a DCUII fitting that lets a Mack survive 2-3 catalysts?
Tippia wrote:So you agree that the barge EHP changes are completely unnecessary then. Good. A but confusing given your previous statements, but still good.
No I don't agree. To me I have to have the same freedom fitting any ship in game. I can fit my Minnie ships in 50 different *and cool and powerful* ways each, I don't see why I have to settle for EITHER yield OR tank OR cargo for industrial ships. There's no middle way 20k EHP fitting for a Mack that lets use 1 MLU and hold 4 ice cubes (while I can fit 2-3 BCUs in my caldari ships *without losing a single inch of tank* or I can fit both gyrostabs and TEs on minnie ships with a smooth degree of choice of tank vs gank).
So the "proper way" for me would be to give freedom to get such 20k EHP Mack. Not a 200K EHP but something better than the current: "either it tanks a bit but sucks or it dies to a random fart". Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Ginseng Jita
PAN-EVE TRADING COMPANY
1675
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:06:00 -
[688] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:Bot argument is a false argument and goes against and makes fools of gankers rather than suit their arguments. yeah nobody bots in hisec
OMG I love you...have my babies. Never thought I would be siding with Goons, but, in this instance I support you 100%. Bot's are present now in large numbers and with these changes not only will you see rise in bots, but now...now,...get your mackinaws!
Go to the ice fields. Target ice. Activate strip miners. Walk away from computer. Go watch a movie. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8774
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:07:00 -
[689] - Quote
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:What about considering these mining barges changes as the beginning of industry changes, just a step. New changes will hit over time like ring mining so yes these ships will be used lore in those regions. GǪand that doesn't change the fact that far far sturdier ships than these are lost already because the difference in rules means that the friends will not get there in time. So still no, you won't really be able to mine in low/null any more than you can now because of this.
Quote:Yep was about high sec just forgot to mention it, sry. And yes it's already the case for some gank activities, not in what concerns mining barges Sure it is, if you choose it to be. You see, it's already quite easy to make the gankers require organisation and effort to get their kills. What's shown by thousands and thousands of killmails is that miners don't fit a tank, and thus get blown up to no-one's surprise but their own.
GǪwasn't even mentioned so what's your point?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
552
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:07:00 -
[690] - Quote
Arvantis Sauril wrote:Quote:
Nothing show your claiming is true, what is true on the other hand is that now you will be able to mine in low/null and have enough tank so your friends come help you, this is good for the game.
Now you need REAL organisations and EFFORT to achieve the same ganking, leading to more ships destroyed witch is also good for the game.
As you can see, there's no problem, just cry babies tears by millions of M3
This is good for the game!!!! But only if there are more reasons for people to be out in low and null. Mining, missioning, whatever. If everyone is generating income behind Concord, this game doesn't happen. I'm just worried, with what I understand of CCP's track record, that even if this is their vision (Which would be a good vision) it will take 2 + years to get there...
There are already more reasons and there will be more reasons sooner than later:
-ring mining? -new DED complexes? -Station and POS changes about to hit?
And you know what? -those making gazillions of isk in high sec are not really those so called "bad at eve" carebears, sure 100% of those are null alliances alts using high sec facilities and concord protection to make their costs get even lower with still higher profits from null sec activities.
Again, I live in null and never claim I know better than everyone whatever crap thing, but this kind of thread and most threads where I see null sec guys come trying to give lessons of e-honour, how the game should be played by others etc just makes me really laugh. You know it's the story of the thief and the guy surveying, the thief gets caught and so the other guy but he just doesn't understand why he's also in jail. You see where the problem is? brb |
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1708
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:07:00 -
[691] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:JamesCLK wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Exhumers? Need a DCU II just to not suck complete balls. FYP No, because the DCU does not enable fitting shield mods to get to those conservative 30k EHP. The MAPC does. use both in tandem and you get
... an useless brick. May as well fit lasers on a damnation. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1457
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:09:00 -
[692] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:JamesCLK wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Exhumers? Need a DCU II just to not suck complete balls. FYP No, because the DCU does not enable fitting shield mods to get to those conservative 30k EHP. The MAPC does. use both in tandem and you get ... an useless brick. May as well fit lasers on a damnation.
more like "a ship that still mines better than literally anything else in the game" a rogue goon |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
251
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:09:00 -
[693] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:Bot argument is a false argument and goes against and makes fools of gankers rather than suit their arguments. yeah nobody bots in hisec The efforts against bots come in the form of banning bots. Also it's entirely possible and probable that a number of non-botting players will take advantage of these changes. Despite their presence, bot are a non issue in this argument. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1457
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:09:00 -
[694] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:The efforts against bots come in the form of banning bots. Also it's entirely possible and probable that a number of non-botting players will take advantage of these changes. Despite their presence, bot are a non issue in this argument.
even though many of the hypocrites in this thread want local removed from nullsec because of bots lmao a rogue goon |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
552
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:10:00 -
[695] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:Bot argument is a false argument and goes against and makes fools of gankers rather than suit their arguments. yeah nobody bots in hisec
That's Shreegs job not yours, and yes there are bots over there but numbers already shown there are also in null, mining and rating bots, what are you doing about this?
Nothing. brb |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
251
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:12:00 -
[696] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:The efforts against bots come in the form of banning bots. Also it's entirely possible and probable that a number of non-botting players will take advantage of these changes. Despite their presence, bot are a non issue in this argument. even though many of the hypocrites in this thread want local removed from nullsec because of bots lmao Calling "bots" isn't a good justification for any change. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1457
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:13:00 -
[697] - Quote
and the issue isn't even bots, it's enabling AFK mining a rogue goon |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1708
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:13:00 -
[698] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:The efforts against bots come in the form of banning bots. Also it's entirely possible and probable that a number of non-botting players will take advantage of these changes. Despite their presence, bot are a non issue in this argument. even though many of the hypocrites in this thread want local removed from nullsec because of bots lmao
No, local should removed from every sec because it gives more free intel than WoW will ever give in their game. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
415
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:13:00 -
[699] - Quote
Also, when I see a DCII and shield rigs Hulk I think: "what a moron" or "what an overtank AFKer". Not respect. He's making easily 30% less than everybody else, who can get a ship exploded every now and then but make it back in 2 days and come well ahead off the overtanked scared afker.
The real risk vs reward does not come from having zero deaths in your life but from earning much more than you lose.[/quote]
THIS is very revealing. A window into the mind of the entitled miner bear.
You view miners with contempt when they make rational fitting choices. Amazing. You see someone adapting to ganking strategy, by adding EHP - and you dismiss it as 'scared overtanking'?
It seems like you have it all figured out then - if you earn more by going 'max yield' because you consider ganking to be a rare event - not to warrant a tank - by all means. Why do you even consider ganking a problem then?
The funny thing about tanking up a barge - generally the owner will never know precisely how many times its saved his ass, simply by passively causing a ganker to move along and find easier targets.
A DCUII is like deadbolts, a Rottie in the yard, and an NRA sticker in the window. Most thieves will just pass on by.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1708
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:14:00 -
[700] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:and the issue isn't even bots, it's further enabling AFK mining
If you don't like AFK mining you can file a petition to Bruxelles. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1457
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:14:00 -
[701] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:The efforts against bots come in the form of banning bots. Also it's entirely possible and probable that a number of non-botting players will take advantage of these changes. Despite their presence, bot are a non issue in this argument. even though many of the hypocrites in this thread want local removed from nullsec because of bots lmao No, local should removed from every sec because it gives more free intel than WoW will ever give in their game.
because the risk/reward balance in the game is totally skewed towards nullsec and not hisec ahahaha a rogue goon |
Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy Black Sun Alliance
296
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:15:00 -
[702] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:The efforts against bots come in the form of banning bots. Also it's entirely possible and probable that a number of non-botting players will take advantage of these changes. Despite their presence, bot are a non issue in this argument. even though many of the hypocrites in this thread want local removed from nullsec because of bots lmao
what?! what are you pretending now? I want local removed in null sec because it should never be used as free intel against the cloaked.. this has nothing what so ever to do with bots, the use of which is against the rules. There are some who shout about AFK cloakers (as if they are problems).. that wouldn't be people who want local removed. [IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG] |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1223
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:15:00 -
[703] - Quote
Haquer wrote:The best thing about the barge/exhumer changes is that low end minerals are going to be hilariously low meaning for hilariously cheap supers.
I can't ******* wait :3 Yeah, I want one but I need a hull, mods and a character. I have none of these. At least one will be getting cheaper. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8774
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:15:00 -
[704] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Your opinion. Not absolute. No, it's pretty much a fact. The problems they complain about would go away with a few simple adjustments.
Quote:You know that same Dev was an EvE player (a Goon none the less). Still the same fallacy.
Quote:Care to share a DCUII fitting that lets a Mack survive 2-3 catalysts? Care to not move the goalposts quite so much? DCII + two invulns makes you safe from 2; the right system takes care of the third.
So why do you keep insisting that people adapt?
Quote:I can fit 2-3 BCUs in my caldari ships *without losing a single inch of tank* That's quite incorrect as well. You've lost many inches of tank by doing so. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
arcca jeth
Dark Alliance Dark Empire Alliance
114
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:16:00 -
[705] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:i remember when a couple of dudes in frigates kept a proteus tackled long enough for us to arrive and murder it
clearly two dudes in 500k isk ships deciding the fate of a 2bn isk ship is totally unfair
your comparison is flawed. sure they can tackle but obviously they needed help to kill it. had they been able to kill it with those two 500k ships without needing help, you might have a valid point. but you don't so , cool story brah?
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1708
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:20:00 -
[706] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote: You view miners with contempt when they make rational fitting choices. Amazing.
It's not rational choices. It's as scarey choices done by bads who can't be ready to react at incoming hostiles and with the same mentality off those who do L4 in a totally passive Drake in 3 hours.
Herr Wilkus wrote: It seems like you have it all figured out then - if you earn more by going 'max yield' because you consider ganking to be a rare event - not to warrant a tank - by all means. Why do you even consider ganking a problem then?
Ganking is not rare, it's "rare enough" expecially for those who can mine roids (not ice) and can pick a proper system to do so.
I don't consider ganking a problem at all. Instead, I consider preaching "LOL miners HTFU or quit" for months and then creating yourselves a waterfall of tears when faced to do the same to be humorous.
Herr Wilkus wrote: The funny thing about tanking up a barge - generally the owner will never know precisely how many times its saved his ass, simply by passively causing a ganker to move along and find easier targets.
See you pointed out why he's bad. He is so oblivious he never noticed that Probe scanning his mining ship and then warping in the catalyst(s).
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
249
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:20:00 -
[707] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:more like "a ship that still mines better than literally anything else in the game" vv's not great with numbers
could you make this point in voodoo marks on a graph? |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
122
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:21:00 -
[708] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:even though many of the hypocrites in this thread want local removed from nullsec because of bots lmao
Are you saying there's no bots in nullsec?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jc2vt_t53Us&feature=autoplay&list=PL7734648A75A0F6FA&playnext=1 |
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
151
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:21:00 -
[709] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Chainsaw Plankton wrote:from what I see suicide ganking most people works exactly like that. luckily some people make themselves targets by carrying tons of phat loots. However miners are on the other side of that ratio, the profit aspect isn't exactly there but the lulz:isk outweighs it. I've always lulzed when ganking a hulk but tbh it was always rather easy targets. personally I would have boosted hulk hull hp and increased cargo expander hp penalty to give miners a choice, put em up to 40-50k ehp when fully buffer tanked. a better solution would have been to give hulks the ability to fit better tanks than what they are currently capable of (say, 50-60k EHP without gang bonuses) at the expense of yield, rather than giving them 15k ehp without a single hardener fit (there is literally no other ship in the game short of battleships with those HP numbers) in any case, even with a tank fit hulks were still capable of out-mining almost every other ship in the game, save for a yield-fit covetor, which still lacks the utility of a gigantic cargo hold
but I like hull tanking |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1708
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:22:00 -
[710] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:The efforts against bots come in the form of banning bots. Also it's entirely possible and probable that a number of non-botting players will take advantage of these changes. Despite their presence, bot are a non issue in this argument. even though many of the hypocrites in this thread want local removed from nullsec because of bots lmao No, local should removed from every sec because it gives more free intel than WoW will ever give in their game. because the risk/reward balance in the game is totally skewed towards nullsec and not hisec ahahaha
Feel free to find my thread on the suggestion forum where I suggest to remove hi sec from the game from everywhere except the newbie starting systems. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1708
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:23:00 -
[711] - Quote
EvilweaselSA wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:more like "a ship that still mines better than literally anything else in the game" vv's not great with numbers could you make this point in voodoo marks on a graph?
Glad to see Tech went where I suggested it'd do, while you were cleaning your butt with them, eh? Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1457
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:26:00 -
[712] - Quote
Barbara Nichole wrote:what?! what are you pretending now? I want local removed in null sec because it should never be used as free intel against the cloaked.. this has nothing what so ever to do with bots, the use of which is against the rules. There are some who shout about AFK cloakers (as if they are problems).. that wouldn't be people who want local removed.
And CONCORD should be removed in hisec because you should never get free defense by NPCs.
You want the risk in hisec reduced to zero, and the risk in nullsec increased to where doing anything outside of fleets is impossible without getting murdered by a few bombers. Meanwhile, it would be just as profitable to operate in hisec as it would to operate in nullsec. a rogue goon |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
552
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:26:00 -
[713] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:The efforts against bots come in the form of banning bots. Also it's entirely possible and probable that a number of non-botting players will take advantage of these changes. Despite their presence, bot are a non issue in this argument. even though many of the hypocrites in this thread want local removed from nullsec because of bots lmao No, local should removed from every sec because it gives more free intel than WoW will ever give in their game. because the risk/reward balance in the game is totally skewed towards nullsec and not hisec ahahaha
I'm sure you can mine in null and for much higher isk/h then high sec, yes the risk is higher but that's not the real problem. This doesn't stop mining bots from mining in null and *swift* kiss the POS, how bigger is the risk then?
Again, low risk low income, pick your 100kEHP skiff put it in the high sec belt and do your homework, your accountability or your nex book whatever crap you want to do. Some people just mine in groups and have fun on coms while doing some other stuff, what are you proposing to this people? -you're saying they should not play the game?-unless you pay their sub you have nothing to say about this -you say they play badly the game they pay for? -how much does this affect you and if really does that much, pick a couple ships and go gank them, problem solved.
And I really think the cost for killing those new mining barges is not a problem for goonswarm, PL, -A-, RA whatever, does it?
brb |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1709
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:26:00 -
[714] - Quote
Tippia wrote:No, it's pretty much a fact. The problems they complain about would go away with a few simple adjustments.
Well, simple adjustments happened. Sadly not in the direction you (or even I) wanted. Stuff happens.
Tippia wrote:You know that same Dev was an EvE player (a Goon none the less). Still the same fallacy.
Ah, now I get it. He was a Rugby player.
Tippia wrote:Care to not move the goalposts quite so much? DCII + two invulns makes you safe from 2; the right system takes care of the third.
Not at all and I move "goalposts" as far as I want. Sue me.
Tippia wrote:Quote:I can fit 2-3 BCUs in my caldari ships *without losing a single inch of tank* That's quite incorrect as well. You've lost many inches of tank by doing so.
Why are you one of those terribles who fit a plate in their shield tanked Drake or Raven lows? Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1457
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:28:00 -
[715] - Quote
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:The efforts against bots come in the form of banning bots. Also it's entirely possible and probable that a number of non-botting players will take advantage of these changes. Despite their presence, bot are a non issue in this argument. even though many of the hypocrites in this thread want local removed from nullsec because of bots lmao No, local should removed from every sec because it gives more free intel than WoW will ever give in their game. because the risk/reward balance in the game is totally skewed towards nullsec and not hisec ahahaha I'm sure you can mine in null and for much higher isk/h then high sec, yes the risk is higher but that's not the real problem. This doesn't stop mining bots from mining in null and *swift* kiss the POS, how bigger is the risk then? Again, low risk low income, pick your 100kEHP skiff put it in the high sec belt and do your homework, your accountability or your nex book whatever crap you want to do. Some people just mine in groups and have fun on coms while doing some other stuff, what are you proposing to this people? -you're saying they should not play the game?-unless you pay their sub you have nothing to say about this -you say they play badly the game they pay for? -how much does this affect you and if really does that much, pick a couple ships and go gank them, problem solved. And I really think the cost for killing those new mining barges is not a problem for goonswarm, PL, -A-, RA whatever, does it?
I hear you can anchor towers in asteroid belts.
a rogue goon |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
552
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:28:00 -
[716] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Barbara Nichole wrote:what?! what are you pretending now? I want local removed in null sec because it should never be used as free intel against the cloaked.. this has nothing what so ever to do with bots, the use of which is against the rules. There are some who shout about AFK cloakers (as if they are problems).. that wouldn't be people who want local removed. And CONCORD should be removed in hisec because you should never get free defense by NPCs.
And let me remind you it's the same Concord who's protecting GS/-A-/Pl and every major alliance high sec industry/mission/transport ALT corporations.
How much are you serious about this when you clearly get all the advantages of high sec and null sec?
brb |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1709
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:29:00 -
[717] - Quote
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:And I really think the cost for killing those new mining barges is not a problem for goonswarm, PL, -A-, RA whatever, does it?
Apparently their Technetium won't afford them to pay for 1 more catalyst to kill the hulk.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy Black Sun Alliance
296
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:29:00 -
[718] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:and the issue isn't even bots, it's further enabling AFK mining
afk mining is not against the EULA nor is it a big problem.. if a miner goes afk in space he is not safe and he is not making isk - even after this change. AFK miners are typically absent for about 2 to 3 minutes at the longest and usually are not even gone from their keyboards. The thing that causes me to take my attention from the game the most is my kids.. usually not long enough to miss a cycle.. sorry if that is somehow disturbing to you. [IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG] |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
552
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:30:00 -
[719] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:And I really think the cost for killing those new mining barges is not a problem for goonswarm, PL, -A-, RA whatever, does it?
Quote:I hear you can anchor towers in asteroid belts.
Would you mind to answer my question?
Thx brb |
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
151
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:31:00 -
[720] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Why are you one of those terribles who fit a plate in their shield tanked Drake or Raven lows?
nah, reinforced bulkheads! hull tank ftw |
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1457
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:33:00 -
[721] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Why are you one of those terribles who fit a plate in their Drake or Raven lows?
hi the Drake can't actually fit 3x BCUs, a DC II, LSE II, 2x invulns, EM hardener, thermic hardener, MWD, 7x HMLs and shield extender rigs without using faction hardeners and a CPU hardwiring
also fitting a full midslot tank sacrifices midslots that could fit utility mods a rogue goon |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
552
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:34:00 -
[722] - Quote
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Why are you one of those terribles who fit a plate in their shield tanked Drake or Raven lows? nah, reinforced bulkheads! hull tank ftw
Get rid of speed/agility penalties and I'll start flying exclusively gallente *show his Elite Hull tanking Certificate*
o/ brb |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
552
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:36:00 -
[723] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Why are you one of those terribles who fit a plate in their Drake or Raven lows? hi the Drake can't actually fit 3x BCUs, a DC II, LSE II, 2x invulns, EM hardener, thermic hardener, MWD, 7x HMLs and shield extender rigs without using faction hardeners and a CPU hardwiring also fitting a full midslot tank sacrifices midslots that could fit utility mods
Peh no need for that, I'm sure it's easy to find cap stable permanent MWD drake fits with a single cheapo hardwiring and absolutely nothing faction fitted, look at your KB's, I can see one from here brb |
Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy Black Sun Alliance
299
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:36:00 -
[724] - Quote
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:Chainsaw Plankton wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Why are you one of those terribles who fit a plate in their shield tanked Drake or Raven lows? nah, reinforced bulkheads! hull tank ftw Get rid of speed/agility penalties and I'll start flying exclusively gallente *show his Elite Hull tanking Certificate* o/ lol, I had heard real men structure tank... if I was a man that's what I would do [IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG] |
Adder Nardieu
Exploding Squirrels
26
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:36:00 -
[725] - Quote
Here's an idea
Newest change to EVE: We pride ourselves on a game that is realistic as possible, so in order to enhance that fact, we have decided to implement the newest feature to fully represent one of the hazards of space that until now has been overlooked.
Meteors
These huge chunks of rock are nearly impervious to conventional weaponry, and as they are hurdling through space at thousands of meters per second, they are a threat to everything from the smallest frigate all the way up to player owned space stations. Their primary weakness lies in a piece of equipment that is already in game, Mining lasers!
Seeing as many combat ships have extra high slots that can't fit their most optimal weaponry, it will be easy for even the smallest frigate to fit a mining laser. Seeing as a meteor could pop onto the scanner at any momment, it would be wise for all ships to keep a close eye on their overview so that they are able to quickly target and mine it into dust before it impacts their ship and destroys it in a matter of seconds. It's possible that a ship not carrying a mining laser may be able to align and warp away before the rogue rock strikes them, but as the ETA of the meteor might be as little as 10 seconds, we reccoment that players fit their ships accordingly.
On the larger scale, the biggest meteors (Killer asteroids, as they might be called) have the potential to wreck even player owned space stations. Since for the longest time it has been accepted that miners must pay combat pilots to defend their mining barges, we feel that it would not be unprecedented for corporations to pay mining pilots to defend their space stations.
Next up: In our next enhancement for those players who love combat, pirates are now attracted to the radar signals of gunfire. PvP fight breaking out? There's a chance it'll attract the attention of the local pirates who love distracted targets! The pirate response may be just a few frigates, or it could be something as large as a battleship fleet! Watch your back, better keep those Dscans running while you're ganking that loaded transport. Since pirates in different areas use favored weapons, it will be advantageous for players to fit damage specific tank modules to combat the weapons of the ambushing pirates.
Sarcasm /off
Still sound good making people fit ships for something other than the role that they want to play in this game? As they say, you play this game the way you want to . At the present, we have a group of people, gankers, who are able to force high sec miners to play the game they DON'T want to play. The response from the gankers is that miners must fit their ships in a particular way in order to fulfill their role unharassed in an area that is, while not absolutely safe, considered to be less risky than other places in the game by design. And it's not just a matter of plugging in different modules, the miners have to have max tanking skills and fit rigs in order to fit said tanks effectively.
And I know it's not about profit. It's not about the cargo. It really is about the cost.
People saying "A ships isk should not be factored into its tank" is kinda stupid. While I'm not saying there should be a direct correlation in cost to survivability, there should be a direct relationship between cost and effectiveness. Right now, it is possible for a ganker or two in 5 mil ships to make a 300 mil ship very un-effective in the space of about 10 seconds. Since exhumers are not combat ships, their offence can't be boosted. To make them faster, while nice, doesn't make sense. The only real thing that makes sense is to increase their durability. And it's clear CCP has decided that if you want to take one down in high sec, you're going to need to sacrifice just as much isk as the person piloting their hulk in order to do it, in high sec.
This change doesn't really affect much in lowsec or null, which, by design, is where most pvp is expected to occur. As far as ore prices go, what I expect is for the market to finally become balanced. Highsec ores such as veldspar and plagio are going to become very cheap, still worth something in order for the fledgeling miner to start out, but not as valuable as they once were. Lowsec and Null ores such as Hemorphite, the ABC ores and Mercoxit...their value is going to go up as gankers are forced to focus their attacks there....and in return, more miners are going to find incentive to go there because of the increased risk/reward, and they might actually bring combat escorts since a fight is almost guaranteed. Wow, we might actually see something called PvP rather than the duck hunt that it's been up until now.
Bottom line: I'm sorry, you can't get away with preying on targets that don't shoot back for a lower cost to you than them. Not in high sec. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1457
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:38:00 -
[726] - Quote
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:Peh no need for that, I'm sure it's easy to find cap stable permanent MWD drake fits with a single cheapo hardwiring and absolutely nothing faction fitted, look at your KB's, I can see one from here
yes and believe it or not that fit sacrifices DPS and tank to gain that perma-MWDing capability
apparently only hulk pilots should be exempt from such a chore as having to make fitting sacrifices a rogue goon |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
552
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:38:00 -
[727] - Quote
Barbara Nichole wrote:Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:Chainsaw Plankton wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Why are you one of those terribles who fit a plate in their shield tanked Drake or Raven lows? nah, reinforced bulkheads! hull tank ftw Get rid of speed/agility penalties and I'll start flying exclusively gallente *show his Elite Hull tanking Certificate* o/ lol, I had heard real men structure tank... if I was a man that's what I would do
I already do IRL, ladies seem to appreciate brb |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1709
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:40:00 -
[728] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Why are you one of those terribles who fit a plate in their Drake or Raven lows? hi the Drake can't actually fit 3x BCUs, a DC II, LSE II, 2x invulns, EM hardener, thermic hardener, MWD, 7x HMLs and shield extender rigs without using faction hardeners and a CPU hardwiring also fitting a full midslot tank sacrifices midslots that could fit utility mods
Yeah Drakes are known for being the weakest ship in game, the one bound to all sorts of sacrifices and compromises.
In the meanwhile I offer to swap such bad lows with a Mack's and see how it improves. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
552
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:41:00 -
[729] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:Peh no need for that, I'm sure it's easy to find cap stable permanent MWD drake fits with a single cheapo hardwiring and absolutely nothing faction fitted, look at your KB's, I can see one from here yes and believe it or not that fit sacrifices DPS and tank to gain that perma-MWDing capability apparently only hulk pilots should be exempt from such a chore as having to make fitting sacrifices
Ho c'mon Richard, you know you get 500dps from 0 to 80km+ and over 80K EHP from that stuff in fleets, it's more than decent dps for BC size with Battleship EHP. Just see those new mining barges like drakes, low dps, high EHP brb |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1457
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:43:00 -
[730] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Yeah Drakes are known for being the weakest ship in game, the one bound to all sorts of sacrifices and compromises.
okay go show me that mythical 100k ehp drake that does 500 dps and has a 100k ehp tank and 80% resists across the board while having a web and point a rogue goon |
|
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
416
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:43:00 -
[731] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote: The funny thing about tanking up a barge - generally the owner will never know precisely how many times its saved his ass, simply by passively causing a ganker to move along and find easier targets.
See you pointed out why he's bad. He is so oblivious he never noticed that Probe scanning his mining ship and then warping in the catalyst(s).
No, because there are many ways to scan ships without anyone knowing they've been scanned. Good gankers will rarely let you know anything beyond that they are in local.
A cloaky Rapier could have scanned you hours ago, visible only for 15 seconds. Many of us have Exhumer alts - Hulks that are speed fit and designed to passively scan other Exhumers, and then bring in the team, all while mining.
Good gankers are only betrayed by their presence in local chat.
Here's another tip for you, since you seem to be quite ignorant about ganking mechanics.
Decloaking to scan an Exhumer is rarely even necessary, after you've scanned hundreds of them....
All you need to do is LOOK at the Hulk/Mack, and what it is doing. Is there an Orca? Good chance there are no Ex. Cargoholds. Mining solo? Probably has Cargoholds - take note of how long it takes between trips to the station. Permabooster pulses? There's another mid slot wasted. The shimmer of Invulnerability fields? Invuln I or II. Is it a member of a bot family? If you know what family, you know the fit.
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1457
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:44:00 -
[732] - Quote
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:Ho c'mon Richard, you know you get 500dps from 0 to 80km+ and over 80K EHP from that stuff in fleets, it's more than decent dps for BC size with Battleship EHP. Just see those new mining barges like drakes, low dps, high EHP
how many 200m hardwirings did it take to achieve that a rogue goon |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1458
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:48:00 -
[733] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Many of us have Exhumer alts - Hulks that are speed fit and designed to passively scan other Exhumers, and then bring in the team, all while mining.
yeah i did that with a Procurer during the interdiction, only without a passive scanner, it's wicked wild
"hey why are you targeting my mackinaw?" "oh I meant to target the ice next to me soz" a rogue goon |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
552
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:48:00 -
[734] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:Ho c'mon Richard, you know you get 500dps from 0 to 80km+ and over 80K EHP from that stuff in fleets, it's more than decent dps for BC size with Battleship EHP. Just see those new mining barges like drakes, low dps, high EHP how many 200m hardwirings did it take to achieve that
+1% PG Hardwiring, missile skills up to 5 and if you add the right command ship increases dps above this. If you use the other one then it's 5% shield resists p/lvl thus increasing tank. Again I can see it from here in those KB's brb |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1458
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:49:00 -
[735] - Quote
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:+1% PG Hardwiring, missile skills up to 5 and if you add the right command ship increases dps above this. If you use the other one then it's 5% shield resists p/lvl thus increasing tank. Again I can see it from here in those KB's
yeah tell me all about that command ship that increases DPS in any form
hint: there isn't one
there is, however, a very big command ship that increases mining yield
two of them, in fact a rogue goon |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
552
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:52:00 -
[736] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:+1% PG Hardwiring, missile skills up to 5 and if you add the right command ship increases dps above this. If you use the other one then it's 5% shield resists p/lvl thus increasing tank. Again I can see it from here in those KB's yeah tell me all about that command ship that increases DPS in any form hint: there isn't one there is, however, a very big command ship that increases mining yield two of them, in fact
One
Two brb |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
481
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:52:00 -
[737] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:so whats the price of a skiff nowadays?
i wanna make a fleet of battle skiffs... (maybe for null sec bait ship)
can someone punch this into EFT and let me know its stats?
low: dcu II nano II
mids: 1 mwd 1 long point 1 shield extender 1 invul
highs: 1 nuet
3 warrior II
please someone answer the question
Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
Adder Nardieu
Exploding Squirrels
26
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:53:00 -
[738] - Quote
There are plenty of command ships that can fit gang warfare links.
Hint: It's not about dps.
Last I checked, having faster targetting, better tanking, or better tackling was an advantage in PvP |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
269
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:54:00 -
[739] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:MeBiatch wrote:so whats the price of a skiff nowadays?
i wanna make a fleet of battle skiffs... (maybe for null sec bait ship)
can someone punch this into EFT and let me know its stats?
low: dcu II nano II
mids: 1 mwd 1 long point 1 shield extender 1 invul
highs: 1 nuet
5 warrior II please someone answer the question
ftfy. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy Black Sun Alliance
299
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:54:00 -
[740] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:+1% PG Hardwiring, missile skills up to 5 and if you add the right command ship increases dps above this. If you use the other one then it's 5% shield resists p/lvl thus increasing tank. Again I can see it from here in those KB's yeah tell me all about that command ship that increases DPS in any form hint: there isn't one there is, however, a very big command ship that increases mining yield two of them, in fact
what you don't get a fleet ewar, tanking - passive or active, or logi rep, speed, dps range, or sig size alteration boost from your command ship? you got robbed... [IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG] |
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1458
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:55:00 -
[741] - Quote
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:+1% PG Hardwiring, missile skills up to 5 and if you add the right command ship increases dps above this. If you use the other one then it's 5% shield resists p/lvl thus increasing tank. Again I can see it from here in those KB's yeah tell me all about that command ship that increases DPS in any form hint: there isn't one there is, however, a very big command ship that increases mining yield two of them, in fact OneTwo
let's see the ganglinks that they are bonused for
one gives a shield resistance bonus, one gives a remote/local rep bonus, the other gives reduces the activation cost of local/remote reps
i think i missed the one that increases dps for missiles or literally any weapon a rogue goon |
Amber Katelo
82
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:56:00 -
[742] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:The current situation is such that even the mining barge designed to be weak and flimsy... Speaking lore-wise, wouldn't the natural response to increased occurrence of ganking be to update the ship to "today's needs"?
IRL, car makers are tending to build higher mileage cars because they are wanted by the consumer or required by law. In WWII, fighter planes got buffed to handle circumstances or advances in technology, and not just with fitting changes (post-manufacturing additions).
Why not Eve ships? I shoot first. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
122
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:56:00 -
[743] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:MeBiatch wrote:so whats the price of a skiff nowadays?
i wanna make a fleet of battle skiffs... (maybe for null sec bait ship)
can someone punch this into EFT and let me know its stats?
low: dcu II nano II
mids: 1 mwd 1 long point 1 shield extender 1 invul
highs: 1 nuet
3 warrior II please someone answer the question
What's nuetralizer?
|
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
552
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:57:00 -
[744] - Quote
Adder Nardieu wrote:There are plenty of command ships that can fit gang warfare links.
Hint: It's not about dps.
Last I checked, having faster targetting, better tanking, or better tackling was an advantage in PvP
True, but doesn't mean that aren't other options just because people choose just "some".
It's like you choosing to have a lower income because your ship mines less but has a better tank. Doesn't mean it's the best choice but it's just yours, and who has the right to come tell you you're dumb or doing it wrong when your choice is a valid option? brb |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1458
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 20:59:00 -
[745] - Quote
also realistically any ship is only going to get bonuses from two command ships because nobody puts an eos/proteus in every squad command spot a rogue goon |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
552
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:00:00 -
[746] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:+1% PG Hardwiring, missile skills up to 5 and if you add the right command ship increases dps above this. If you use the other one then it's 5% shield resists p/lvl thus increasing tank. Again I can see it from here in those KB's yeah tell me all about that command ship that increases DPS in any form hint: there isn't one there is, however, a very big command ship that increases mining yield two of them, in fact OneTwo let's see the ganglinks that they are bonused for one gives a shield resistance bonus, one gives a remote/local rep bonus, the other gives reduces the activation cost of local/remote reps i think i missed the one that increases dps for missiles or literally any weapon
It doesn't, just made a mistake in between the gang link and the ship it self bonus, nothing to fuss about heh Richard !!
brb |
Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy Black Sun Alliance
299
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:01:00 -
[747] - Quote
Amber Katelo wrote:Khanh'rhh wrote:The current situation is such that even the mining barge designed to be weak and flimsy... Speaking lore-wise, wouldn't the natural response to increased occurrence of ganking be to update the ship to "today's needs"? IRL, car makers are tending to build higher mileage cars because they are wanted by the consumer or required by law. In WWII, fighter planes got buffed to handle circumstances or advances in technology, and not just with fitting changes (post-manufacturing additions). Why not Eve ships?
good point and absolutetly true.. the fact is that they've just brought mining ships more in line with other ship tech in the game. [IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG] |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
552
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:01:00 -
[748] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:also realistically any ship is only going to get bonuses from two command ships because nobody puts an eos/proteus in every squad command spot
sure you could run six links in a vulture but you can only have one mindlink anyway, and you're gimping its tank hilariously
You forgot Lokis and Tengus! -you're a bad guy when you want brb |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
481
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:02:00 -
[749] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:MeBiatch wrote:MeBiatch wrote:so whats the price of a skiff nowadays?
i wanna make a fleet of battle skiffs... (maybe for null sec bait ship)
can someone punch this into EFT and let me know its stats?
low: dcu II nano II
mids: 1 mwd 1 long point 1 shield extender 1 invul
highs: 1 nuet
3 warrior II please someone answer the question What's nuetralizer? to take dem NRG Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
151
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:02:00 -
[750] - Quote
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:also realistically any ship is only going to get bonuses from two command ships because nobody puts an eos/proteus in every squad command spot
sure you could run six links in a vulture but you can only have one mindlink anyway, and you're gimping its tank hilariously You forgot Lokis and Tengus! -you're a bad guy when you want
those go in fleet and wing command spots! |
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1458
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:03:00 -
[751] - Quote
Quote:You forgot Lokis and Tengus!
i seem to have missed all of those t3s running around with 5 command processors and somehow managing to fit them all a rogue goon |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1710
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:06:00 -
[752] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Yeah Drakes are known for being the weakest ship in game, the one bound to all sorts of sacrifices and compromises. okay go show me that mythical 100k ehp drake that does 500 dps and has a 100k ehp tank and 80% resists across the board while having a web and point
This will happen the day you show me that mythical 30k EHP Mack that got 10k cargo size and mines like a pro.
On an unrelated note, since you guys preach how this is a TEAM GAME then why would a Drake in your blobfest have to fit point and web? Don't you bring in flocks of Rifters for that? Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1459
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:09:00 -
[753] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:This will happen the day you show me that mythical 30k EHP Mack that got 10k cargo size and mines like a pro.
On an unrelated note, since you guys preach how this is a TEAM GAME then why would a Drake in your blobfest have to fit point and web? Don't you bring in flocks of Rifters for that?
yes, we have other tackling ships so that mainline fleet ships don't have to give up midslots for tackle
how that is relevant in a discussion of "ships have to give up tank or utility to increase damage/mining/whatever yield" is beyond me
also I never said that any mining ship anywhere can fit a tank and still get maximum yield, I said that they give up yield for it
that is somehow a problem in eve online, a game of tradeoffs a rogue goon |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1710
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:13:00 -
[754] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:
No, because there are many ways to scan ships without anyone knowing they've been scanned. Good gankers will rarely let you know anything beyond that they are in local.
I have yet to meet such good gankers, maybe you should open a Gank University.
As long as they are not statistically relevant, their impact is negligible.
Herr Wilkus wrote: Here's another tip for you, since you seem to be quite ignorant about ganking mechanics.
I am not a pro ganker. I go for the deadspace fitted Hulks only, cash in 180M a pop and go back home. Sorry for not needing 10M pittance pay.
Herr Wilkus wrote: Decloaking to scan an Exhumer is rarely even necessary, after you've scanned hundreds of them....
All you need to do is LOOK at the Hulk/Mack, and what it is doing.
When I mined, if you looked at mine, you'd guess quite wrong except for the inv II shimmer.
Also, if you need to cloak to gank an AFK miner... Low hanging fruits don't need that extra mile.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
249
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:17:00 -
[755] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Glad to see Tech went where I suggested it'd do, while you were cleaning your butt with them, eh? im sorry did you just take credit for tech diving when a devblog saying "we are nerfing tech" as evidence your voodoo graphtracing works?
i could not come up with a better example that proves how dumb you are if i tried |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
249
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:19:00 -
[756] - Quote
i mean let's make it clear how much you just proved your system is nonsense
you make a prediction based on what we will charitably call interpreting the market graph
a change happens that changes the price of tech in a way that cannot be linked to the market graph in any way
you posit this proves your market graph interpretation was correct |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1459
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:20:00 -
[757] - Quote
also lmao at "mackinaws can't fit tanks"
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/16196592/Mackinaw%20-%20New%20Setup%202.jpg
32k ehp against blasters a rogue goon |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
249
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:21:00 -
[758] - Quote
i'm not sure if you're intelligent enough to grasp what i'm saying even boiled down that far:
since there is literally no way your "system" could have actually predicted the result, yet you took credit anyway, it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt your system is nonsense and you simply take credit whenever one of your coinflips happens to be correct, while burying the incorrect predictions |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
483
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:22:00 -
[759] - Quote
the link does not work...
Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
249
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:23:00 -
[760] - Quote
yes it does |
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1459
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:24:00 -
[761] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:the link does not work...
okay, http://i.imgur.com/aBuDj.jpg a rogue goon |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1713
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:25:00 -
[762] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:This will happen the day you show me that mythical 30k EHP Mack that got 10k cargo size and mines like a pro.
On an unrelated note, since you guys preach how this is a TEAM GAME then why would a Drake in your blobfest have to fit point and web? Don't you bring in flocks of Rifters for that? yes, we have other tackling ships so that mainline fleet ships don't have to give up midslots for tackle how that is relevant in a discussion of "ships have to give up tank or utility to increase damage/mining/whatever yield" is beyond me also I never said that any mining ship anywhere can fit a tank and still get maximum yield, I said that they give up yield for it that is somehow a problem in eve online, a game of tradeoffs
No, the problem is when tradeoffs for categories of ships are smoothly selectable and still let them fill their role. I would flat out refuse to fly a minmatar ship without a single gyrostab (unless it was pure bait, you know all ships except miners are nicely multi-role and some even multi-tanking philosophy).
On the opposite side there's mining ships who can't fit the corresponding booster (what in a combat ship is gyrostab / BCU etc) without such harsh drop in tank that makes them crap. Too much black and white.
So, a tradeoff among the tradeoffs has to be found.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
249
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:26:00 -
[763] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote: No, because there are many ways to scan ships without anyone knowing they've been scanned. Good gankers will rarely let you know anything beyond that they are in local.
vv is literally The Dumbest Pubbie he's not going to grasp what you're saying
oh well, we'll come up with some other final solution to the highsec mining problem |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1713
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:27:00 -
[764] - Quote
EvilweaselSA wrote:i mean let's make it clear how much you just proved your system is nonsense
you make a prediction based on what we will charitably call interpreting the market graph
a change happens that changes the price of tech in a way that cannot be linked to the market graph in any way
you posit this proves your market graph interpretation was correct
The trend was set before the announce, it just made it tank harder. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
249
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:30:00 -
[765] - Quote
"i was right despite being wrong in every way" |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
249
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:30:00 -
[766] - Quote
"if you redefine success enough times, you eventually get to me" |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1459
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:31:00 -
[767] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:No, the problem is when tradeoffs for categories of ships are smoothly selectable and still let them fill their role. I would flat out refuse to fly a minmatar ship without a single gyrostab (unless it was pure bait, you know all ships except miners are nicely multi-role and some even multi-tanking philosophy).
On the opposite side there's mining ships who can't fit the corresponding booster (what in a combat ship is gyrostab / BCU etc) without such harsh drop in tank that makes them crap. Too much black and white.
So, a tradeoff among the tradeoffs has to be found.
okay then take away/reduce the penalty from lowslot mining upgrades that causes mining mods' CPU to shoot up like it does a rogue goon |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
430
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:32:00 -
[768] - Quote
I've read every page of this thread and it has only served to solidify my position. The developers at CCP who are pushing this change on us seem to have lost any sense of what kind of balance is appropriate for this game. CCP Soundwave has taken a sledgehammer instead of a scalpel to open heart surgery, to use a cliche metaphor.
Adding some CPU and some powergrid would have been a proper buff to mining barge and exhumer tank. Adding EHP, especially in such massive proportions, is a colossal mistake.
EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
Werst Dendenahzees
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
87
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:33:00 -
[769] - Quote
Hey guys here are two command ships that increase damage, you are SO owned
Oh wait it doesn't ah well no biggie don't quote me on that it doesn't matter |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
271
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:33:00 -
[770] - Quote
fit doesn't work with t2 high slots. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1713
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:33:00 -
[771] - Quote
All V skills requirement check (it's usually the first sign it's a troll). Exotic implants check FC with Tengu booster check Additional fleet Orca boost check Abysmal mining capability check
Congrats you made an useless brick, while involving 3 subscriptions or 3 players.
This is what I say to the other guy when I talk about bads.
You could achieve triple the income per hour in a moderate tank Mack as you don't need 3 accounts. It'd quickly repay for the several billions otherwise spent in Orca + Orca pilot + Tengu + Tengu pilot.
At the same time that Tengu pilot could have been doing L4s in dual box like many miners do.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1713
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:34:00 -
[772] - Quote
EvilweaselSA wrote:i'm not sure if you're intelligent enough to grasp what i'm saying even boiled down that far:
since there is literally no way your "system" could have actually predicted the result, yet you took credit anyway, it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt your system is nonsense and you simply take credit whenever one of your coinflips happens to be correct, while burying the incorrect predictions
Link one incorrect prediction. Which happen of course, since nobody is infallible. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1459
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:34:00 -
[773] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:fit doesn't work with t2 high slots.
really?
like I said, YOU SACRIFICE YIELD
is that a difficult concept for you? a rogue goon |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
249
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:35:00 -
[774] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: Exotic implants check
you mean implants that can very easily be bought in jita and are being added to the market and cost about 20m?
laffo |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
249
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:36:00 -
[775] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: Link one incorrect prediction. Which happen of course, since nobody is infallible.
you claimed you predicted current tech prices
q.e.d. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1713
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:37:00 -
[776] - Quote
EvilweaselSA wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: Link one incorrect prediction. Which happen of course, since nobody is infallible.
you claimed you predicted current tech prices q.e.d.
I warned you that if you did not deal with your own cartel the prices would tank to 130k. They did. Period. They would do with or without CCP adding alchemy too. All the high IQ voodoo you needed to use was to draw a straight diagonal line across the in game price chart. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1459
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:38:00 -
[777] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:All V skills requirement check (it's usually the first sign it's a troll). Exotic implants check FC with Tengu booster check Additional fleet Orca boost check Abysmal mining capability check
the "all 5 requirement" is literally shield upgrades V, engineering V, electronics V and whatever skills you need to fit the rest of that crap
the "abysmal mining capability" is because YOU SACRIFICE YIELD (aka isk/hr) TO FIT A TANK
as for the rest, well, aren't you the one saying "WELL MAYBE YOU SHOULD WORK WITH OTHER PLAYERS IN THIS HERE MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER ONLINE GAME"
cripes a rogue goon |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1459
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:39:00 -
[778] - Quote
and as for "hurr that tengu could be making isk itself" well perhaps you should probably realize that that same tengu can boost 1 or 250 mining ships all the same a rogue goon |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
271
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:40:00 -
[779] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Dave stark wrote:fit doesn't work with t2 high slots. really? like I said, YOU SACRIFICE YIELDis that a difficult concept for you? and of course it works with t2 highslots, you only need to get a CPU hardwiring
and which of your fleet doctrines use t1 guns because of fitting requirements? sacrificing ihus for tank isn't a problem, high slots really should not be subject to the same absurdity because i'll wager the answer to my above question is none. (yes you may have alternative t1 fittings for low sp players, that's not the same thing though) Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
249
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:40:00 -
[780] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:I warned you that if you did not deal with your own cartel the prices would tank to 130k. They did. Period. They would do with or without CCP adding alchemy too. All the high IQ voodoo you needed to use was to draw a straight diagonal line across the in game price chart. "no really guys i was proven right when an external event caused the change i predicted"
tech was rising right before the nerf was announced. i know this, because buys had formed a solid wall that allowed us to dump massive amounts of tech right down to the new equilibrium price
also lawling at you claiming "if you did not deal with your own cartel the prices would tank to 130k" is a prediction
"if it goes up i was right because of a, if it goes down i was right because of b BEHOLD MY UNFALSIFIABLE PREDICTION" |
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1459
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:41:00 -
[781] - Quote
seriously your only retort to "hey look, a mackinaw/hulk that can fit a tank" is "well it's inconvenient and it reduces my ~isk/hr~ so CCP should fix it so that I don't have to think for myself" a rogue goon |
Ginseng Jita
PAN-EVE TRADING COMPANY
1679
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:42:00 -
[782] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:All V skills requirement check (it's usually the first sign it's a troll). Exotic implants check FC with Tengu booster check Additional fleet Orca boost check Abysmal mining capability check the "all 5 requirement" is literally shield upgrades V, engineering V, electronics V and whatever skills you need to fit the rest of that crap the "abysmal mining capability" is because YOU SACRIFICE YIELD (aka isk/hr) TO FIT A TANKas for the rest, well, aren't you the one saying "WELL MAYBE YOU SHOULD WORK WITH OTHER PLAYERS IN THIS HERE MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER ONLINE GAME" cripes
You can't argue with stupidity. We'll be arguing until the sun goes all explody. CCP just needs to seriously look at what they are doing and look at all the various tangents of effect this change they are considering will have on the game. As many can see, using only a small portion of our brain, this is a bad ideal that CCP has come up with. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
271
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:42:00 -
[783] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:seriously your only retort to "hey look, a mackinaw/hulk that can fit a tank" is "well it's inconvenient and it reduces my ~isk/hr~ so CCP should fix it so that I don't have to think for myself"
so, which of your doctrines uses t1 weapons to fit other modules to do it's job? Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
553
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:42:00 -
[784] - Quote
Werst Dendenahzees wrote: Hey guys here are two command ships that increase damage, you are SO owned
Oh wait it doesn't ah well no biggie don't quote me on that it doesn't matter
Go ahead and quote, help yourself.
Here, some music for you. brb |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1459
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:43:00 -
[785] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:and which of your fleet doctrines use t1 guns because of fitting requirements? sacrificing ihus for tank isn't a problem, high slots really should not be subject to the same absurdity because i'll wager the answer to my above question is none. (yes you may have alternative t1 fittings for low sp players, that's not the same thing though)
the equivalent here isn't necessarily using t1 guns but going down a size, from, say, 1400s to 1200s
please stop making these dumb comparisons between combat ships and ships that literally pay for themselves a rogue goon |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1459
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:44:00 -
[786] - Quote
also go find me an amarr battleship fit that can fit a full rack of t2 tachyons while having a tank that isn't abysmal a rogue goon |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1713
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:44:00 -
[787] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:All V skills requirement check (it's usually the first sign it's a troll). Exotic implants check FC with Tengu booster check Additional fleet Orca boost check Abysmal mining capability check the "all 5 requirement" is literally shield upgrades V, engineering V, electronics V and whatever skills you need to fit the rest of that crap the "abysmal mining capability" is because YOU SACRIFICE YIELD (aka isk/hr) TO FIT A TANKas for the rest, well, aren't you the one saying "WELL MAYBE YOU SHOULD WORK WITH OTHER PLAYERS IN THIS HERE MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER ONLINE GAME" cripes
You get a decent tank while neutering profit like baws. That's not a compromise that's a neutering.
I have made a no MLU no cargo mack and unlike you I played it. It's terrible, it mines 6 blocks in the time other macks I have made mine 10. This maps in a small fleet income dropping from 500M a day to 300M, which vastly does NOT justify additional expenses for a Tengu nor ganks happen twice a day to make it a risk vs reward obvious choice.
As for the "WELL MAYBE YOU SHOULD" it is a rebuttal on mine on that same very sentence being abused in every single ganker thread. Sucks when it works against you, eh?
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
219
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:44:00 -
[788] - Quote
Zagdul wrote: Skiff gets some insane numbers like 70k ehp.
103k EHP with a damage control sans Tengu bonuses |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1459
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:45:00 -
[789] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:That's not a compromise that's a neutering.
sorry if i disagree with your arbitrary definitions of "compromise" and "neutering" but you're wrong here a rogue goon |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1713
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:46:00 -
[790] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:and as for "hurr that tengu could be making isk itself" well perhaps you should probably realize that that same tengu can boost 1 or 250 mining ships all the same
Sorry hi sec has no blob tards bringing more than 10 ships and that's speaking of quite large hi sec mining fleets already. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
|
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
272
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:46:00 -
[791] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Dave stark wrote:and which of your fleet doctrines use t1 guns because of fitting requirements? sacrificing ihus for tank isn't a problem, high slots really should not be subject to the same absurdity because i'll wager the answer to my above question is none. (yes you may have alternative t1 fittings for low sp players, that's not the same thing though) the equivalent here isn't necessarily using t1 guns but going down a size, from, say, 1400s to 1200s please stop making these dumb comparisons between combat ships and ships that literally pay for themselves
i'll stop making dumb comparisons when you stop posting dumb fits. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
249
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:47:00 -
[792] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:and as for "hurr that tengu could be making isk itself" well perhaps you should probably realize that that same tengu can boost 1 or 250 mining ships all the same Sorry hi sec has no blob tards bringing more than 10 ships and that's speaking of quite large hi sec mining fleets already. some highsec players - not you, of course - can make friends |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1459
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:47:00 -
[793] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Sorry hi sec has no blob tards bringing more than 10 ships and that's speaking of quite large hi sec mining fleets already.
i'm sorry that hiseccers are so averse to social interaction that they can't make friends
in the meantime we'll just gank your afk mining ships with more than 2 catalysts a rogue goon |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1713
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:47:00 -
[794] - Quote
EvilweaselSA wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:I warned you that if you did not deal with your own cartel the prices would tank to 130k. They did. Period. They would do with or without CCP adding alchemy too. All the high IQ voodoo you needed to use was to draw a straight diagonal line across the in game price chart. "no really guys i was proven right when an external event caused the change i predicted" tech was rising right before the nerf was announced. i know this, because buys had formed a solid wall that allowed us to dump massive amounts of tech right down to the new equilibrium price also lawling at you claiming "if you did not deal with your own cartel the prices would tank to 130k" is a prediction "if it goes up i was right because of a, if it goes down i was right because of b BEHOLD MY UNFALSIFIABLE PREDICTION"
Your solid wall is called "market extension" and is a precursor to a deep dive. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
249
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:47:00 -
[795] - Quote
nerf friends |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
430
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:47:00 -
[796] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:seriously your only retort to "hey look, a mackinaw/hulk that can fit a tank" is "well it's inconvenient and it reduces my ~isk/hr~ so CCP should fix it so that I don't have to think for myself" THIS IS WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO. What the hell is wrong with people? How hard could it be to make someone understand just how much this hurts the game? EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1459
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:48:00 -
[797] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:i'll stop making dumb comparisons when you stop posting dumb fits.
why is it a dumb fit? because it doesn't have max yield and 30k ehp?
i hope that's not what you're saying because if so go try doing that yourself, hint, you can't
god forbid hisec miners have to make *gasp* DECISIONS a rogue goon |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
249
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:48:00 -
[798] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: Your solid wall is called "market extension" and is a precursor to a deep dive.
i see when the prediction is about things that can never be checked suddenly the hedging disappears |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
483
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:49:00 -
[799] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:seriously your only retort to "hey look, a mackinaw/hulk that can fit a tank" is "well it's inconvenient and it reduces my ~isk/hr~ so CCP should fix it so that I don't have to think for myself" Admit the only reason you care is this will lessen the demand for tech Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1459
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:49:00 -
[800] - Quote
"my hulk should tank like a damnation because it costs as much as one, it should do as much dps as an astarte because it costs as much as one, and it should make no sacrifices in yield because it's expensive" a rogue goon |
|
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
249
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:49:00 -
[801] - Quote
if tech doesn't start going up, it will go down
or stay the same, one of the two |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1459
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:49:00 -
[802] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:seriously your only retort to "hey look, a mackinaw/hulk that can fit a tank" is "well it's inconvenient and it reduces my ~isk/hr~ so CCP should fix it so that I don't have to think for myself" Admit the only reason you care is this will lessen the demand for tech
uh, high demand for tech is good for us
we have 65 tech moons, you see a rogue goon |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
249
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:50:00 -
[803] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:seriously your only retort to "hey look, a mackinaw/hulk that can fit a tank" is "well it's inconvenient and it reduces my ~isk/hr~ so CCP should fix it so that I don't have to think for myself" Admit the only reason you care is this will lessen the demand for tech we trolled a lot about hulkageddon fattening our pockets, but it wasn't true
hulks didn't sell any better during hulkageddon than before |
Ginseng Jita
PAN-EVE TRADING COMPANY
1679
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:50:00 -
[804] - Quote
EvilweaselSA wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:seriously your only retort to "hey look, a mackinaw/hulk that can fit a tank" is "well it's inconvenient and it reduces my ~isk/hr~ so CCP should fix it so that I don't have to think for myself" Admit the only reason you care is this will lessen the demand for tech we trolled a lot about hulkageddon fattening our pockets, but it wasn't true hulks didn't sell any better during hulkageddon than before
Prices dropped for hulks during hulkageddon even.
|
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
272
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:51:00 -
[805] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Dave stark wrote:i'll stop making dumb comparisons when you stop posting dumb fits. why is it a dumb fit? because it doesn't have max yield and 30k ehp? i hope that's not what you're saying because if so go try doing that yourself, hint, you can't god forbid hisec miners have to make *gasp* DECISIONS
no, because it doesn't even attempt to have a half decent yield let alone a max yield. ****, i'm somewhat surprised that it actually had both harvesters. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
430
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:51:00 -
[806] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:seriously your only retort to "hey look, a mackinaw/hulk that can fit a tank" is "well it's inconvenient and it reduces my ~isk/hr~ so CCP should fix it so that I don't have to think for myself" Admit the only reason you care is this will lessen the demand for tech Of course, because every single Goon profits from tech (and not just the alliance as a whole). EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
483
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:51:00 -
[807] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:"my hulk should tank like a damnation because it costs as much as one, it should do as much dps as an astarte because it costs as much as one, and it should make no sacrifices in yield because it's expensive" You are upset because this will make alchemy a viable alternative to tech Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1713
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:52:00 -
[808] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:That's not a compromise that's a neutering. sorry if i disagree with your arbitrary definitions of "compromise" and "neutering" but you're wrong here and hey if a yield-fit mining ship pays for itself before it gets ganked, well, working as ******* intended
It's why I also an not very comfortable with *these* exact changes and would have preferred other ways.
But hey unlike you who don't even live in hi sec, I don't get such a stomach fit for a ship redesign.
The world will survive 2012 and also some K EHP increase on some ships. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1459
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:53:00 -
[809] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:no, because it doesn't even attempt to have a half decent yield let alone a max yield. ****, i'm somewhat surprised that it actually had both harvesters.
wow look at you missing the point
it's called CHOICES a rogue goon |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
483
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:53:00 -
[810] - Quote
EvilweaselSA wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:seriously your only retort to "hey look, a mackinaw/hulk that can fit a tank" is "well it's inconvenient and it reduces my ~isk/hr~ so CCP should fix it so that I don't have to think for myself" Admit the only reason you care is this will lessen the demand for tech we trolled a lot about hulkageddon fattening our pockets, but it wasn't true hulks didn't sell any better during hulkageddon than before Cam I see the numbers? Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
253
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:53:00 -
[811] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:also go find me an amarr battleship fit that can fit a full rack of t2 tachyons while having a tank that isn't abysmal
oracles don't count because their tank is abysmal by design So what you are saying is that we need a short range higher yield ice miner to allow an alternative like amarr BS have? |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1713
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:53:00 -
[812] - Quote
EvilweaselSA wrote:nerf friends
Have seen in GW2 what Goons do when they can't bring 5000 players in one PvP match of 5v5.
Blobbers. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
430
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:54:00 -
[813] - Quote
But don't take my word for anything, since I'm obviously a Goon pet and bow down to their every bidding. EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1713
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:54:00 -
[814] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Sorry hi sec has no blob tards bringing more than 10 ships and that's speaking of quite large hi sec mining fleets already. i'm sorry that hiseccers are so averse to social interaction that they can't make friends in the meantime we'll just gank your afk mining ships with more than 2 catalysts
... flown by a loner. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1459
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:55:00 -
[815] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:also go find me an amarr battleship fit that can fit a full rack of t2 tachyons while having a tank that isn't abysmal
oracles don't count because their tank is abysmal by design So what you are saying is that we need a short range higher yield ice miner to allow an alternative like amarr BS have?
sure why not a rogue goon |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
249
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:55:00 -
[816] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:EvilweaselSA wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:seriously your only retort to "hey look, a mackinaw/hulk that can fit a tank" is "well it's inconvenient and it reduces my ~isk/hr~ so CCP should fix it so that I don't have to think for myself" Admit the only reason you care is this will lessen the demand for tech we trolled a lot about hulkageddon fattening our pockets, but it wasn't true hulks didn't sell any better during hulkageddon than before Cam I see the numbers? I didn't think to save them since I saw no reason to make that info public but some of the eve market sites might have them
basically, volume for hulks was flat before/after hulkageddon started: you should see an increase if we were actually driving increased hulk demand |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
483
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:55:00 -
[817] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:seriously your only retort to "hey look, a mackinaw/hulk that can fit a tank" is "well it's inconvenient and it reduces my ~isk/hr~ so CCP should fix it so that I don't have to think for myself" Admit the only reason you care is this will lessen the demand for tech Of course, because every single Goon profits from tech (and not just the alliance as a whole). Sorry I should say your reimbursement program will take a hit... Which in the long run could affect your fighting policy Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
553
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:56:00 -
[818] - Quote
Had fun reading everyone's arguments, counters etc little/taunts etc, was very fun but guy it's time for me to wish you GN.
Have fun and keep this thing alive!
All the good stuff in this thread is brought to you by... brb |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
272
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:56:00 -
[819] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Dave stark wrote:no, because it doesn't even attempt to have a half decent yield let alone a max yield. ****, i'm somewhat surprised that it actually had both harvesters. wow look at you missing the point it's called CHOICES
no, what you presented wasn't a choice, it was pretty much evidence if you want a tank you sacrifice the entire purpose of the ship. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1713
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:56:00 -
[820] - Quote
EvilweaselSA wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:seriously your only retort to "hey look, a mackinaw/hulk that can fit a tank" is "well it's inconvenient and it reduces my ~isk/hr~ so CCP should fix it so that I don't have to think for myself" Admit the only reason you care is this will lessen the demand for tech we trolled a lot about hulkageddon fattening our pockets, but it wasn't true hulks didn't sell any better during hulkageddon than before
Mine sold quite good. With super cheap Nanite Transistors none the less Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1459
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:57:00 -
[821] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:no, what you presented wasn't a choice, it was pretty much evidence if you want a tank you sacrifice the entire purpose of the ship.
i missed the part where the mackinaw isn't able to mine because it's tanked
i mean the purpose of it is to mine, isn't it? a rogue goon |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
483
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:57:00 -
[822] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:But don't take my word for anything, since I'm obviously a Goon pet and bow down to their every bidding. Its true you used to run the nc with mm now you are no better then firmius ixon... Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
430
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:58:00 -
[823] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:seriously your only retort to "hey look, a mackinaw/hulk that can fit a tank" is "well it's inconvenient and it reduces my ~isk/hr~ so CCP should fix it so that I don't have to think for myself" Admit the only reason you care is this will lessen the demand for tech Of course, because every single Goon profits from tech (and not just the alliance as a whole). Sorry I should say your reimbursement program will take a hit... Which in the long run could affect your fighting policy Oh noes, we may have to *gasp* adapt! I tremble in fear at the prospect. EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
272
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 21:59:00 -
[824] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Dave stark wrote:no, what you presented wasn't a choice, it was pretty much evidence if you want a tank you sacrifice the entire purpose of the ship. i missed the part where the mackinaw isn't able to mine because it's tanked i mean the purpose of it is to mine, isn't it?
let's go back to the mwd drake, to get it cap stable do you give up t2 launchers? no, you don't because it's a combat ship who's most valuable assets are it's guns.
on a similar note, to tank a mining ship you wouldn't give up your t2 ice harvesters, you'd give up the ihus like the drake would downsize to meta 4 shield extenders if it was a fitting issue, or you'd drop a ballistic control unit for a capacitor thing if you were lacking cap stability.
it wouldn't be acceptable for a combat ship to lose it's t2 guns, so why should it be acceptable for a mining ship to lose it's t2 high slots? Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
430
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:01:00 -
[825] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:But don't take my word for anything, since I'm obviously a Goon pet and bow down to their every bidding. Its true you used to run the nc with mm now you are no better then firmius ixon... I only joined 4S after they joined RAZOR so I can't really speak to that. EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1459
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:02:00 -
[826] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Dave stark wrote:no, what you presented wasn't a choice, it was pretty much evidence if you want a tank you sacrifice the entire purpose of the ship. i missed the part where the mackinaw isn't able to mine because it's tanked i mean the purpose of it is to mine, isn't it? let's go back to the mwd drake, to get it cap stable do you give up t2 launchers? no, you don't because it's a combat ship who's most valuable assets are it's guns. on a similar note, to tank a mining ship you wouldn't give up your t2 ice harvesters, you'd give up the ihus like the drake would downsize to meta 4 shield extenders if it was a fitting issue, or you'd drop a ballistic control unit for a capacitor thing if you were lacking cap stability. it wouldn't be acceptable for a combat ship to lose it's t2 guns, so why should it be acceptable for a mining ship to lose it's t2 high slots?
okay, here is one with t2 harvesters
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/16196592/Mackinaw%20-%20New%20Setup%202.jpg a rogue goon |
Josef Djugashvilis
The Scope Gallente Federation
378
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:04:00 -
[827] - Quote
What does it say about Eve that mining seems to be the most exciting topic in the game? You want fries with that? |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
272
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:04:00 -
[828] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Dave stark wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Dave stark wrote:no, what you presented wasn't a choice, it was pretty much evidence if you want a tank you sacrifice the entire purpose of the ship. i missed the part where the mackinaw isn't able to mine because it's tanked i mean the purpose of it is to mine, isn't it? let's go back to the mwd drake, to get it cap stable do you give up t2 launchers? no, you don't because it's a combat ship who's most valuable assets are it's guns. on a similar note, to tank a mining ship you wouldn't give up your t2 ice harvesters, you'd give up the ihus like the drake would downsize to meta 4 shield extenders if it was a fitting issue, or you'd drop a ballistic control unit for a capacitor thing if you were lacking cap stability. it wouldn't be acceptable for a combat ship to lose it's t2 guns, so why should it be acceptable for a mining ship to lose it's t2 high slots? okay, here is one with t2 harvesters https://dl.dropbox.com/u/16196592/Mackinaw%20-%20New%20Setup%202.jpg
much better, perfectly acceptable fitting. there's no way 2k ehp is worth downsizing to t1 harvesters.
edit: now how about one for some one that doesn't have 4 accounts for boosters? Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Big Bossu
Enterprise Estonia Northern Coalition.
1
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:05:00 -
[829] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Dave stark wrote:no, what you presented wasn't a choice, it was pretty much evidence if you want a tank you sacrifice the entire purpose of the ship. i missed the part where the mackinaw isn't able to mine because it's tanked i mean the purpose of it is to mine, isn't it?
Sort of like 0.0? It is not like you need to gimp your ISK/h in 0.0/lowsec, just to avoid risk in lowsec/null. Even lvl4ing Raven doesn't need to do that. And it is not like the hulks will became ungankable... |
Herr Hammer Draken
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
49
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:06:00 -
[830] - 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. |
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1459
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:08:00 -
[831] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:much better, perfectly acceptable fitting. there's no way 2k ehp is worth downsizing to t1 harvesters.
edit: now how about one for some one that doesn't have 4 accounts for boosters?
it's more like stepping down to V220s on a Hurricane to fit a plate, yes, people do that
the tengu boost only nets you like 5k ehp a rogue goon |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1459
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:09:00 -
[832] - Quote
Big Bossu wrote:Sort of like 0.0? It is not like you need to gimp your ISK/h in 0.0/lowsec, just to avoid risk in lowsec/null. Even lvl4ing Raven doesn't need to do that. And it is not like the hulks will became ungankable...
because gimping your ~isk/hr~ in low/null is pointless considering that you're almost undoubtedly screwed if you get tackled
also fyi the best anom/mission fits generally pull it off with like one invuln and a booster, they don't overtank a rogue goon |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
273
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:10:00 -
[833] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Dave stark wrote:much better, perfectly acceptable fitting. there's no way 2k ehp is worth downsizing to t1 harvesters.
edit: now how about one for some one that doesn't have 4 accounts for boosters? it's more like stepping down to V220s on a Hurricane to fit a plate, yes, people do that the tengu boost only nets you like 5k ehp
it's not, because downsizing guns drops the dps but increases the tracking etc. you don't gain anything for downsizing mining high slots.
so, realistically you're getting what, 24k ehp from a mack with fitting implants and not gimping your yield to oblivion. that's reasonable i suppose. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Sarcasim
The Southern Gentleman's Social Club Event Horizon Protocol
3
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:13:00 -
[834] - Quote
Sarik Olecar wrote:Also, I'd like to think this thread - which has giving many carebears their first taste of tears - will go on to inspire all sorts of crazy shenanigans as they desperately try to feed the new-found addiction...
What? I dont think its the care bear tears your getting a taste of here. |
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
543
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:14:00 -
[835] - Quote
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?
In irae, veritas. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1713
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:15:00 -
[836] - Quote
And here is the same fitting without all the fluff nobody bar 1% of the playerbase will ever care to bring on the field:
Link Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1459
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:15:00 -
[837] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:it's not, because downsizing guns drops the dps but increases the tracking etc. you don't gain anything for downsizing mining high slots. ninja edit: hurricane uses projectiles so it's optimal as well as tracking if med projectiles work like small projectiles.
so, realistically you're getting what, 24k ehp from a mack with fitting implants and not gimping your yield to oblivion. that's reasonable i suppose.
if you drop the orca's mining laser capacitor ganglink (which is generally useless anyway when you're boosting exhumers) you can fit the shield resistance ganglink and still get like 26k ehp against blasters on a mackinaw a rogue goon |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1459
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:17:00 -
[838] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:And here is the same fitting without all the fluff nobody bar 1% of the playerbase will ever care to bring on the field: Link
i guess the 99% will otherwise have to cope with getting ganked, then
obviously CCP disagrees because they're aiming to make hisec nearly risk-free a rogue goon |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
249
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:18:00 -
[839] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:And here is the same fitting without all the fluff nobody bar 1% of the playerbase will ever care to bring on the field: Link "miners don't use orcas"
a thing vv, noted expert on miners, believes |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1713
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:20:00 -
[840] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:And here is the same fitting without all the fluff nobody bar 1% of the playerbase will ever care to bring on the field: Link i guess the 99% will otherwise have to cope with getting ganked, then obviously CCP disagrees because they're aiming to make hisec nearly risk-free
Considering Jita is the system with the game wide top ship kills, maybe they should upgrade the rest of the game to be as risk free as hi sec can be. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1660
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:20:00 -
[841] - Quote
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.
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1459
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:21:00 -
[842] - Quote
EvilweaselSA wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:And here is the same fitting without all the fluff nobody bar 1% of the playerbase will ever care to bring on the field: Link "miners don't use orcas" a thing vv, noted expert on miners, believes
yeah it's more important for miners to get that 500m orca mindlink than it is to get, say, a +3% cpu hardwiring a rogue goon |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1713
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:21:00 -
[843] - Quote
EvilweaselSA wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:And here is the same fitting without all the fluff nobody bar 1% of the playerbase will ever care to bring on the field: Link "miners don't use orcas" a thing vv, noted expert on miners, believes
There's max 2-3 Orcas in a ice system with 100 in local and they have 3-4 ships around. Ah, when I was there one of those Orcas was mine. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Werst Dendenahzees
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
87
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:21:00 -
[844] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:And here is the same fitting without all the fluff nobody bar 1% of the playerbase will ever care to bring on the field: Link
That's still a whole lot of EHP. It's three t2 cats in a 0.5-0.7 system and two tornados in 0.9-1.0. And it's before the buff. |
Herr Hammer Draken
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
50
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:22:00 -
[845] - 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. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1713
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:23:00 -
[846] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:EvilweaselSA wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:And here is the same fitting without all the fluff nobody bar 1% of the playerbase will ever care to bring on the field: Link "miners don't use orcas" a thing vv, noted expert on miners, believes yeah it's more important for miners to get that 500m orca mindlink than it is to get, say, a +3% cpu hardwiring
In order to show splashy numbers you put everything in your EFT theorycraft book, anyway, no? Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1459
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:23:00 -
[847] - Quote
Herr Hammer Draken wrote: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.
"suicide ganking is an exploit" - npc alts, ca. since ever a rogue goon |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1459
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:25:00 -
[848] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:In order to show splashy numbers you put everything in your EFT theorycraft book, anyway, no?
have you bothered to check the cost of those implants
i assure you that the total cost is like 50m, total chump change compared to, say, an orca + ganglinks + mindlink a rogue goon |
Big Bossu
Enterprise Estonia Northern Coalition.
1
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:25:00 -
[849] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Big Bossu wrote:Sort of like 0.0? It is not like you need to gimp your ISK/h in 0.0/lowsec, just to avoid risk in lowsec/null. Even lvl4ing Raven doesn't need to do that. And it is not like the hulks will became ungankable... because gimping your ~isk/hr~ in low/null is pointless considering that you're almost undoubtedly screwed if you get tackled also fyi the best anom/mission fits generally pull it off with like one invuln and a booster, they don't overtank
It is also remarkably hard to get tackled in 0.0/low, because their safety depends on watching scanner for probes/local. Perhaps they should be forced to make choices between more isk/h and more safety as well?
Besides... CCP was worried about lack of mining/miners, so they buff miners by giving them stronger ships, so they could go for full yield without worrying about destroyer ganks - that isn't unreasonable way to boost them at all. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1459
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:25:00 -
[850] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:There's max 2-3 Orcas in a ice system with 100 in local and they have 3-4 ships around. Ah, when I was there one of those Orcas was mine.
"you must have one orca per miner" - vv, 2012 a rogue goon |
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1713
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:26:00 -
[851] - Quote
Werst Dendenahzees wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:And here is the same fitting without all the fluff nobody bar 1% of the playerbase will ever care to bring on the field: Link That's still a whole lot of EHP. It's three t2 cats in a 0.5-0.7 system and two tornados in 0.9-1.0. And it's before the buff.
I am not sure you need them T2 fit but I am sure (I used to see it every day) 3 cats are nothing special to see.
You should know, Bat Contry are not morons. They blew and still blow stuff. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1713
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:27:00 -
[852] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:In order to show splashy numbers you put everything in your EFT theorycraft book, anyway, no? have you bothered to check the cost of those implants i assure you that the total cost is like 50m, total chump change compared to, say, an orca + ganglinks + mindlink
The dedicated Tengu PLUS Orca were in the screen shot, they cost somewhat more than 50M Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1459
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:27:00 -
[853] - Quote
Big Bossu wrote:Besides... CCP was worried about lack of mining/miners, so they buff miners by giving them stronger ships, so they could go for full yield without worrying about destroyer ganks - that isn't unreasonable way to boost them at all.
as opposed to miners who aren't even watching the client, let alone local a rogue goon |
Herr Hammer Draken
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
50
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:28:00 -
[854] - 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. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1459
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:28:00 -
[855] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:The dedicated Tengu PLUS Orca were in the screen shot, they cost somewhat more than 50M
the orca can fit a shield resistance ganglink, the miners will have to live with reduced range or slightly higher activation cost on their miners/harvesters
poor miners a rogue goon |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1713
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:28:00 -
[856] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:There's max 2-3 Orcas in a ice system with 100 in local and they have 3-4 ships around. Ah, when I was there one of those Orcas was mine. "you must have one orca per miner" - vv, 2012
You out of rebuttals? I have 1 Orca per 6 miners, if I wanted I could bring 2 Orcas per each miner though. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1459
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:29:00 -
[857] - Quote
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* a rogue goon |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1660
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:30:00 -
[858] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:And here is the same fitting without all the fluff nobody bar 1% of the playerbase will ever care to bring on the field: GǪ
Orcas are the core of most mining fleets I see in the belts, regardless of whether they are accompanied by two hulks or two dozen mackinaws. People bring Orcas for the logistical benefits: not having to warp back to station every few cycles means you get a higher harvesting efficiency. The fleets with more than a half-dozen exhumers are often accompanied by a gang booster ship such as a Tengu.
I'm not sure where you get this idea that "nobody bar 1% of the player base" will use boosting ships or Orcas.
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1713
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:30:00 -
[859] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Big Bossu wrote:Besides... CCP was worried about lack of mining/miners, so they buff miners by giving them stronger ships, so they could go for full yield without worrying about destroyer ganks - that isn't unreasonable way to boost them at all. as opposed to miners who aren't even watching the client, let alone local
Because L4 mission runners and PI players or hi sec anom farmers need to rabidly watch the client and squeeze out their eyes on local... Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Big Bossu
Enterprise Estonia Northern Coalition.
2
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:31:00 -
[860] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Big Bossu wrote:Besides... CCP was worried about lack of mining/miners, so they buff miners by giving them stronger ships, so they could go for full yield without worrying about destroyer ganks - that isn't unreasonable way to boost them at all. as opposed to miners who aren't even watching the client, let alone local
Local really doesn't help in highsec vs random gankers. |
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1459
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:32:00 -
[861] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Because L4 mission runners and PI players or hi sec anom farmers need to rabidly watch the client and squeeze out their eyes on local...
click a name in the local list
ctrl-a
if somebody enters local, it's more noticeable a rogue goon |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1459
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:32:00 -
[862] - Quote
Big Bossu wrote:Local really doesn't help in highsec vs random gankers.
"that negative sec flagged guy entering my belt in a catalyst must be here to mine with me" a rogue goon |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1713
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:33:00 -
[863] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:And here is the same fitting without all the fluff nobody bar 1% of the playerbase will ever care to bring on the field: GǪ Orcas are the core of most mining fleets I see in the belts, regardless of whether they are accompanied by two hulks or two dozen mackinaws. People bring Orcas for the logistical benefits: not having to warp back to station every few cycles means you get a higher harvesting efficiency. The fleets with more than a half-dozen exhumers are often accompanied by a gang booster ship such as a Tengu. I'm not sure where you get this idea that "nobody bar 1% of the player base" will use boosting ships or Orcas.
You put an implicit or. I put an explicit and: Tengu, implants and Orcas. I have seen *1* fleet using RR (amarr BS and Dominix) and another using *1* logistics ship in the last months. Much less using Tengus and whatever. Those with a Tengu use it for something more active than that.
Also, larger mining fleets that may field additional support, don't need to bring crappy 600 per minute mining yield fits shown in the lolexamples anyway Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1460
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:38:00 -
[864] - Quote
Big Bossu wrote:Local really doesn't help in highsec vs random gankers.
on that note, watching a movie really doesn't help either a rogue goon |
Jed Bobby
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:40:00 -
[865] - Quote
all these guys think eve is real life. its a ******* game lol calm down and play and stop being such wieners |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1460
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:40:00 -
[866] - Quote
so what we've established in this thread is that miners can more actively protect themselves /with/ the current stats on exhumers but it's inconvenient when they want to leave the game alt-tabbed while they watch a movie
i'm glad that CCP is fixing this a rogue goon |
Big Bossu
Enterprise Estonia Northern Coalition.
2
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:41:00 -
[867] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Big Bossu wrote:Local really doesn't help in highsec vs random gankers. "that negative sec flagged guy entering my belt in a catalyst must be here to mine with me"
Tbh, unfair comparison, because in 0.0, when I carebear I have at very least 30 seconds warning, in realistic scenarios many many minutes. In fact I am doing a complex right now as I am typing this, and I really cannot see myself dying.
This whole topic is sad. 45 pages of 0.0 players whining that they can't gank hulks as easily as they could before. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
418
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:41:00 -
[868] - Quote
Jed Bobby wrote:all these guys think eve is real life. its a ******* game lol calm down and play and stop being such wieners
Yeah, its a game, but its a game I kind of like.
Would rather not see it screwed up because of whining miners and DEVs who want to let their carebear flag fly. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1660
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:43:00 -
[869] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:You put an implicit or. I put an explicit and: Tengu, implants and Orcas.
You put an explicit "none" in the fitting screenshot.
Now change that explicit "none" to "Orca with Shield Harmonization & Armor Passive Defence warfare links, pilot has Armor & Shield specialization to 5, but is only using the Mining Foreman Mindlink." That Orca is already being used as a giant jet can to support two hulks, so you may as well use it to maximise the defenses of the fleet. Then for extra sauce, have the Orca pilot as wing commander. Move one of the hulk pilots to squad commander, and fit the Siege Warfare Mindlink and have Siege Warfare Specialization trained to 5.
It's amazing what you can squeeze out of a small, productive fleet if you set things up properly. There isn't even need for a Tengu or remote reps.
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Herr Hammer Draken
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
50
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:43:00 -
[870] - 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. |
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1713
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:44:00 -
[871] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Jed Bobby wrote:all these guys think eve is real life. its a ******* game lol calm down and play and stop being such wieners Yeah, its a game, but its a game I kind of like. Would rather not see it screwed up because of whining miners and DEVs who want to let their carebear flag fly.
Game will certainly die because you need to bring 1 more catalyst to kill the evil and dangerous Hulk. Got it. The sky will fall soon. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1461
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:45:00 -
[872] - Quote
Big Bossu wrote:Tbh, unfair comparison, because in 0.0, when I carebear I have at very least 30 seconds warning, in realistic scenarios many many minutes. In fact I am doing a complex right now as I am typing this, and I really cannot see myself dying.
are you watching a movie while running complexes? a rogue goon |
Werst Dendenahzees
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
87
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:46:00 -
[873] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:Jed Bobby wrote:all these guys think eve is real life. its a ******* game lol calm down and play and stop being such wieners Yeah, its a game, but its a game I kind of like. Would rather not see it screwed up because of whining miners and DEVs who want to let their carebear flag fly. Game will certainly die because you need to bring 1 more catalyst to kill the evil and dangerous Hulk. Got it. The sky will fall soon.
And like 10 T2 catalysts for a skiff in a 0.5 system. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1461
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:47:00 -
[874] - Quote
Herr Hammer Draken wrote: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.
yeah the fact that you can cheaply gank a hulk that is either a bot or not paying any attention at all whatsoever is indicative of a gigantic balance issue in the game
an active miner has so many ways to mitigate ganks a rogue goon |
Big Bossu
Enterprise Estonia Northern Coalition.
2
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:50:00 -
[875] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Big Bossu wrote:Tbh, unfair comparison, because in 0.0, when I carebear I have at very least 30 seconds warning, in realistic scenarios many many minutes. In fact I am doing a complex right now as I am typing this, and I really cannot see myself dying. are you watching a movie while running complexes?
Ishtar is pretty good for afking plexes.
edit: also in 0.0 mining gangs most people, at least the ones i know of, watch movies. You only need 1 active to say something in TS/Vent and/or fleet warp away. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
419
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:50:00 -
[876] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:so what we've established in this thread is that miners can more actively protect themselves /with/ the current stats on exhumers but it's inconvenient when they want to leave the game alt-tabbed while they watch a movie
i'm glad that CCP is fixing this
More or less. Many fittings have been demonstrated that provide ample protection from Catalysts and Tornados.
We always get the same response - "But then I have to mine slower."
News Flash: When you glass-cannon fit your ******* Exhumer, you don't last as long in a fight. Just like PVP - you max-DPS your fits, you lose BIG in other places, due to stacking rules.
If I was a miner, I'd be like meaner version of Mara.
Tank up, and mine a little slower - or fit for Yield and keep a very sharp eye on the situation - with aggressive ECM drones out.
Instead of warning other miners in local, I'd just laff my ass off when my competition loses 8 Mackinaws to a smartbomb attack, and try to scoop as much salvage as I could.
Then I'd think about all those mineral/ice sell orders that I won't have to compete with.
Fortunately, I've already earned my passive income generating 'nestegg' ganking haulers and manufacturing Exhumers, so I don't really need to spend my gametime grinding ISK in the belts.
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1661
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:51:00 -
[877] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Also, larger mining fleets that may field additional support, don't need to bring crappy 600 per minute mining yield fits shown in the lolexamples anyway
You don't need additional support to fly high yield mining fleets. Just pick the right system and watch local: even in hisec, watching local works. Scout the belts, get an idea of who is in system mining, get to mining and watch for names you don't recognise.
And your "crappy" is nothing more than "baseline". That "crappy" Hulk fit is still higher yield than an all-5 max yield Osprey.
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1713
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:52:00 -
[878] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:You put an implicit or. I put an explicit and: Tengu, implants and Orcas. You put an explicit "none" in the fitting screenshot. Now change that explicit "none" to "Orca with Shield Harmonization & Armor Passive Defence warfare links, pilot has Armor & Shield specialization to 5, but is only using the Mining Foreman Mindlink." That Orca is already being used as a giant jet can to support two hulks, so you may as well use it to maximise the defenses of the fleet. Then for extra sauce, have the Orca pilot as wing commander. Move one of the hulk pilots to squad commander, and fit the Siege Warfare Mindlink and have Siege Warfare Specialization trained to 5. It's amazing what you can squeeze out of a small, productive fleet if you set things up properly. There isn't even need for a Tengu or remote reps.
That's the setup I use(d), (I also produce Orcas and all their mods...) but I don't arrogate myself to impose such expensive setup on other players who could as well be new-ish or without the means to get all that bling including a command ship.
See I can see competitive tournament PvP games being purely balanced on the top of the top of the elite with the best gear and skills and using Naga / Sensei peripherals with special pads and so on.
But not a generalistic MMO and much less one where they are striving to finally improve new players experience. What are going to do those without the mythical "all V skills" that today struggle going above 10K EHP? Be told to suck it up and return to the game in 1 year and after they purchased Orca + alt?
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1713
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:53:00 -
[879] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Also, larger mining fleets that may field additional support, don't need to bring crappy 600 per minute mining yield fits shown in the lolexamples anyway You don't need additional support to fly high yield mining fleets. Just pick the right system and watch local: even in hisec, watching local works. Scout the belts, get an idea of who is in system mining, get to mining and watch for names you don't recognise. And your "crappy" is nothing more than "baseline". That "crappy" Hulk fit is still higher yield than an all-5 max yield Osprey.
I have done 80% ice mining (including when it was 1300 isk PU), there's not a lot of ice systems where to get out of gankers attention. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Jed Bobby
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:53:00 -
[880] - Quote
why not just stay the **** out of high systems and play with people who want to play with you? there are THOUSANDS of people in null/low get the **** out of high sec if the only thing you can kill is defenseless people.
in a way i like the segregation keep people separated who want to do separate things.
|
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1713
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:54:00 -
[881] - Quote
Werst Dendenahzees wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:Jed Bobby wrote:all these guys think eve is real life. its a ******* game lol calm down and play and stop being such wieners Yeah, its a game, but its a game I kind of like. Would rather not see it screwed up because of whining miners and DEVs who want to let their carebear flag fly. Game will certainly die because you need to bring 1 more catalyst to kill the evil and dangerous Hulk. Got it. The sky will fall soon. And like 10 T2 catalysts for a skiff in a 0.5 system.
Seeing the Skiff has lower cargo and yield, almost all will use Macks. But most still have their old Hulk so there'll be still plenty to kill. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Pipa Porto
510
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:55:00 -
[882] - Quote
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. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Jed Bobby
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:55:00 -
[883] - Quote
guys, (this applies to the null/low whiners) what say you if I do my best to put together a corp of new players get them all excited and take them to this super "safe" place that I know about where its secret. we can mine and pve to our hearts content, then give you said location so that you can asplode them? would you all shut the hell up? |
Werst Dendenahzees
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
87
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 22:57:00 -
[884] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Werst Dendenahzees wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:Jed Bobby wrote:all these guys think eve is real life. its a ******* game lol calm down and play and stop being such wieners Yeah, its a game, but its a game I kind of like. Would rather not see it screwed up because of whining miners and DEVs who want to let their carebear flag fly. Game will certainly die because you need to bring 1 more catalyst to kill the evil and dangerous Hulk. Got it. The sky will fall soon. And like 10 T2 catalysts for a skiff in a 0.5 system. Seeing the Skiff has lower cargo and yield, almost all will use Macks. But most still have their old Hulk so there'll be still plenty to kill.
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. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1713
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 23:00:00 -
[885] - Quote
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. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
419
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 23:01:00 -
[886] - Quote
Jed Bobby wrote:why not just stay the **** out of high systems and play with people who want to play with you? there are THOUSANDS of people in null/low get the **** out of high sec if the only thing you can kill is defenseless people.
in a way i like the segregation keep people separated who want to do separate things.
A) I don't enjoy cooperative behavior. I don't want to 'play with' miners, I just want them to die. B) They aren't defenseless - they choose to fit their ships that way. Mental disability is no excuse. C) Follow your own advice then, if you like roaming empty space in nulsec, or pointless sparring with T1 Rifters in lowsec, do it.
I'd rather stick to highsec, manipulating markets, manufacturing Exhumers and depopulating the ice belts. |
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
545
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 23:02:00 -
[887] - Quote
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!
In irae, veritas. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1461
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 23:03:00 -
[888] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:That's the setup I use(d), (I also produce Orcas and all their mods...) but I don't arrogate myself to impose such expensive setup on other players who could as well be new-ish or without the means to get all that bling including a command ship.
See I can see competitive tournament PvP games being purely balanced on the top of the top of the elite with the best gear and skills and using Naga / Sensei peripherals with special pads and so on.
But not a generalistic MMO and much less one where they are striving to finally improve new players experience. What are going to do those without the mythical "all V skills" that today struggle going above 10K EHP? Be told to suck it up and return to the game in 1 year and after they purchased Orca + alt?
>new players >Hulks
ahahahahaha a rogue goon |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1713
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 23:03:00 -
[889] - Quote
Ah, last but not least, maybe people would be more agreeing with the claims if they were not:
- Called "stupid Pigs" right here.
- Made subject of WWII copied manifestos by other "ideologists" for months.
- Pictured like they are the ultimate evil that should be eradicated from the game. "They are all bots anyway".
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Pipa Porto
510
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 23:04:00 -
[890] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote: The following combat ships require at least one fitting mod. Arty Cane Every Logistics ship Ever. Hellcats (that T2 Elutrition rig? That's a fitting mod) 100mn Tengus (Officer Fitting mods, even). Stealth Bombers Fleet Dictors AHACs (Zealots need their RCU) Sniper HACs
You haven't flown many combat ships, have you?
I have all sorts of ary canes and no one ever used a fitting mod. Maybe that's some specialty fitting but guess what, if I don't like it I can choose one of 1000 other cane fittings that don't need it. What can I fit instead of a MAPC or bulkheads in a Hulk to get it to those fabled "T2 tank ships" levels? Nothing.
It's the type of Cane with Artillery. For Long range stuff.
You can fit a MAPC and you will tank better than most HACs (and look, HACs need fitting mods too). Why are miners so afraid of fitting mods? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
|
Jed Bobby
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 23:04:00 -
[891] - Quote
well then why are you complaining that they are getting bolstered defenses? its not stopping you from killing miners just bring a bigger ship to kill them if you dont care and only wnt them to die then kill them and stop being a ***** lol |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1713
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 23:04:00 -
[892] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:That's the setup I use(d), (I also produce Orcas and all their mods...) but I don't arrogate myself to impose such expensive setup on other players who could as well be new-ish or without the means to get all that bling including a command ship.
See I can see competitive tournament PvP games being purely balanced on the top of the top of the elite with the best gear and skills and using Naga / Sensei peripherals with special pads and so on.
But not a generalistic MMO and much less one where they are striving to finally improve new players experience. What are going to do those without the mythical "all V skills" that today struggle going above 10K EHP? Be told to suck it up and return to the game in 1 year and after they purchased Orca + alt?
>new players >Hulks ahahahahaha
57 days ahahahah. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1662
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 23:05:00 -
[893] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:What are going to do those without the mythical "all V skills" that today struggle going above 10K EHP? Be told to suck it up and return to the game in 1 year and after they purchased Orca + alt?
- Don't fly what you can't afford to lose
- Fit a tank
- Don't fly what you can't afford to lose
- Make friends
- Don't fly what you can't afford to lose
- Don't go AFK
- Don't fly what you can't afford to lose
This is advice that is repeated often in other aspects of the game. Why should miners get magical exemptions from the basic rules of the game?
My Hulk, standalone, has around 20k EHP. Noone's going to gank it even without an Orca nearby, there are more attractive targets sitting further down the belt. I earned that 20k EHP by training the appropriate skills. The "all 5s" are Engineering, Electronics, Mechanics, Hull Upgrades, Shield Management, Shield Compensation, Exhumers and the appropriate skills to be able to fly the Exhumer in the first place. Note that the leadership skills require a fleet, and it's entirely possible to have the Orca pilot being the only one with maxed leadership skills: that pilot can fit the siege warfare mindlink instead of the mining foreman mindlink. And they don't even need to be flying an Orca: the booster pilot can be flying an industrial until the fleet can afford an Orca, the leadership boosts will still apply.
The Hulk is the end-game of the mining profession. After that you're into leadership and materiel logistics roles (orca, rorqual) and you are no longer simply mining. There is a similar lead-up in training requirements in order to fly other T2 ships. Just because you can get into a Hulk in 55 days doesn't mean you belong in one.
People who don't make friends, go AFK, fit max yield and fly ships they can't afford to lose, are going to have a hard time in any aspect of EVE. Give that 55-day pilot a fleet with suitable support and they won't necessarily lose their Hulk in a hurry, but then they've started following the rules: make friends, don't go AFK, fit a tank.
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Unit757
North Point Cannabis Legionis
12
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 23:06:00 -
[894] - Quote
So, in light of all the civilized conversations going on, I went ahead and tried my darndest to do something incredibly stupid, and ended up sitting in a "max yield" hulk. It came out to 14k EHP w/ low-grade slaves. Gankable still?
Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go throw up and then drink lots of beer, not fitting a DCII on a ship, and undocking seems to have been a little to much for me.
(note, this was all on sisi with the current changes to barges) |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1713
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 23:06:00 -
[895] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote: The following combat ships require at least one fitting mod. Arty Cane Every Logistics ship Ever. Hellcats (that T2 Elutrition rig? That's a fitting mod) 100mn Tengus (Officer Fitting mods, even). Stealth Bombers Fleet Dictors AHACs (Zealots need their RCU) Sniper HACs
You haven't flown many combat ships, have you?
I have all sorts of ary canes and no one ever used a fitting mod. Maybe that's some specialty fitting but guess what, if I don't like it I can choose one of 1000 other cane fittings that don't need it. What can I fit instead of a MAPC or bulkheads in a Hulk to get it to those fabled "T2 tank ships" levels? Nothing. It's the type of Cane with Artillery. For Long range stuff. You can fit a MAPC and you will tank better than most HACs (and look, HACs need fitting mods too). Why are miners so afraid of fitting mods?
I forgot canes came with all of 2 slots for that MAPC. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
431
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 23:08:00 -
[896] - Quote
Jed Bobby wrote:guys, (this applies to the null/low whiners) what say you if I do my best to put together a corp of new players get them all excited and take them to this super "safe" place that I know about where its secret. we can mine and pve to our hearts content, then give you said location so that you can asplode them? would you all shut the hell up? Your avatar appears to have downs. Did you model him after yourself? EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1662
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 23:08:00 -
[897] - Quote
What if CCP have something else in the pipeline that means the extra EHP of the mining barges will be needed?
I'm sure folks will love their new high-DPS glass cannons. And mudflation continues.
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Jed Bobby
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 23:09:00 -
[898] - Quote
hes an impression of the mittani |
Werst Dendenahzees
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
87
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 23:10:00 -
[899] - Quote
Unit757 wrote:So, in light of all the civilized conversations going on, I went ahead and tried my darndest to do something incredibly stupid, and ended up sitting in a "max yield" hulk. It came out to 14k EHP w/ low-grade slaves. Gankable still?
Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go throw up and then drink lots of beer, not fitting a DCII on a ship, and undocking seems to have been a little to much for me.
(note, this was all on sisi with the current changes to barges)
Yes, slaves for a shield tanked ship, perfect plan |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1713
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 23:11:00 -
[900] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:The Hulk is the end-game of the mining profession. After that you're into leadership and materiel logistics roles (orca, rorqual) and you are no longer simply mining. There is a similar lead-up in training requirements in order to fly other T2 ships. Just because you can get into a Hulk in 55 days doesn't mean you belong in one.
People who don't make friends, go AFK, fit max yield and fly ships they can't afford to lose, are going to have a hard time in any aspect of EVE. Give that 55-day pilot a fleet with suitable support and they won't necessarily lose their Hulk in a hurry, but then they've started following the rules: make friends, don't go AFK, fit a tank.
Apparently the majority of the playerbase buys the Hulk (top used ship) and won't take your "doesn't mean you belong in one". It's much easier that their peer pressure will get the game modified to cater to them instead, and this is the dynamic nature of MMOs, the stronger "faction" wins and some times even force developers to comply.
As for making friends, the day it's suggested as pre-requisite to play EvE (like it was for other older MMOs) then I suppose we'll just told the majority to quit EvE and go play a more suitable solo player compatible game.
I am fine whatever, I have both friends, ISK, Orcas, BPOs and RR ships for any event. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
|
Unit757
North Point Cannabis Legionis
12
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 23:12:00 -
[901] - Quote
Werst Dendenahzees wrote:Unit757 wrote:So, in light of all the civilized conversations going on, I went ahead and tried my darndest to do something incredibly stupid, and ended up sitting in a "max yield" hulk. It came out to 14k EHP w/ low-grade slaves. Gankable still?
Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go throw up and then drink lots of beer, not fitting a DCII on a ship, and undocking seems to have been a little to much for me.
(note, this was all on sisi with the current changes to barges) Yes, slaves for a shield tanked ship, perfect plan
I only mentioned slaves because an exhumer isnt worth me jumping out of said clone. Its more to show that that number is probably inflated by 2k |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
274
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 23:13:00 -
[902] - Quote
Jed Bobby wrote:why not just stay the **** out of high systems and play with people who want to play with you? there are THOUSANDS of people in null/low get the **** out of high sec if the only thing you can kill is defenseless people.
in a way i like the segregation keep people separated who want to do separate things.
except there are very few people in null that give a flying **** about industry; and those that do already have multiple accounts and are pretty much self sufficient.
hell i joined one of the large null sec alliances and spent most of my time solo mining as i only had one account and other people were either A) in a different time zone B) busy multiboxing or C) just didn't give a **** about industry and were busy blowing their load over the gigantic bubblefest on the 319 station. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Herr Hammer Draken
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
50
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 23:15:00 -
[903] - 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. |
Jed Bobby
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
9
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 23:16:00 -
[904] - Quote
i was meaning people who want to pvp pve should stay in high-sec where it belongs |
Herr Hammer Draken
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
50
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 23:18:00 -
[905] - 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...
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1461
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 23:18:00 -
[906] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:That's the setup I use(d), (I also produce Orcas and all their mods...) but I don't arrogate myself to impose such expensive setup on other players who could as well be new-ish or without the means to get all that bling including a command ship.
See I can see competitive tournament PvP games being purely balanced on the top of the top of the elite with the best gear and skills and using Naga / Sensei peripherals with special pads and so on.
But not a generalistic MMO and much less one where they are striving to finally improve new players experience. What are going to do those without the mythical "all V skills" that today struggle going above 10K EHP? Be told to suck it up and return to the game in 1 year and after they purchased Orca + alt?
>new players >Hulks ahahahahaha 57 days ahahahah.
i hope you're not telling new players to train straight into a hulk because if so you are a cancer
"it takes 57 days to train" doesn't mean "hulk pilots are new players" because, well, it's a fairly pricey ship that requires skills beyond exhumer I and mining 4 to fly effectively
not to mention the fact that refining skills are necessary to get anything out of it a rogue goon |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
419
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 23:18:00 -
[907] - Quote
Jed Bobby wrote:i was meaning people who want to pvp pve should stay in high-sec where it belongs
PVE exists in nul-sec, right? PVP, likewise, exists in high-sec.
Your theory that PVE belongs in one place and PVP belongs in another is fatally flawed.
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1461
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 23:20:00 -
[908] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:except there are very few people in null that give a flying **** about industry
yeah i'm sure my supercarrier was built by somebody who doesn't give a flying **** about industry a rogue goon |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1713
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 23:24:00 -
[909] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote: i hope you're not telling new players to train straight into a hulk because if so you are a cancer
"it takes 57 days to train" doesn't mean "hulk pilots are new players" because, well, it's a fairly pricey ship that requires skills beyond exhumer I and mining 4 to fly effectively
not to mention the fact that refining skills are necessary to get anything out of it
I personally don't, but the ISDs in the rookie chats do. So what? File a lawsuit against them?
Also, the "requires skills beyond exhumer I..." is basically what many prioritize and it's why they fit no tank. It's always complex to tell a guy "stay docked and keep paying for some more months, one day you might be able to finally play something and make some far from impressive ISK on it".
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
484
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 23:25:00 -
[910] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Dave stark wrote:except there are very few people in null that give a flying **** about industry yeah i'm sure my supercarrier was built by somebody who doesn't give a flying **** about industry
i don't think xxxdeathxxx cares about anything tbh...
Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
|
Herr Hammer Draken
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
50
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 23:26:00 -
[911] - 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? |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1461
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 23:27:00 -
[912] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:I personally don't, but the ISDs in the rookie chats do. So what? File a lawsuit against them?
That is goddamned terrible advice to tell somebody - it's like saying "don't bother going to nullsec until you can fly a titan" a rogue goon |
Ludi Burek
The Player Haters Corp
119
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 23:27:00 -
[913] - Quote
EvilweaselSA wrote:if tech doesn't start going up, it will go down
or stay the same, one of the two
Nice! Almost as good as that "other" guy that shall not be named. Judging by his posts, he's probably too dumb to get it.
Also, don't forget to remind us of your prediction whenever there's a price movement, either way. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1461
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 23:27:00 -
[914] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:i don't think xxxdeathxxx cares about anything tbh...
hi we own space a rogue goon |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
420
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 23:28:00 -
[915] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Ah, last but not least, maybe people would be more agreeing with the claims if they were not:
- Called "stupid Pigs" right here.
- Made subject of WWII copied manifestos by other "ideologists" for months.
- Pictured like they are the ultimate evil that should be eradicated from the game. "They are all bots anyway".
-Hey, its an amusing analogy to a well known fairy tale. I fail to see the issue.
-Well, at least we know where we want to go, and how to get there.
-I mainly just want to see bad players eradicated from the game - oh, and mineral prices to be as high as possible.
There are crying-Miners, entitled, self righteous, refuse to take even basic steps to protect themselves.
And then, there are hard-Miners that use teamwork, learn to fit - and play smart in the face of threats.
Those I consider an asset to the game and I often quite like.
Reminds me Chris Rock's famous standup routine from the 90's.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1713
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 23:29:00 -
[916] - Quote
Herr Hammer Draken wrote: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...
Depends on before or after the patch and whether it's expanded or not. From 6 blocks upwards to enough to repay 1 of the catalyst(s) needed to suicide it.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
275
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 23:29:00 -
[917] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Dave stark wrote:except there are very few people in null that give a flying **** about industry yeah i'm sure my supercarrier was built by somebody who doesn't give a flying **** about industry
yeah it's a handful of people doing that **** who are all more or less self sufficient. i've seen how big null sec alliances industry works. it's not one account friendly to people trying to participate. not to mention finding corps who want industrial players over players who want to go and blow things up. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1713
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 23:30:00 -
[918] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:I personally don't, but the ISDs in the rookie chats do. So what? File a lawsuit against them? That is goddamned terrible advice to tell somebody - it's like saying "don't bother going to nullsec until you can fly a titan"
That's why we should have Goon ISDs! Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
484
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 23:30:00 -
[919] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:MeBiatch wrote:i don't think xxxdeathxxx cares about anything tbh...
hi we own space
like the Chanel?
no that is the bell network dude.
Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
433
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 23:31:00 -
[920] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:I personally don't, but the ISDs in the rookie chats do. So what? File a lawsuit against them? That is goddamned terrible advice to tell somebody - it's like saying "don't bother going to nullsec until you can fly a titan" I'm pretty much used to seeing ISD advice of this quality in help chat. EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1713
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 23:32:00 -
[921] - Quote
Ludi Burek wrote:EvilweaselSA wrote:if tech doesn't start going up, it will go down
or stay the same, one of the two Nice! Almost as good as that "other" guy that shall not be named. Judging by his posts, he's probably too dumb to get it. Also, don't forget to remind us of your prediction whenever there's a price movement, either way.
That's why the dumb guy has his articles posted and praised on RL trading websites and works with a RL trader associate. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Ludi Burek
The Player Haters Corp
120
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 23:34:00 -
[922] - Quote
One can only hope that this is a precursor to ice being removed from high sec |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1461
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 23:34:00 -
[923] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:I personally don't, but the ISDs in the rookie chats do. So what? File a lawsuit against them? That is goddamned terrible advice to tell somebody - it's like saying "don't bother going to nullsec until you can fly a titan" That's why we should have Goon ISDs!
if somebody is telling a new player in purple text or whatever that mining is the only way to make ISK, well, they should lose their purple text a rogue goon |
DrSmegma
Smegma United Asgard Supplies and Logistics
63
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 23:34:00 -
[924] - Quote
Can't political enemies just be deported? I don't really want to troll you. If I trolled you anyway, I'll probably edit it out as soon as the rage fades. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1713
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 23:38:00 -
[925] - Quote
DrSmegma wrote:Can't political enemies just be deported?
No, they found more effective ways both in Nigeria and Syria. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Ludi Burek
The Player Haters Corp
120
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 23:38:00 -
[926] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
That's why the dumb guy has his articles posted and praised on RL trading websites and works with a RL trader associate.
Yet is lacking creative and objective thinking to such an extent that it is painful to see.
"articles posted and praised on RL trading websites and works with a RL trader associate" does not qualify you as an expert on anything except writing articles to be posted and praised on RL trading websites and working with a RL trader associate".
Do you get that? |
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
545
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 23:50:00 -
[927] - Quote
Herr Hammer Draken wrote:[...]
lol, WoW nice touch. Never played that title however. You but hurt?
Learn to basic-English too, if you're going to try to insult people in that language, person-who-is-not-Soundwave-whose-answer-is-therefore-irrelevant.
Next!
In irae, veritas. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1713
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 00:00:00 -
[928] - Quote
Ludi Burek wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
That's why the dumb guy has his articles posted and praised on RL trading websites and works with a RL trader associate.
Yet is lacking creative and objective thinking to such an extent that it is painful to see. "articles posted and praised on RL trading websites and works with a RL trader associate" does not qualify you as an expert on anything except writing articles to be posted and praised on RL trading websites and working with a RL trader associate". Do you get that?
You can always go check the last pages in my EvE trading thread and find screenshots of real trades being done, targets being called before they happened and so on. Or you could go on my own website and find the whole EvE commodity trades being taken and explained as they evolved.
Also I don't give a crap about objective thinking, it does not exist so why should I pretend to do that. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Homo Jesus
The LGBT Last Supper
30
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 00:02:00 -
[929] - Quote
New barges to do the same mind numbing activity of mining? If there is a win situation here I'm not sure who it is that's winning anything especially considering with a corp invite from indytards HP doesn't really matter.....
|
Evei Shard
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
104
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 00:18:00 -
[930] - Quote
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. Profit favors the prepared |
|
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1190
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 00:40:00 -
[931] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Nobody has a monopoly on building Hulks. True, only a measly 70% of the price of a Hulk is from Technetium My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1462
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 00:41:00 -
[932] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Nobody has a monopoly on building Hulks. True, only a measly 70% of the price of a Hulk is from Technetium
which got nerfed
now what a rogue goon |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
276
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 00:42:00 -
[933] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Skippermonkey wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Nobody has a monopoly on building Hulks. True, only a measly 70% of the price of a Hulk is from Technetium which got nerfed now what
cheap hulks? Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1190
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 00:42:00 -
[934] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Skippermonkey wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Nobody has a monopoly on building Hulks. True, only a measly 70% of the price of a Hulk is from Technetium which got nerfed now what Minecraft? My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
421
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 00:52:00 -
[935] - Quote
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......... |
Drone 16
Law Dogz
2
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 00:56:00 -
[936] - Quote
Here is a thought...
Have OTEC embargo tech...stop the creation of these foul ships before they can even be used! |
Pipa Porto
512
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 00:58:00 -
[937] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Nobody has a monopoly on building Hulks. True, only a measly 70% of the price of a Hulk is from Technetium
Which still isn't a monopoly on building Hulks. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
James 315
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
2151
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 00:59:00 -
[938] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote: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......... If only it were possible to "like" the same post more than once. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
254
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 01:02:00 -
[939] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Step 13: Crimewatch (major nerf to hauler/freighter ganking and ninjas) I can see ninjas(thieves) getting a nerf, but how are hauler gankers affected?
|
Cloned S0ul
Blood Fanatics
167
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 01:03:00 -
[940] - Quote
T2 talos ? Talos is tier 3 bc, not even tech 2, drugs are bad OP are mad. Teemo for president. |
|
Drone 16
Law Dogz
2
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 01:09:00 -
[941] - Quote
Back in the day Hulk pilots did have a remedy...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndWUlntJ58U
Now they are just meat...
Let's try the new barge layouts out and CCP can always nerf it later. I bet there will still be plenty of ganks.
|
Pipa Porto
512
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 01:14:00 -
[942] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:Step 13: Crimewatch (major nerf to hauler/freighter ganking and ninjas) I can see ninjas(thieves) getting a nerf, but how are hauler gankers affected?
The dead guy owns his wreck. When you steal from a wreck, Crimewatch says everyone can shoot you. You can only loot a properly loaded (post crimewatch proper, meaning wrapped GFCs) freighter with another Freighter. Try to loot a freighter, your freighter will die. The way around that is to have a sacrificial freighter who is in corp with the looting freighter (and hope the loot survives 2 explosions). EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
424
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 01:15:00 -
[943] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:Step 13: Crimewatch (major nerf to hauler/freighter ganking and ninjas) I can see ninjas(thieves) getting a nerf, but how are hauler gankers affected?
Gank a hauler on a busy trade network. It leaves a yellow wreck, flagged to the now dead owner. Scoop the wreck now, you are flagged to the previous owner. Vultures can steal the wreck, but it goes with the territory.
Post-Crimewatch: Try to scoop the wreck, you get attacked by everyone, vultures and passerby's alike.
Profits are already far from certain due to failed gank attempts, random loot drops, loss of insurance - and vultures. Now factor in free aggro for everyone....
Now imagine trying to loot a dead freighter.
|
Drone 16
Law Dogz
2
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 01:19:00 -
[944] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:Step 13: Crimewatch (major nerf to hauler/freighter ganking and ninjas) I can see ninjas(thieves) getting a nerf, but how are hauler gankers affected? Gank a hauler on a busy trade network. It leaves a yellow wreck, flagged to the now dead owner. Scoop the wreck now, you are flagged to the previous owner. Vultures can steal the wreck, but it goes with the territory. Post-Crimewatch: Try to scoop the wreck, you get attacked by everyone, vultures and passerby's alike. Profits are already far from certain due to failed gank attempts, random loot drops, loss of insurance - and vultures. Now factor in free aggro for everyone.... Now imagine trying to loot a dead freighter.
Gank stopped by passerby:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMZbW2Q92MM |
Herr Hammer Draken
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
50
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 01:22:00 -
[945] - 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? |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
254
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 01:24:00 -
[946] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Excellent point Yeah, I can see how that would be far less than ideal. |
Pipa Porto
512
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 01:39:00 -
[947] - Quote
Drone 16 wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:Step 13: Crimewatch (major nerf to hauler/freighter ganking and ninjas) I can see ninjas(thieves) getting a nerf, but how are hauler gankers affected? Gank a hauler on a busy trade network. It leaves a yellow wreck, flagged to the now dead owner. Scoop the wreck now, you are flagged to the previous owner. Vultures can steal the wreck, but it goes with the territory. Post-Crimewatch: Try to scoop the wreck, you get attacked by everyone, vultures and passerby's alike. Profits are already far from certain due to failed gank attempts, random loot drops, loss of insurance - and vultures. Now factor in free aggro for everyone.... Now imagine trying to loot a dead freighter. Gank stopped by passerby: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMZbW2Q92MM
You can shoot the gankers already. If you're going to make an IRL comparison, the looter is picking over the corpse of a dead guy. Illegal, sure. But if you shoot someone who's just looting a corpse, you're going to jail. Just like if you shoot a 3rd party looter in EVE you get CONCORDed. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1224
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 01:48:00 -
[948] - Quote
Drone 16 wrote:Back in the day Hulk pilots did have a remedy... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndWUlntJ58UNow they are just meat... Let's try the new barge layouts out and CCP can always nerf it later. I bet there will still be plenty of ganks. You mean they can always buff it more later, since you are sure there'll be plenty of ganks.. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Tragedy
The Creepshow
14
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 01:49:00 -
[949] - Quote
I dont know who whines more. Miners or gankers. |
Skogen Gump
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
84
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 01:55:00 -
[950] - Quote
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. |
|
Saber DeVor
Uncharted Chaos Leather Rose Syndicate
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 02:39:00 -
[951] - Quote
+1 for CCP inadvertently making extremely bot friendly ships! |
Pipa Porto
512
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 02:54:00 -
[952] - Quote
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. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Danny Diamonds
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
20
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 02:55:00 -
[953] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:Step 13: Crimewatch (major nerf to hauler/freighter ganking and ninjas) I can see ninjas(thieves) getting a nerf, but how are hauler gankers affected? Gank a hauler on a busy trade network. It leaves a yellow wreck, flagged to the now dead owner. Scoop the wreck now, you are flagged to the previous owner. Vultures can steal the wreck, but it goes with the territory. Post-Crimewatch: Try to scoop the wreck, you get attacked by everyone, vultures and passerby's alike. Profits are already far from certain due to failed gank attempts, random loot drops, loss of insurance - and vultures. Now factor in free aggro for everyone.... Now imagine trying to loot a dead freighter.
So you want to freely shoot Exhumers that have no guns to shoot back with, and are upset that when you steal from a wreck that someone else can shoot you?
Wow. You want mommy to hold your hand when you pee too? |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
220
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 02:59:00 -
[954] - Quote
Skiffs have bigger tanks than black ops, discuss |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1463
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 03:01:00 -
[955] - Quote
the problem is that in the past, hulkageddons generally involved "more expensive" ships like brutixes, discophoons, torp ravens, armageddons and domis, which were insured so the ganker would only really bear a 10-20m loss
then the nth nerf to all risk in hisec took away insurance for concord kills (since publords need to be safe while botting or being AFK) and people started using the newly buffed destroyers and tier 3 battlecruisers
and now, the n+1st nerf to all risk in hisec is vastly increasing the hitpoints on all barges
and soon, the n+2nd nerf to all risk in hisec will ensure that no freighter is worth ganking because looting it will allow everyone in the game, most of whom had no stake in either the defense or attack on that freighter, to shoot you
and the n+3rd nerf will probably equalize concord response times throughout all of hisec, so a 1.0 rookie system is no safer than a 0.5 a rogue goon |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
485
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 03:01:00 -
[956] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote:Skiffs have bigger tanks than black ops, discuss
hmm...
Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1463
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 03:01:00 -
[957] - Quote
Danny Diamonds wrote:So you want to freely shoot Exhumers that have no guns to shoot back with, and are upset that when you steal from a wreck that someone else can shoot you?
someone else can already shoot you
the members of the corp that own the wreck, for instance a rogue goon |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
485
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 03:03:00 -
[958] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:the problem is that in the past, hulkageddons generally involved "more expensive" ships like brutixes, discophoons, torp ravens, armageddons and domis, which were insured so the ganker would only really bear a 10-20m loss
then the nth nerf to all risk in hisec took away insurance for concord kills (since publords need to be safe while botting or being AFK) and people started using the newly buffed destroyers and tier 3 battlecruisers
and now, the n+1st nerf to all risk in hisec is vastly increasing the hitpoints on all barges
and soon, the n+2nd nerf to all risk in hisec will ensure that no freighter is worth ganking because looting it will allow everyone in the game, most of whom had no stake in either the defense or attack on that freighter, to shoot you
and the n+3rd nerf will probably equalize concord response times throughout all of hisec, so a 1.0 rookie system is no safer than a 0.5
you guys that bored cuss you won 0.0?
how about you break the circle jerk and have some fun with your "allies" Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1463
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 03:07:00 -
[959] - Quote
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 a rogue goon |
Majic Pony Love
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 03:08:00 -
[960] - Quote
wow Remove ISD! Subscription will not be renewed till ISD is gone! |
|
Herr Hammer Draken
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
51
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 03:42:00 -
[961] - 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. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 03:46:00 -
[962] - Quote
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 a rogue goon |
Herr Hammer Draken
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
51
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 03:47:00 -
[963] - 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. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 03:50:00 -
[964] - Quote
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! a rogue goon |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 03:51:00 -
[965] - Quote
"but hisec isn't going to be totally risk-free because we might still die to rats" heh a rogue goon |
Herr Hammer Draken
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
51
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 03:56:00 -
[966] - 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. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
486
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 04:01:00 -
[967] - 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!
ah goons :) the very definition of hubris and prima donna Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
426
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 04:02:00 -
[968] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:"but hisec isn't going to be totally risk-free because we might still die to rats" heh
Yeah, I was confused as to what miners were referring to when they said that mining with a 100K EHP Skiff was 'low-risk activity'.
I was sitting there trying to figure out where the 'low' risk was coming from.....
it was the high-sec belt rats, thats what it was.
Oh wait - belt rats aren't even strong enough to crack the passive regen of an AFK skiff.
So what makes it 'low' risk activity as opposed to virtually 'no-risk' activity?
-Accidentally hitting the self destruction button and not noticing it?
-Accidentally ejecting and someone jacks your Skiff?
-Someone flipping your can? Oh wait, you don't need cans anymore.
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
486
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 04:04:00 -
[969] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:"but hisec isn't going to be totally risk-free because we might still die to rats" heh Yeah, I was confused as to what miners were referring to when they said that mining with a 100K EHP Skiff was 'low-risk activity'. I was sitting there trying to figure out where the 'low' risk was coming from..... it was the high-sec belt rats, thats what it was. Oh wait - belt rats aren't even strong enough to crack the passive regen of an AFK skiff. So what makes it 'low' risk activity as opposed to virtually 'no-risk' activity? -Accidentally hitting the self destruction button and not noticing it? -Accidentally ejecting and someone jacks your Skiff? -Someone flipping your can? Oh wait, you don't need cans anymore.
i dunno maybe wardecs? Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 04:04:00 -
[970] - Quote
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.
for one, there's no way of enforcing a "minimum" cost to gank something because if it requires the DPS of, say, a vindicator, you can do it with 6 catalysts which come at a fraction of the cost
however, I do agree that you shouldn't be able to profitably gank, say, a t2 fit exhumer considering that you can't really profitably gank a t2 fit mission boat, but if you're looking at a mackinaw with, say, aoede MLUs and ore strip miners, then there is no way that you shouldn't be able to gank it for a profit because it's blatantly a loot pinata
just like a faction/deadspace fit tengu, just like an officer-fit nightmare coming through a gate a rogue goon |
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 04:05:00 -
[971] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:i dunno maybe wardecs?
if you're afk mining while under a wardec you deserve to be blown up, your corpse paraded through jita and laughed at by everyone a rogue goon |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
426
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 04:06:00 -
[972] - Quote
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.
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
486
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 04:09:00 -
[973] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:MeBiatch wrote:i dunno maybe wardecs? if you're afk mining while under a wardec you deserve to be blown up, your corpse paraded through jita and laughed at by everyone
you know this happens to peeps running annoms in 0.0 all the time (afk thing getting ganked)
or are you also trying to stealth suggest that annoms in 0.0 are also risk free? Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
434
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 04:10:00 -
[974] - Quote
Herr Hammer Draken wrote: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. The devs can say whatever they want, but too ******* bad. They're wrong. EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
426
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 04:11:00 -
[975] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:"but hisec isn't going to be totally risk-free because we might still die to rats" heh Yeah, I was confused as to what miners were referring to when they said that mining with a 100K EHP Skiff was 'low-risk activity'. I was sitting there trying to figure out where the 'low' risk was coming from..... it was the high-sec belt rats, thats what it was. Oh wait - belt rats aren't even strong enough to crack the passive regen of an AFK skiff. So what makes it 'low' risk activity as opposed to virtually 'no-risk' activity? -Accidentally hitting the self destruction button and not noticing it? -Accidentally ejecting and someone jacks your Skiff? -Someone flipping your can? Oh wait, you don't need cans anymore. i dunno maybe wardecs?
LOL, no silly guy. I'll let you in on a secret:
If wardecced, miners are free to drop corp until the war is over, and mine as if the aggressor hadn't wasted millions of ISK.
Try again. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 04:12:00 -
[976] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:you know this happens to peeps running annoms in 0.0 all the time (afk thing getting ganked)
or are you also trying to stealth suggest that annoms in 0.0 are also risk free?
people generally don't afk in anoms unless they're in domis, which are hilariously cheap a rogue goon |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
486
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 04:13:00 -
[977] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:"but hisec isn't going to be totally risk-free because we might still die to rats" heh Yeah, I was confused as to what miners were referring to when they said that mining with a 100K EHP Skiff was 'low-risk activity'. I was sitting there trying to figure out where the 'low' risk was coming from..... it was the high-sec belt rats, thats what it was. Oh wait - belt rats aren't even strong enough to crack the passive regen of an AFK skiff. So what makes it 'low' risk activity as opposed to virtually 'no-risk' activity? -Accidentally hitting the self destruction button and not noticing it? -Accidentally ejecting and someone jacks your Skiff? -Someone flipping your can? Oh wait, you don't need cans anymore. i dunno maybe wardecs? LOL, no silly guy. I'll let you in on a secret: If wardecced, miners are free to drop corp until the war is over, and mine as the aggressor hadn't wasted millions of ISK. Try again.
ah you have yet to hear about my new crusade against npc corps...
tldr:
they must go and be replaced with faction warfare militias only. your people are at war and need your service for the republic!
Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 04:13:00 -
[978] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:ah you have yet to hear about my new crusade against npc corps...
MeBiatch Republic University Minmatar Republic a rogue goon |
Herr Hammer Draken
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
52
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 04:14:00 -
[979] - 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. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 04:15:00 -
[980] - Quote
it is also not your crusade, it is nicolo da'vicenza's a rogue goon |
|
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
426
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 04:15:00 -
[981] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:
ah you have yet to hear about my new crusade against npc corps...
tldr:
they must go and be replaced with faction warfare militias only. your people are at war and need your service for the republic!
I like it, probably needs a bit of fleshing out, certainly will never happen......but I like it.
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
486
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 04:16:00 -
[982] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:MeBiatch wrote:ah you have yet to hear about my new crusade against npc corps...
MeBiatch Republic UniversityMinmatar Republic
yes and guess what this char is used for?!?!?
avoiding wars by beign in an npc corp so i can haul stuff to my low sec waypoint and use my thanny to move stuff to 0.0 for me... plus he is also a cyno alt...
hey i am going to use the feature as long as its here...
i am just saying its stupid and should be removed...
risk free is silly if you ask me...
Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1225
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 04:17:00 -
[983] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:MeBiatch wrote:ah you have yet to hear about my new crusade against npc corps...
MeBiatch Republic UniversityMinmatar Republic yes and guess what this char is used for?!?!? avoiding wars by beign in an npc corp so i can haul stuff to my low sec waypoint and use my thanny to move stuff to 0.0 for me... plus he is also a cyno alt... hey i am going to use the feature as long as its here... i am just saying its stupid and should be removed... risk free is silly if you ask me... Good job using an NPC corp alt in highsec :) Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 04:18:00 -
[984] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:yes and guess what this char is used for?!?!?
avoiding wars by beign in an npc corp so i can haul stuff to my low sec waypoint and use my thanny to move stuff to 0.0 for me... plus he is also a cyno alt...
hey i am going to use the feature as long as its here...
i am just saying its stupid and should be removed...
risk free is silly if you ask me...
empire freighter alts are so 2007, pubbies will haul your freighter-sized loads for peanuts these days a rogue goon |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
486
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 04:22:00 -
[985] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:MeBiatch wrote:yes and guess what this char is used for?!?!?
avoiding wars by beign in an npc corp so i can haul stuff to my low sec waypoint and use my thanny to move stuff to 0.0 for me... plus he is also a cyno alt...
hey i am going to use the feature as long as its here...
i am just saying its stupid and should be removed...
risk free is silly if you ask me...
empire freighter alts are so 2007, pubbies will haul your freighter-sized loads for peanuts these days
perhaps but a cyno alt never goes out of style...
Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
pussnheels
487
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 04:33:00 -
[986] - 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!
i am going to ask again because i didn't got a answer yet WHY AREN'T PEOPLE ALLOWED TO AFK MINE IF THEY WANT? You goons and other nullsec idiots have your AFK moongoo , so that shouldn't be allowed if you continue with your logic I do not agree with what you are saying , but i will defend to the death your right to say it...... Voltaire |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
122
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 04:33:00 -
[987] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:empire freighter alts are so 2007, pubbies will haul your freighter-sized loads for peanuts these days
10 mil / m3 1 mil / jump
Deal? |
Herr Hammer Draken
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
53
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 04:34:00 -
[988] - 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. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
434
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 04:36:00 -
[989] - Quote
pussnheels wrote: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! i am going to ask again because i didn't got a answer yet WHY AREN'T PEOPLE ALLOWED TO AFK MINE IF THEY WANT? You goons and other nullsec idiots have your AFK moongoo , so that shouldn't be allowed if you continue with your logic You don't understand moon mining at all if you think it's effortless income. EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
426
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 04:38:00 -
[990] - Quote
Herr Hammer Draken wrote:
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.
Errr, you realize that he didn't 'abandon' his wreck, right?
Now I'm pretty sure you are nowhere near 'this' level of play, either.
You seem to think ganking should only be the province of the idle rich, as if they were out on a pheasant hunt or an exotic safari.
I, being a man of the people....believe that the young, the up and coming, should be encouraged to partake in our noble cause....
Imposing large punitive costs removes a large % of players from the 'ganker' pool. Forcing gankers exclusively into large groups of destroyers, cuts down on variety and leads to boring tactics, as well as cutting out those players in odd time zones, or those without a large alliance to back them up.
And the insipid requirement that gankers lose more than the target?
1. Gankers will jump at a chance to gank for a profit. 2. And they will often accept a personal loss if they have an opportunity to inflict disproportionate damage to the victim.
But they almost NEVER gank when the 'cost to gank' is higher than the total value of the target.
Thats why you don't see people ganking, say - Bantams or Retrievers with Tornados. Its just stupid to waste a 70-100M ISK ship to kill something that costs a mere fraction of that.
Just as it would be stupid to gank a 120M ISK Skiff with 10 Tornados, or a 180M ISK Mackinaw with 5 or 6?
And because gankers are not irrational, these types of ganks do not and will not happen, except in the most exceedingly rare of cases. Its the same reason that people rarely gank Orcas - the effort costs more than the reward - or even the loss to the victim....
|
|
Sentamon
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
73
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 04:44:00 -
[991] - Quote
pussnheels wrote: i am going to ask again because i didn't got a answer yet WHY AREN'T PEOPLE ALLOWED TO AFK MINE IF THEY WANT? You goons and other nullsec idiots have your AFK moongoo , so that shouldn't be allowed if you continue with your logic
Because they are Goons. What else is there to say. ~ Professional Forum Alt -á~ |
Ambassador Crane
Hellhound Productions
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 04:48:00 -
[992] - Quote
Wow! Nearly 50 pages now of the same arguments being repeated over and over and over and over and over.........
I actually read through about 30 pages before I got bored reading the same basic moans and groans, just rephrased in a colorful rainbow of wording. The whining flows heavily in this thread from both industrialists and gankers alike, although (and I'm personally not suprised) more so from the ganker side.
But what really tickles me reading through this drudge is when I hear gankers arguing over the numbers game in terms of costs. I mean, lets be real here and admit. Most of those who gank mining ships are not doing it for the easy isk (which it definitely is). No, most of them are doing it purely for the "tears". I mean, lets look at the very name of the corp for the OP. Ahh the shear irony of someone part of a corp focused on collecting tears and yet coming to the forums shedding his own. The changes haven't even been implemented yet and what? Business already so slow you gotta make and collect your own??
Then I 'lol'd at the people who claim that miners have been crying and CCP is "stooping down" to give them a buff. How many times have we heard nullsec pvpers (and yeah, I am one) complain that this or that needs to be buffed or nerfed. Or throw in faction warfare. Or throw in war decs. I say cheers to the miners for finally getting a bit of attention from CCP.
What I also think is comical about most people in this thread is that they claim you should fit a hulk for tanking in High Sec. That people shouldn't be capable of AFK mining. I say until CCP makes mining more interesting (and even the pvpers admit mining is incredibly boring though I doubt many of them have done it for more then perhaps 30mins), can you REALLY blame them for doing it at least semi-afk?? I've mined ore and i'm generally thinking. "omg....I'm so bored! Please ganker shoot me so I can have an excuse to end my miserable existance!" And then I tried mining ice....I think that's when i thankfully learned what ctrl-q (or I guess alt-shft-q now) really did!
So again, I tip my hat to you full time miners in finally getting some much needed love from CCP. In my opinion, it's not really that much but it's certainly well deserved attention. And gankers, before you kill that miner, which I'm sure you'll do even after the changes, be sure to thank that miner for supplying the materials to build that very same ship your about to kill him with. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
122
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 04:51:00 -
[993] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Imposing large punitive costs removes a large % of players from the 'ganker' pool. Forcing gankers exclusively into large groups of destroyers, cuts down on variety and leads to boring tactics, as well as cutting out those players in odd time zones, or those without a large alliance to back them up.
We could call it natural selection, right? EVE Online is an MMO, not a singleplayer Call of Duty copy. Get your ganker friends and gank in groups. That's how this game is played in nullsec. Teamwork. |
pussnheels
488
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 04:52:00 -
[994] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Herr Hammer Draken wrote:
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.
Errr, you realize that he didn't 'abandon' his wreck, right? Now I'm pretty sure you are nowhere near 'this' level of play, either. You seem to think ganking should only be the province of the idle rich, as if they were out on a pheasant hunt or an exotic safari. I, being a man of the people....believe that the young, the up and coming, should be encouraged to partake in our noble cause.... Imposing large punitive costs removes a large % of players from the 'ganker' pool. Forcing gankers exclusively into large groups of destroyers, cuts down on variety and leads to boring tactics, as well as cutting out those players in odd time zones, or those without a large alliance to back them up. And the insipid requirement that gankers lose more than the target? 1. Gankers will jump at a chance to gank for a profit. 2. And they will often accept a personal loss if they have an opportunity to inflict disproportionate damage to the victim. But they almost NEVER gank when the 'cost to gank' is higher than the total value of the target. Thats why you don't see people ganking, say - Bantams or Retrievers with Tornados. Its just stupid to waste a 70-100M ISK ship to kill something that costs a mere fraction of that. Just as it would be stupid to gank a 120M ISK Skiff with 10 Tornados, or a 180M ISK Mackinaw with 5 or 6? And because gankers are not irrational, these types of ganks do not and will not happen, except in the most exceedingly rare of cases. Its the same reason that people rarely gank Orcas - the effort costs more than the reward - or even the loss to the victim....
you not ganking retrievers and bantams because you know you NOT going to hurt the other player or that the victim is a new player and you might get accused of harrassing new players Your opinion about ganking has nothing to do about profit , only hurting people and if you can hurt them in their RL pockets aswell even better , Don't get me wrong there is nothing wrong with ganking nor do i or most of the players want a risk highsec , but people like you are getting me pissed off IT IS NOT YOUR GAME , game belongs to CCP and when CCP decides to change something you don't like well deal with it get over it , there has been several changes in the past i didn't like , but i am still here deal with it and stop crying I do not agree with what you are saying , but i will defend to the death your right to say it...... Voltaire |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
428
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 04:56:00 -
[995] - Quote
pussnheels wrote:
i am going to ask again because i didn't got a answer yet WHY AREN'T PEOPLE ALLOWED TO AFK MINE IF THEY WANT? You goons and other nullsec idiots have your AFK moongoo , so that shouldn't be allowed if you continue with your logic
Here's your answer...
You ARE allowed to AFK mine. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 05:00:00 -
[996] - Quote
i sat down and looked at some other ships that are of prices comparable to hulks, let's start
a Vigilant costs about the same as a Hulk in Jita and it has more base HP, but inferior resists (being a faction ship) and at all level Vs, unfit, it has 11k EHP. fit for its most common role, dealing HAC-like damage with dual 90% webs, it will only have 20k EHP. a brick tanked heavy tackle fit would increase its EHP to 63k, but it gives up a substantial amount of DPS. also, with dual fed navy webs, its cost goes up to ~400m. add a faction point (which is not uncommon in these ships) and you're looking at close to 500M.
a Devoter isn't much cheaper than a Hulk (difference is like 20M in Jita) and it only has a few thousand more EHP unfit, although this is due to its resist bonus - which is necessary, considering that it tends to be the primary especially when supers are on the field. fit for its primary role, being a brick tanked bubbler, it can field a massive tank - 215k EHP with Damnation bonuses. it also tends to have an entire blob of ships shooting at it.
both of these ships are used in combat and the vigilant's tanking abilities aren't terribly impressive even compared to a hulk. oh and they're generally not AFK in a belt and they're not that great for making ISK. a rogue goon |
Asuka Solo
Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises
1572
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 05:01:00 -
[997] - Quote
pussnheels wrote: i am going to ask again because i didn't got a answer yet WHY AREN'T PEOPLE ALLOWED TO AFK MINE IF THEY WANT? You goons and other nullsec idiots have your AFK moongoo , so that shouldn't be allowed if you continue with your logic
Bravo.
Down with moongoo botters!
To the statues! |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1225
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 05:02:00 -
[998] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:Imposing large punitive costs removes a large % of players from the 'ganker' pool. Forcing gankers exclusively into large groups of destroyers, cuts down on variety and leads to boring tactics, as well as cutting out those players in odd time zones, or those without a large alliance to back them up. We could call it natural selection, right? EVE Online is a MMO, not a singleplayer Call of Duty copy. Get your ganker friends and gank in groups. That's how this game is played in nullsec. Teamwork. ~blobbing~ Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
434
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 05:02:00 -
[999] - Quote
Ambassador Crane wrote:Wow! Nearly 50 pages now of the same arguments being repeated over and over and over and over and over......... I actually read through about 30 pages before I got bored reading the same basic moans and groans, just rephrased in a colorful rainbow of wording. The whining flows heavily in this thread from both industrialists and gankers alike, although (and I'm personally not suprised) more so from the ganker side. But what really tickles me reading through this drudge is when I hear gankers arguing over the numbers game in terms of costs. I mean, lets be real here and admit. Most of those who gank mining ships are not doing it for the easy isk (which it definitely is). No, most of them are doing it purely for the "tears". I mean, lets look at the very name of the corp for the OP. Ahh the shear irony of someone part of a corp focused on collecting tears and yet coming to the forums shedding his own. The changes haven't even been implemented yet and what? Business already so slow you gotta make and collect your own?? Then I 'lol'd at the people who claim that miners have been crying and CCP is "stooping down" to give them a buff. How many times have we heard nullsec pvpers (and yeah, I am one) complain that this or that needs to be buffed or nerfed. Or throw in faction warfare. Or throw in war decs. I say cheers to the miners for finally getting a bit of attention from CCP. What I also think is comical about most people in this thread is that they claim you should fit a hulk for tanking in High Sec. That people shouldn't be capable of AFK mining. I say until CCP makes mining more interesting (and even the pvpers admit mining is incredibly boring though I doubt many of them have done it for more then perhaps 30mins), can you REALLY blame them for doing it at least semi-afk?? I've mined ore and i'm generally thinking. "omg....I'm so bored! Please ganker shoot me so I can have an excuse to end my miserable existance!" And then I tried mining ice....I think that's when i thankfully learned what ctrl-q (or I guess alt-shft-q now) really did! So again, I tip my hat to you full time miners in finally getting some much needed love from CCP. In my opinion, it's not really that much but it's certainly well deserved attention. And gankers, before you kill that miner, which I'm sure you'll do even after the changes, be sure to thank that miner for supplying the materials to build that very same ship your about to kill him with. The entire point is that miners haven't done anything to earn this buff. As I said earlier an appropriate buff would be purely to the fitting stats of the ships, not their EHP. Buffing the fitting stats would allow them to fit a respectable tank without too much sacrifice to yield, but no, we can't even help miners help themselves, we have to do everything for them! EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
pussnheels
488
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 05:03:00 -
[1000] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:pussnheels wrote: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! i am going to ask again because i didn't got a answer yet WHY AREN'T PEOPLE ALLOWED TO AFK MINE IF THEY WANT? You goons and other nullsec idiots have your AFK moongoo , so that shouldn't be allowed if you continue with your logic You don't understand moon mining at all if you think it's effortless income. it is effortless once you own the system only thing you need to do is set up a pos start the proces after that it is only a question of refueling and empty the storage bins so don't give me that crap that moongoo is hard work and involves hours upon hours of boring yourself to death watching the lights on your pos well i am pretty pissed off at any of your nullsec wankers , death sick of your comments how people should play your game all the while you cry and whine about anything that has the remote chance of pulling down your own little carebear sandcastle I do not agree with what you are saying , but i will defend to the death your right to say it...... Voltaire |
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 05:06:00 -
[1001] - Quote
Asuka Solo wrote:moongoo botters
nobody can be this clueless a rogue goon |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 05:06:00 -
[1002] - Quote
pussnheels wrote:it is effortless once you own the system only thing you need to do is set up a pos start the proces after that it is only a question of refueling and empty the storage bins so don't give me that crap that moongoo is hard work and involves hours upon hours of boring yourself to death watching the lights on your pos well i am pretty pissed off at any of your nullsec wankers , death sick of your comments how people should play your game all the while you cry and whine about anything that has the remote chance of pulling down your own little carebear sandcastle
you should ask Pandemic Legion about owning systems that they run moon mining towers in a rogue goon |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
487
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 05:08:00 -
[1003] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:i sat down and looked at some other ships that are of prices comparable to hulks, let's start
a Vigilant costs about the same as a Hulk in Jita and it has more base HP, but inferior resists (being a faction ship) and at all level Vs, unfit, it has 11k EHP. fit for its most common role, dealing HAC-like damage with dual 90% webs, it will only have 20k EHP. a brick tanked heavy tackle fit would increase its EHP to 63k, but it gives up a substantial amount of DPS. also, with dual fed navy webs, its cost goes up to ~400m. add a faction point (which is not uncommon in these ships) and you're looking at close to 500M.
a Devoter isn't much cheaper than a Hulk (difference is like 20M in Jita) and it only has a few thousand more EHP unfit, although this is due to its resist bonus - which is necessary, considering that it tends to be the primary especially when supers are on the field. fit for its primary role, being a brick tanked bubbler, it can field a massive tank - 215k EHP with Damnation bonuses. it also tends to have an entire blob of ships shooting at it.
both of these ships are used in combat and the vigilant's tanking abilities aren't terribly impressive even compared to a hulk. oh and they're generally not AFK in a belt and they're not that great for making ISK.
i know you are trying to make a point...
what it is i have no clue Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
pussnheels
488
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 05:08:00 -
[1004] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Ambassador Crane wrote:Wow! Nearly 50 pages now of the same arguments being repeated over and over and over and over and over......... I actually read through about 30 pages before I got bored reading the same basic moans and groans, just rephrased in a colorful rainbow of wording. The whining flows heavily in this thread from both industrialists and gankers alike, although (and I'm personally not suprised) more so from the ganker side. But what really tickles me reading through this drudge is when I hear gankers arguing over the numbers game in terms of costs. I mean, lets be real here and admit. Most of those who gank mining ships are not doing it for the easy isk (which it definitely is). No, most of them are doing it purely for the "tears". I mean, lets look at the very name of the corp for the OP. Ahh the shear irony of someone part of a corp focused on collecting tears and yet coming to the forums shedding his own. The changes haven't even been implemented yet and what? Business already so slow you gotta make and collect your own?? Then I 'lol'd at the people who claim that miners have been crying and CCP is "stooping down" to give them a buff. How many times have we heard nullsec pvpers (and yeah, I am one) complain that this or that needs to be buffed or nerfed. Or throw in faction warfare. Or throw in war decs. I say cheers to the miners for finally getting a bit of attention from CCP. What I also think is comical about most people in this thread is that they claim you should fit a hulk for tanking in High Sec. That people shouldn't be capable of AFK mining. I say until CCP makes mining more interesting (and even the pvpers admit mining is incredibly boring though I doubt many of them have done it for more then perhaps 30mins), can you REALLY blame them for doing it at least semi-afk?? I've mined ore and i'm generally thinking. "omg....I'm so bored! Please ganker shoot me so I can have an excuse to end my miserable existance!" And then I tried mining ice....I think that's when i thankfully learned what ctrl-q (or I guess alt-shft-q now) really did! So again, I tip my hat to you full time miners in finally getting some much needed love from CCP. In my opinion, it's not really that much but it's certainly well deserved attention. And gankers, before you kill that miner, which I'm sure you'll do even after the changes, be sure to thank that miner for supplying the materials to build that very same ship your about to kill him with. The entire point is that miners haven't done anything to earn this buff. As I said earlier an appropriate buff would be purely to the fitting stats of the ships, not their EHP. Buffing the fitting stats would allow them to fit a respectable tank without too much sacrifice to yield, but no, we can't even help miners help themselves, we have to do everything for them!
Do you actually have to do something to earn a buff following your logic nullsec doesn'(t deserve moongoo , only thing they seem to do out there was ratting bots mining with guns ( thank god thats almost over) , exploiting wardec mechanics and other mechanics , crashing the server and whine whine whine about highsec
I do not agree with what you are saying , but i will defend to the death your right to say it...... Voltaire |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
428
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 05:10:00 -
[1005] - Quote
pussnheels wrote:
you not ganking retrievers and bantams because you know you NOT going to hurt the other player or that the victim is a new player and you might get accused of harrassing new players Your opinion about ganking has nothing to do about profit , only hurting people and if you can hurt them in their RL pockets aswell even better , Don't get me wrong there is nothing wrong with ganking nor do i or most of the players do not want a risk highsec , but people like you are getting me pissed off IT IS NOT YOUR BLOODY GAME , game belongs to CCP and when CCP decides to change something you don't like well deal with it get over it , there has been several changes in the past i didn't like , but i am still here deal with it and stop crying
Of course, its not worth ganking them because it doesn't inflict any damage on the target. Between cheap hulls and Platinum insurance, you just aren't accomplishing much. I value my time more than that.
Incidentally, its the same reason I don't bother with low sec. Take a hypothetical EVE opponent, "Johnny Jackass".
If I go to lowsec and pop his insured T1-Rupture at Old Man Star, I set him back a few million and he doesn't mind at all. Even if I pod him (and take the large sec hit) his pod is likely a combat clone. Win or lose, its a waste of time. Its like playing poker for toothpicks or M&M's.
If I gank his Hulk in highsec, with a -10 suicide alt - it interferes with his main source income and sets him back hundreds of millions. As Johnny didn't expect to lose his pod in 'safe' space - he's likely loaded with expensive implants. A skilled attack could easily set him back 1 Billion ISK or more. Inflicting that kind of damage is NOT a waste of time my time.
Understand now? I measure my success in how much damage and pain I inflict on other players. Newsflash - so does everybody else. I just don't limit myself to small-fry. |
Suqq Madiq
Amarr Empire
201
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 05:12:00 -
[1006] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:The entire point is that miners haven't done anything to earn this buff. As I said earlier an appropriate buff would be purely to the fitting stats of the ships, not their EHP. Buffing the fitting stats would allow them to fit a respectable tank without too much sacrifice to yield, but no, we can't even help miners help themselves, we have to do everything for them!
Your regurgitated rhetoric is terribly played out. As players we don't have the opportunity or ability to "earn buffs". They're given or taken away based on perceived imbalances in the mechanics of the game. CCP decided, and the vast majority of the forum posting populace agrees, that Barges and Exhumers needed to be rebalanced as their current incarnation just plain sucks. Whatever argument you have against this re-balance is, frankly, irrelevant as it's going to happen anyway as you and others in opposition have failed to provide meaningful evidence or sound reasoning to convince CCP to scrap their plans. |
Daemon Ceed
Jihad Squad from Riyadh Reckless Ambition
273
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 05:14:00 -
[1007] - Quote
As a ganker, I'll give my reasons:
1.) It's HILARIOUS! 2.) Profit
Does there need to be any other reason? Miners are like giant space pinatas. The Sandbox = Play however the hell you want. |
Pipa Porto
512
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 05:15:00 -
[1008] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:pussnheels wrote:it is effortless once you own the system only thing you need to do is set up a pos start the proces after that it is only a question of refueling and empty the storage bins so don't give me that crap that moongoo is hard work and involves hours upon hours of boring yourself to death watching the lights on your pos well i am pretty pissed off at any of your nullsec wankers , death sick of your comments how people should play your game all the while you cry and whine about anything that has the remote chance of pulling down your own little carebear sandcastle you should ask Pandemic Legion about owning systems that they run moon mining towers in
Last time I mentioned that PL didn't hold Sov, I was wrong because they had accidentally Sov.
This time I'm checking Dotlan first.
PL, which is one of the largest Tech holders in the game currently holds exactly 0 Sov.
The hard work of Moon Goo is fighting to keep it. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
434
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 05:16:00 -
[1009] - Quote
pussnheels wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:pussnheels wrote: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! i am going to ask again because i didn't got a answer yet WHY AREN'T PEOPLE ALLOWED TO AFK MINE IF THEY WANT? You goons and other nullsec idiots have your AFK moongoo , so that shouldn't be allowed if you continue with your logic You don't understand moon mining at all if you think it's effortless income. it is effortless once you own the system only thing you need to do is set up a pos start the proces after that it is only a question of refueling and empty the storage bins so don't give me that crap that moongoo is hard work and involves hours upon hours of boring yourself to death watching the lights on your pos well i am pretty pissed off at any of your nullsec wankers , death sick of your comments how people should play your game all the while you cry and whine about anything that has the remote chance of pulling down your own little carebear sandcastle You're absolutely right. These towers are invulnerable and never come under attack, and so never need defending with fleets of sometimes more than a hundred players. EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 05:19:00 -
[1010] - Quote
well, you were able to make towers invulnerable in the past a rogue goon |
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
122
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 05:20:00 -
[1011] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:The hard work of Moon Goo is fighting to keep it.
Not really. Few thousand supercaps / moon should do the trick. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 05:21:00 -
[1012] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Not really. Few thousand supercaps / moon should do the trick.
yeah the NC had a ton of supercaps and controlled nearly all of the tech and nobody has been able to challenge them so far
that's why Morsus Mihi, Majesta Empire, Stella Polaris and them still own all of the north a rogue goon |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1714
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 05:23:00 -
[1013] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:the problem is that in the past, hulkageddons generally involved "more expensive" ships like brutixes, discophoons, torp ravens, armageddons and domis, which were insured so the ganker would only really bear a 10-20m loss
then the nth nerf to all risk in hisec took away insurance for concord kills (since publords need to be safe while botting or being AFK) and people started using the newly buffed destroyers and tier 3 battlecruisers
and now, the n+1st nerf to all risk in hisec is vastly increasing the hitpoints on all barges
and soon, the n+2nd nerf to all risk in hisec will ensure that no freighter is worth ganking because looting it will allow everyone in the game, most of whom had no stake in either the defense or attack on that freighter, to shoot you
and the n+3rd nerf will probably equalize concord response times throughout all of hisec, so a 1.0 rookie system is no safer than a 0.5
Insurance fraud was taken away not because of hi sec kills but because, like boomerang, it started being used in an heavily mass, industrialized way. You can find on MD the guy (Cosmoray) who made 100B+ by manufacturing thousands of battleships and exploding them.
He started a trend, with a NPC endless ISK faucet, he posted about it and how to do it and then nobody would stop what was basically legal ISK duping. CCP intervened and removed it.
Same for boomerang, for years it was used with a brain and not spammed on the forums and CCP let it go. Then a very intelligent guy started talking about it on GD and made tutorials so droves of emulators started doing it. CCP intervened and removed it.
Same for orca ships "saving". Once again, tolerated for a long time till somebody "smart" decided to make it very public and spammable by every ganker. CCP intervened and removed it.
Don't blame hi seccer targets for the grave hi seccer gankers dug by themselves.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
15
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 05:23:00 -
[1014] - Quote
Didn't think I'd ever agree on this matter with the OP, but this change ist bad. Reasons have been mentioned in this thread.
All it would have taken was a powergrid buff to the hulk, fix the training time issues for covetor and exhumers, remove the procurer from the game and have the mining frigate take it's place.
These changes are stupid indeed. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1714
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 05:24:00 -
[1015] - 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!
Yes EvE actions will have consequences. How bad, eh? Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 05:26:00 -
[1016] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Insurance fraud was taken away not because of hi sec kills but because, like boomerang, it started being used in an heavily mass, industrialized way. You can find on MD the guy (Cosmoray) who made 100B+ by manufacturing thousands of battleships and exploding them.
He started a trend, with a NPC endless ISK faucet, he posted about it and how to do it and then nobody would stop what was basically legal ISK duping. CCP intervened and removed it.
Same for boomerang, for years it was used with a brain and not spammed on the forums and CCP let it go. Then a very intelligent guy started talking about it on GD and made tutorials so droves of emulators started doing it. CCP intervened and removed it.
Same for orca ships "saving". Once again, tolerated for a long time till somebody "smart" decided to make it very public and spammable by every ganker. CCP intervened and removed it.
Don't blame hi seccer targets for the grave hi seccer gankers dug by themselves.
i'm not talking about insurance fraud, which allowed empty ships to be self-destructed at a profit
boomeranging was broken and anybody who disagrees is kinda silly considering that it literally allowed you to suicide gank a freighter with one tornado
orca ship saving is also stupid
i'm not talking about things that are literally borderline exploits, i'm talking about the consistent goalpost moving which is gradually removing all risk from hisec a rogue goon |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1714
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 05:26:00 -
[1017] - Quote
Richard Desturned 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. for one, there's no way of enforcing a "minimum" cost to gank something because if it requires the DPS of, say, a vindicator, you can do it with 6 catalysts which come at a fraction of the cost however, I do agree that you shouldn't be able to profitably gank, say, a t2 fit exhumer considering that you can't really profitably gank a t2 fit mission boat, but if you're looking at a mackinaw with, say, aoede MLUs and ore strip miners, then there is no way that you shouldn't be able to gank it for a profit because it's blatantly a loot pinataexhumer ganking wasn't profitable before this, however, because we had to pay out rewards to get dudes to gank exhumers just like a faction/deadspace fit tengu, just like an officer-fit nightmare coming through a gate
Ore items are hundreds of millions, don't tell me that bringing 1 more catalyst to kill the Hulk pinata will break your neck. Or don't tell me that killing a Mack will be impossible. You'll have to use say some Tornados whose cost will still not be "hundreds of millions". Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
122
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 05:27:00 -
[1018] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:yeah the NC had a ton of supercaps and controlled nearly all of the tech and nobody has been able to challenge them so far
that's why Morsus Mihi, Majesta Empire, Stella Polaris and them still own all of the north
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZDME4zZdMQ
Ship with 10 mid slots? |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 05:29:00 -
[1019] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: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! Yes EvE actions will have consequences. How bad, eh?
so you believe that you should be able to take part in a fight directly and not actually be vulnerable to intervention?
oh and the other aspect of it was that you couldn't shoot back at somebody who is shooting you, lest you be concorded
at least everyone sensible on these forums (and at fanfest) told CCP why that is a goddamn stupid idea a rogue goon |
Travis117
APEX ARDENT COALITION Persona Non Gratis
4
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 05:29:00 -
[1020] - Quote
Waaa waaaaa were going to have a harder time ganking like the l33t pvpers waaaaaaa. Wanna kill people? Go to lowsec or nullsec |
|
Gun Gal
Dark Club
53
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 05:29:00 -
[1021] - Quote
I love your tears, keep em coming.
Ohh ya Huck the f%&k up Lern 2 play adapt or leave
Lol everything you gankers threw at industrialists is coming full circle.
Guess you now know where the power lies, and its not with you. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
434
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 05:30:00 -
[1022] - Quote
Suqq Madiq wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:The entire point is that miners haven't done anything to earn this buff. As I said earlier an appropriate buff would be purely to the fitting stats of the ships, not their EHP. Buffing the fitting stats would allow them to fit a respectable tank without too much sacrifice to yield, but no, we can't even help miners help themselves, we have to do everything for them! Your regurgitated rhetoric is terribly played out. As players we don't have the opportunity or ability to "earn buffs". They're given or taken away based on perceived imbalances in the mechanics of the game. CCP decided, and the vast majority of the forum posting populace agrees, that Barges and Exhumers needed to be rebalanced as their current incarnation just plain sucks. Whatever argument you have against this re-balance is, frankly, irrelevant as it's going to happen anyway as you and others in opposition have failed to provide meaningful evidence or sound reasoning to convince CCP to scrap their plans. The "earn buff" part was worded poorly, I admit, but the main point is the same. CCP could have easily addressed this imbalance without coddling miners the ways this current change does.
It doesn't matter what CCP thinks or what the majority (which I doubt) of the forum population believe. This is a bad change and it stands on the objective fact that it essentially nerfs intelligent gameplay (read: tanking your miner) and rewards lazy, stupid gameplay (going AFK with a max-yield mining barge fitting absolutely no tank). EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 05:30:00 -
[1023] - Quote
Travis117 wrote:Waaa waaaaa were going to have a harder time ganking like the l33t pvpers waaaaaaa. Wanna kill people? Go to lowsec or nullsec
if you think that PvP should be restricted to low/null, you should just go back to one of the themepark games where your hand is held throughout the ~experience~ and you can succeed in the equivalent of a shield-tanking laser megathron a rogue goon |
Pipa Porto
512
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 05:31:00 -
[1024] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:The hard work of Moon Goo is fighting to keep it. Not really. Few thousand supercaps / moon should do the trick.
If herding a few thousand people into a fleet is so easy, why haven't you taken any moons? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 05:31:00 -
[1025] - Quote
Gun Gal wrote:Guess you now know where the power lies, and its not with you.
since you're clearly so powerful you should invade nullsec with your newly buffed exhumers lmao a rogue goon |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1714
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 05:32:00 -
[1026] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:The entire point is that miners haven't done anything to earn this buff. As I said earlier an appropriate buff would be purely to the fitting stats of the ships, not their EHP. Buffing the fitting stats would allow them to fit a respectable tank without too much sacrifice to yield, but no, we can't even help miners help themselves, we have to do everything for them!
Yeah they should have gone around in topless with some slogans and then all to mine Jita state's face! Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Gun Gal
Dark Club
53
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 05:32:00 -
[1027] - Quote
Tears, more needes |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 05:33:00 -
[1028] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Yeah they should have gone around in topless with some slogans and then all to mine Jita state's face!
more like "the miners should have demonstrated a single instance where they lost a properly tanked exhumer to a gank"
a rogue goon |
Travis117
APEX ARDENT COALITION Persona Non Gratis
4
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 05:33:00 -
[1029] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Travis117 wrote:Waaa waaaaa were going to have a harder time ganking like the l33t pvpers waaaaaaa. Wanna kill people? Go to lowsec or nullsec if you think that PvP should be restricted to low/null, you should just go back to one of the themepark games where your hand is held throughout the ~experience~ and you can succeed in the equivalent of a shield-tanking laser megathron Not necessarily said pvp should e restricted to low and null .war dec if u want to high sec pvp. I think its funny the gankers are crying about this lol |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
434
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 05:36:00 -
[1030] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:The entire point is that miners haven't done anything to earn this buff. As I said earlier an appropriate buff would be purely to the fitting stats of the ships, not their EHP. Buffing the fitting stats would allow them to fit a respectable tank without too much sacrifice to yield, but no, we can't even help miners help themselves, we have to do everything for them! Yeah they should have gone around in topless with some slogans and then all to mine Jita state's face! See above. EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1714
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 05:36:00 -
[1031] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Insurance fraud was taken away not because of hi sec kills but because, like boomerang, it started being used in an heavily mass, industrialized way. You can find on MD the guy (Cosmoray) who made 100B+ by manufacturing thousands of battleships and exploding them.
He started a trend, with a NPC endless ISK faucet, he posted about it and how to do it and then nobody would stop what was basically legal ISK duping. CCP intervened and removed it.
Same for boomerang, for years it was used with a brain and not spammed on the forums and CCP let it go. Then a very intelligent guy started talking about it on GD and made tutorials so droves of emulators started doing it. CCP intervened and removed it.
Same for orca ships "saving". Once again, tolerated for a long time till somebody "smart" decided to make it very public and spammable by every ganker. CCP intervened and removed it.
Don't blame hi seccer targets for the grave hi seccer gankers dug by themselves.
i'm not talking about insurance fraud, which allowed empty ships to be self-destructed at a profit boomeranging was broken and anybody who disagrees is kinda silly considering that it literally allowed you to suicide gank a freighter with one tornado orca ship saving is also stupid i'm not talking about things that are literally borderline exploits, i'm talking about the consistent goalpost moving which is gradually removing all risk from hisec
CCP have to move goals because emergent players like your corp find new and creative ways to do stuff more and more efficiently (also see the FW LP affair) and they feel like they have to counter them to keep the game under control.
Feel free to disagree of course, but in order to be relevant you'd need at least to become a relevant CCP stake holder. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 05:36:00 -
[1032] - Quote
Travis117 wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Travis117 wrote:Waaa waaaaa were going to have a harder time ganking like the l33t pvpers waaaaaaa. Wanna kill people? Go to lowsec or nullsec if you think that PvP should be restricted to low/null, you should just go back to one of the themepark games where your hand is held throughout the ~experience~ and you can succeed in the equivalent of a shield-tanking laser megathron Not necessarily said pvp should e restricted to low and null .war dec if u want to high sec pvp. I think its funny the gankers are crying about this lol
I realize that you want to ~spread your wings~ and fly around in an officer-fit faction battleship and be completely safe from getting ganked for your loot
sorry if I disagree a rogue goon |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1714
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 05:38:00 -
[1033] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Yeah they should have gone around in topless with some slogans and then all to mine Jita state's face! more like "the miners should have demonstrated a single instance where they lost a properly tanked exhumer to a gank"
I recall in the other similar thread a link to a tanked EHP ship with zero MLUs kill mail. So what? It's not like that guy now will receive a statement of Well Played by you or CCP and the ship reimbursed. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 05:38:00 -
[1034] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:CCP have to move goals because emergent players like your corp find new and creative ways to do stuff more and more efficiently (also see the FW LP affair) and they feel like they have to counter them to keep the game under control.
Feel free to disagree of course, but in order to be relevant you'd need at least to become a relevant CCP stake holder.
heh look at you comparing the ganking of players who made zero effort to evade ganks or mitigate the risk of being ganked to an operation that created such an obscene amount of wealth that it would have wrecked the LP market for years a rogue goon |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1663
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 05:39:00 -
[1035] - Quote
Travis117 wrote:war dec if u want to high sec pvp. I think its funny the gankers are crying about this lol
Please describe how to wardec that fleet of exhumers with each pilot coming from a different NPC corp. You don't need to dumb it down too much, so no need to write a step-by-step click-this-button guide for dummies.
Resorting to labelling the people you disagree with as crybabies is not enhancing the strength of your argument.
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 05:39:00 -
[1036] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:I recall in the other similar thread a link to a 19k EHP ship with zero MLUs kill mail. So what? It's not like that guy now will receive a statement of Well Played by you or CCP and the ship reimbursed.
did it predate crucible? did it have its hardeners running? did it have an obscene number of ships on its killmail? was it at war with the dudes who killed it? a rogue goon |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1714
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 05:41:00 -
[1037] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:CCP have to move goals because emergent players like your corp find new and creative ways to do stuff more and more efficiently (also see the FW LP affair) and they feel like they have to counter them to keep the game under control.
Feel free to disagree of course, but in order to be relevant you'd need at least to become a relevant CCP stake holder. heh look at you comparing the ganking of players who made zero effort to evade ganks or mitigate the risk of being ganked to an operation that created such an obscene amount of wealth that it would have wrecked the LP market for years
I classed both into "emergent players like your corp find new and creative ways to do stuff and more efficiently".
Please stick to written words, not your biased interpretation of them. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 05:41:00 -
[1038] - Quote
okay the second question was a bit of a **** move considering that it's terribly inconclusive, but if it it died to one catalyst then i somehow doubt that it had its hardeners on a rogue goon |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
434
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 05:43:00 -
[1039] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:okay the second question was a bit of a **** move considering that it's terribly inconclusive, but if it it died to one catalyst then i somehow doubt that it had its hardeners on Well if you put uber killmail detective mode on it's possible to guess, but who has that kind of patience? EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 05:45:00 -
[1040] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:okay the second question was a bit of a **** move considering that it's terribly inconclusive, but if it it died to one catalyst then i somehow doubt that it had its hardeners on Well if you put uber killmail detective mode on it's possible to guess, but who has that kind of patience?
let's not forget that he's just vaguely referring to some random killmail link buried deep in some thread somewhere so, well, its veracity can easily be questioned a rogue goon |
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
122
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 05:53:00 -
[1041] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:did it predate crucible? did it have its hardeners running? did it have an obscene number of ships on its killmail? was it at war with the dudes who killed it?
All points are Irrelevant. Kill is a kill. Titan or 5000 Catalysts... Doesn't matter.
"Tanked Hulk can't be ganked" is what you nullbears keep saying. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1663
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 05:53:00 -
[1042] - Quote
Travis117 wrote:Waaa waaaaa were going to have a harder time ganking like the l33t pvpers waaaaaaa. Wanna kill people? Go to lowsec or nullsec
You need to understand how Trammel ruined Ultima Online. The designers gave the whingers such as yourself what they asked for, and the game died. Sure you could still log in and head out into the forest to kill NPCs and take their gold, but there was no longer any danger in playing the game. There was no need to interact with other people: you didn't need a posse to have a chance of coming back from a hunting expedition alive.
Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
434
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 05:53:00 -
[1043] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:did it predate crucible? did it have its hardeners running? did it have an obscene number of ships on its killmail? was it at war with the dudes who killed it? All points are Irrelevant. Kill is a kill. Titan or 5000 Catalysts... Doesn't matter. "Tanked Hulk can't be ganked" is what you nullbears keep saying. No... it's not... EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
Suqq Madiq
Amarr Empire
201
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 05:55:00 -
[1044] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:This is a bad change and it stands on the objective fact that it essentially nerfs intelligent gameplay (read: tanking your miner) and rewards lazy, stupid gameplay (going AFK with a max-yield mining barge fitting absolutely no tank).
Except that this change in no way "nerfs intelligent gameplay". At the very worst this re-balance forces gankers to make a few more friends (crazy idea in an MMO, I know) and at best it diminishes the profitability of ganking. Miners are still going to be gankable in all but the most extreme circumstances that the chicken little crowd you're apart of seem to think will be the new norm. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 05:56:00 -
[1045] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:did it predate crucible? did it have its hardeners running? did it have an obscene number of ships on its killmail? was it at war with the dudes who killed it? All points are Irrelevant. Kill is a kill. Titan or 5000 Catalysts... Doesn't matter. "Tanked Hulk can't be ganked" is what you nullbears keep saying.
the height of irony is when the risk-averse hisec miner complains about "nullbears" who face infinitely more risk than he does for the marginally higher reward
nobody said that a tanked hulk cannot be ganked, please don't put words in our mouths
we said that a tanked hulk would not be worth bothering with unless somebody was hell-bent on killing you anyway a rogue goon |
Pipa Porto
512
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 05:56:00 -
[1046] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:did it predate crucible? did it have its hardeners running? did it have an obscene number of ships on its killmail? was it at war with the dudes who killed it? All points are Irrelevant. Kill is a kill. Titan or 5000 Catalysts... Doesn't matter. "Tanked Hulk can't be ganked" is what you nullbears keep saying.
Nope. Never said that.
We said it cannot be ganked profitably if properly fit (the kill in question had a Roid Scanner as part of his tank). In addition, if you go to a higher sec band, the cost to gank a properly tanked hulk quickly becomes prohibitive. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1225
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 05:56:00 -
[1047] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Travis117 wrote:Waaa waaaaa were going to have a harder time ganking like the l33t pvpers waaaaaaa. Wanna kill people? Go to lowsec or nullsec You need to understand how Trammel ruined Ultima Online. The designers gave the whingers such as yourself what they asked for, and the game died. Sure you could still log in and head out into the forest to kill NPCs and take their gold, but there was no longer any danger in playing the game. There was no need to interact with other people: you didn't need a posse to have a chance of coming back from a hunting expedition alive. Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it. ... We're doomed. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Suqq Madiq
Amarr Empire
201
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 05:58:00 -
[1048] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:"Tanked Hulk can't be ganked" is what you nullbears keep saying. No... it's not...
To be fair, a large number of your cronies, including Ruby and Richard have been beating this nugget of dead horse around for quite awhile. It's been proven incorrect on a number of occasions, but they still believe it. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
434
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 05:59:00 -
[1049] - Quote
Suqq Madiq wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:This is a bad change and it stands on the objective fact that it essentially nerfs intelligent gameplay (read: tanking your miner) and rewards lazy, stupid gameplay (going AFK with a max-yield mining barge fitting absolutely no tank). Except that this change in no way "nerfs intelligent gameplay". At the very worst this re-balance forces gankers to make a few more friends (crazy idea in an MMO, I know) and at best it diminishes the profitability of ganking. Miners are still going to be gankable in all but the most extreme circumstances that the chicken little crowd you're apart of seem to think will be the new norm. It absolutely does, because there's no longer any incentive for miners to make intelligent choices about defending themselves. EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 05:59:00 -
[1050] - Quote
Suqq Madiq wrote:Except that this change in no way "nerfs intelligent gameplay". At the very worst this re-balance forces gankers to make a few more friends (crazy idea in an MMO, I know) and at best it diminishes the profitability of ganking. Miners are still going to be gankable in all but the most extreme circumstances that the chicken little crowd you're apart of seem to think will be the new norm.
except that the miners themselves are hypocrites who refuse to work with other players, refuse to take active measures to protect themselves, refuse to adapt in any way, shape or form, while telling those who hunt them that they should adapt like "everyone else" - except the miners, of course, who should never have to adapt to a hostile environment because they should not need to play the game
the gankers will adapt, they will continue preying on you and you will continue to whine a rogue goon |
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 06:00:00 -
[1051] - Quote
Suqq Madiq wrote:To be fair, a large number of your cronies, including Ruby and Richard have been beating this nugget of dead horse around for quite awhile. It's been proven incorrect on a number of occasions, but they still believe it.
please don't put words in my mouth, npc alt a rogue goon |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 06:01:00 -
[1052] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:did it predate crucible? did it have its hardeners running? did it have an obscene number of ships on its killmail? was it at war with the dudes who killed it? All points are Irrelevant. Kill is a kill. Titan or 5000 Catalysts... Doesn't matter. "Tanked Hulk can't be ganked" is what you nullbears keep saying. Nope. Never said that. We said it cannot be ganked profitably if properly fit (the kill in question had a Roid Scanner as part of his tank ). In addition, if you go to a higher sec band, the cost to gank a properly tanked hulk quickly becomes prohibitive.
hahahaha "why should I bother fitting a thermic hardener which substantially increases my ability to survive a gank attempt by the most popular exhumer hunting ship in the game, no, I should use that midslot for a roid scanner that works just as well on an ibis" a rogue goon |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
123
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 06:01:00 -
[1053] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:the height of irony is when the risk-averse hisec miner complains about "nullbears" who face infinitely more risk than he does for the marginally higher reward
nobody said that a tanked hulk cannot be ganked, please don't put words in our mouths
we said that a tanked hulk would not be worth bothering with unless somebody was hell-bent on killing you anyway
Nullsec is safe space if you're in big alliance.
- You see red in local -> you warp all your PVE ships to POS and jump into PVP ship - Hundreds of intel channels - Triage carriers (if you need "healing") And so on... |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
434
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 06:02:00 -
[1054] - Quote
Suqq Madiq wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:"Tanked Hulk can't be ganked" is what you nullbears keep saying. No... it's not... To be fair, a large number of your cronies, including Ruby and Richard have been beating this nugget of dead horse around for quite awhile. It's been proven incorrect on a number of occasions, but they still believe it. lol cronies. I'm flattered you think I have that kind of standing. EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
Suqq Madiq
Amarr Empire
201
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 06:02:00 -
[1055] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Suqq Madiq wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:This is a bad change and it stands on the objective fact that it essentially nerfs intelligent gameplay (read: tanking your miner) and rewards lazy, stupid gameplay (going AFK with a max-yield mining barge fitting absolutely no tank). Except that this change in no way "nerfs intelligent gameplay". At the very worst this re-balance forces gankers to make a few more friends (crazy idea in an MMO, I know) and at best it diminishes the profitability of ganking. Miners are still going to be gankable in all but the most extreme circumstances that the chicken little crowd you're apart of seem to think will be the new norm. It absolutely does, because there's no longer any incentive for miners to make intelligent choices about defending themselves.
|
Sabrina Solette
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
30
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 06:02:00 -
[1056] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Defeated, the ganker slinks off in his pod, and the smart little Miner scoops the Talos wreckage and sells it for a tidy profit."
Although in my experience this won't happen. The Hulk moves to slowly, before the Hulk gets there he's warped in with a second account and picked up the wreakage. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 06:04:00 -
[1057] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Nullsec is safe space if you're in big alliance.
- You see red in local -> you warp all your PVE ships to POS and jump into PVP ship - Hundreds of intel channels - Triage carriers (if you need "healing") And so on...
since it's so safe why don't you pack up and move to 0.0? a rogue goon |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 06:04:00 -
[1058] - Quote
Suqq Madiq wrote:You're reaching. Adding EHP does not make mining barges into ungankable fortresses. It makes them less profitable to gank. That's it.
on that note, so does fitting a tank /right now/ a rogue goon |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
434
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 06:04:00 -
[1059] - Quote
Suqq Madiq wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Suqq Madiq wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:This is a bad change and it stands on the objective fact that it essentially nerfs intelligent gameplay (read: tanking your miner) and rewards lazy, stupid gameplay (going AFK with a max-yield mining barge fitting absolutely no tank). Except that this change in no way "nerfs intelligent gameplay". At the very worst this re-balance forces gankers to make a few more friends (crazy idea in an MMO, I know) and at best it diminishes the profitability of ganking. Miners are still going to be gankable in all but the most extreme circumstances that the chicken little crowd you're apart of seem to think will be the new norm. It absolutely does, because there's no longer any incentive for miners to make intelligent choices about defending themselves. You're reaching. Adding EHP does not make mining barges into ungankable fortresses. It makes them less profitable to gank. That's it. Why can't you add the EHP yourself? Why does CCP have to do it for you? EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
123
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 06:05:00 -
[1060] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:since it's so safe why don't you pack up and move to 0.0?
Because I would be killed by Goons before I could get out of lowsec. |
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 06:05:00 -
[1061] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Why can't you add the EHP yourself? Why does CCP have to do it for you?
miners are special snowflakes who should not be burdened with difficult decisions like "should I give up yield or drastically increase the ability of my ship to survive a gank?" a rogue goon |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 06:06:00 -
[1062] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Because I would be killed by Goons before I could get out of lowsec.
silly, you only need to join a corp, set your clone to one of their stations and self-destruct an empty pod
fly your ships out to lowsec drop-offs with alts, move them to your new home in a carrier a rogue goon |
Suqq Madiq
Amarr Empire
201
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 06:09:00 -
[1063] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:did it predate crucible? did it have its hardeners running? did it have an obscene number of ships on its killmail? was it at war with the dudes who killed it? All points are Irrelevant. Kill is a kill. Titan or 5000 Catalysts... Doesn't matter. "Tanked Hulk can't be ganked" is what you nullbears keep saying. Nope. Never said that. We said it cannot be ganked profitably if properly fit (the kill in question had a Roid Scanner as part of his tank ). In addition, if you go to a higher sec band, the cost to gank a properly tanked hulk quickly becomes prohibitive. hahahaha "why should I bother fitting a thermic hardener which substantially increases my ability to survive a gank attempt by the most popular exhumer hunting ship in the game, no, I should use that midslot for a roid scanner that works just as well on an ibis"
You're starting to sound dumber and dumber. Is it late where you are? Have you been drinking? Are you mining currently? Have you ever mined? Do you know what it's like mining in a Hulk without a Survey Scanner? Do you know what happens when trying to fit a module to a ship when you've run out of CPU or PG? No ship is forced to dedicate every slot to increasing it's tank at the expense of whatever it's primary role is, so why should Hulk's be any different? Were you dropped on your head as a toddler? |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
434
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 06:11:00 -
[1064] - Quote
Suqq Madiq wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:did it predate crucible? did it have its hardeners running? did it have an obscene number of ships on its killmail? was it at war with the dudes who killed it? All points are Irrelevant. Kill is a kill. Titan or 5000 Catalysts... Doesn't matter. "Tanked Hulk can't be ganked" is what you nullbears keep saying. Nope. Never said that. We said it cannot be ganked profitably if properly fit (the kill in question had a Roid Scanner as part of his tank ). In addition, if you go to a higher sec band, the cost to gank a properly tanked hulk quickly becomes prohibitive. hahahaha "why should I bother fitting a thermic hardener which substantially increases my ability to survive a gank attempt by the most popular exhumer hunting ship in the game, no, I should use that midslot for a roid scanner that works just as well on an ibis" You're starting to sound dumber and dumber. Is it late where you are? Have you been drinking? Are you mining currently? Have you ever mined? Do you know what it's like mining in a Hulk without a Survey Scanner? Do you know what happens when trying to fit a module to a ship when you've run out of CPU or PG? No ship is forced to dedicate every slot to increasing it's tank at the expense of whatever it's primary role is, so why should Hulk's be any different? Were you dropped on your head as a toddler? Confirmed, your survey scanner has to be on your hulk for it to work. EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
Suqq Madiq
Amarr Empire
201
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 06:11:00 -
[1065] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Why can't you add the EHP yourself? Why does CCP have to do it for you?
They don't. But they did because they were a sorely imbalanced line of ships. Now they are less imbalanced. Nothing else has changed.
|
Suqq Madiq
Amarr Empire
201
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 06:11:00 -
[1066] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Confirmed, your survey scanner has to be on your hulk for it to work.
Of course it doesn't. But here's you being intentionally obtuse again.
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 06:12:00 -
[1067] - Quote
Suqq Madiq wrote:You're starting to sound dumber and dumber. Is it late where you are? Have you been drinking? Are you mining currently? Have you ever mined? Do you know what it's like mining in a Hulk without a Survey Scanner? Do you know what happens when trying to fit a module to a ship when you've run out of CPU or PG? No ship is forced to dedicate every slot to increasing it's tank at the expense of whatever it's primary role is, so why should Hulk's be any different? Were you dropped on your head as a toddler?
19k ehp is pretty goddamned low for a hulk even with a survey scanner in the mids
what VV isn't telling you is that the tank was actually a small shield extender, two invulns and cargo mods/rigs
but please continue the personal attacks, you're beginning to sound ~desperate~ a rogue goon |
Suqq Madiq
Amarr Empire
201
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 06:13:00 -
[1068] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:
what VV isn't telling you is that the tank was actually a small shield extender, two invulns and cargo mods/rigs
No, it wasn't. Keep lying profusely. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 06:14:00 -
[1069] - Quote
Suqq Madiq wrote:[quote=Richard Desturned]
what VV isn't telling you is that the tank was actually a small shield extender, two invulns and cargo mods/rigs
No, it wasn't. Keep lying profusely.
show me the killmail then a rogue goon |
dexington
83
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 06:14:00 -
[1070] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Why can't you add the EHP yourself? Why does CCP have to do it for you? miners are special snowflakes who should not be burdened with difficult decisions like "should I give up yield or drastically increase the ability of my ship to survive a gank?"
and gankers are special snowflakes who should not be burdened with difficult decisions like "picking the right target" GÇ£The best way to keep something bad from happening is to see it ahead of time, and you can't see it if you refuse to face the possibility.GÇ¥-á |
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 06:16:00 -
[1071] - Quote
dexington wrote:and gankers are special snowflakes who should not be burdened with difficult decisions like "picking the right target"
unlike miners who only have to make the decision of "hmm, which asteroid should I target" and that's already a very difficult decision that they have to consult a pre-made spreadsheet for
please continue to make mining seem more complex than it really is while making ganking seem far simpler than it really is a rogue goon |
Pipa Porto
512
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 06:18:00 -
[1072] - Quote
Suqq Madiq wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:"Tanked Hulk can't be ganked" is what you nullbears keep saying. No... it's not... To be fair, a large number of your cronies, including Ruby and Richard have been beating this nugget of dead horse around for quite awhile. It's been proven incorrect on a number of occasions, but they still believe it.
I have never said a Hulk can't be ganked. To the contrary, as a rebuttal to the assertion that "they'll just bring another ship," I've pointed out that that's true of a Damnation (can reache ~1.7m EHP in HS vs Quake), but we don't consider the Damnation to be weak, because properly tanked, it's unprofitable.
A Hulk, properly fit, cannot be profitably ganked in HS. In Higher sec bands, the loss becomes quite large.
I have never claimed that it can't be ganked, just that it cannot be ganked profitably, unless the owner fails to take adequate steps to protect his property (which can include steps other than tank, btw). EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
123
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 06:19:00 -
[1073] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Confirmed, your survey scanner has to be on your hulk for it to work.
Why should Orca pilot sacrifice part of his tank to use it? "Hulk 1 target roids @ 20km, 18km, 16km". You do realize that scanner tells distance from roid to Orca, not distance from roid to Hulk? How it works especially when Orca is inside POS forcefield or 70-80 km from Hulks.
|
Pipa Porto
512
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 06:19:00 -
[1074] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:since it's so safe why don't you pack up and move to 0.0? Because I would be killed by Goons before I could get out of lowsec.
I thought you said 0.0 was perfectly safe? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
123
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 06:22:00 -
[1075] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:I thought you said 0.0 was perfectly safe?
Only if you're in big alliance.
Richard Desturned wrote:19k ehp is pretty goddamned low for a hulk even with a survey scanner in the mids
25k (28k overheated). So, not really "pretty goddamned low". |
Pipa Porto
512
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 06:22:00 -
[1076] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Confirmed, your survey scanner has to be on your hulk for it to work. Why should Orca pilot sacrifice part of his tank to use it? "Hulk 1 target roids @ 20km, 18km, 16km". You do realize that scanner tells distance from roid to Orca, not distance from roid to Hulk? How it works especially when Orca is inside POS forcefield or 70-80 km from Hulks.
You don't need to use one at all. Your lasers don't break if they run out of ore mid-cycle, do they? Nope. It's a yield module fitted at the expense of tank.
Why would the Orca be 70-80km from the Hulk? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
434
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 06:22:00 -
[1077] - Quote
Suqq Madiq wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Why can't you add the EHP yourself? Why does CCP have to do it for you? They don't. Okay, so explain to me again why this is a necessary change?
Suqq Madiq wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Confirmed, your survey scanner has to be on your hulk for it to work. Of course it doesn't. But here's you being intentionally obtuse again. It's called sarcasm. It seems you're the one who failed to note that the Hulk doesn't even have to fit it to do its job properly. EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
Pipa Porto
512
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 06:25:00 -
[1078] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:I thought you said 0.0 was perfectly safe? Only if you're in big alliance.
Ah, so only if you have a large number of people working together towards a common goal.
I wonder what would happen if HS miners made any attempt to work together...
10 Hulks worth of ECM Drones would shut down any DPS gank attempt. Or you could spiderweb and be aligned. Or any number of other options.
Hell, 2 Hulks worth of ECM drones would all but guarantee that a gank attempt would fail or be radically unprofitable. And spider webbing works with 2 ships. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
123
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 06:27:00 -
[1079] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:You don't need to use one at all. Your lasers don't break if they run out of ore mid-cycle, do they? Nope. It's a yield module fitted at the expense of tank.
"Don't fit it you dumbass!" works only for afk miners. Active miners can actually increase their yield by actively paying attention to what they are doing. But oh no "all hisec miners are afk or bots!"
Pipa Porto wrote:Why would the Orca be 70-80km from the Hulk?
Role Bonus: 250% bonus to tractor beam range 100% bonus to tractor beam velocity |
Suqq Madiq
Amarr Empire
201
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 06:30:00 -
[1080] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Suqq Madiq wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Why can't you add the EHP yourself? Why does CCP have to do it for you? They don't. Okay, so explain to me again why this is a necessary change?
Mining ships were poorly balanced. Most of them had useless bonuses and poor designs and were rarely used. And because, in case you hadn't noticed, CCP is working through most of their ship lineup to re-balance them and give them meaningful roles and stats.
Suqq Madiq wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Confirmed, your survey scanner has to be on your hulk for it to work. Of course it doesn't. But here's you being intentionally obtuse again. It's called sarcasm. It seems you're the one who failed to note that the Hulk doesn't even have to fit it to do its job properly.[/quote]
Because it can't do it's job properly without it. Like it or not, the Survey Scanner is a vital piece of equipment to the miner. It's why you find them on every one that is ganked. Why should the Hulk pilot be forced to sacrifice a piece of equipment that is vital to it's role? Why should it be the only class of ship, or mining ships in general for that matter, that is forced to sacrifice all of it's essential tools to maximize it's tank and still be vulnerable to low-cost, profitable ganks? It makes no sense. |
|
dexington
83
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 06:31:00 -
[1081] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:please continue to make mining seem more complex than it really is while making ganking seem far simpler than it really is
what is hard some complex for you, seems to be pretty easy for this 7 year old girl.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9XbbBtm26U GÇ£The best way to keep something bad from happening is to see it ahead of time, and you can't see it if you refuse to face the possibility.GÇ¥-á |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 06:31:00 -
[1082] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:(which can include steps other than tank, btw).
let me list these steps
1) ECM drones - requires a very minor sacrifice (can't use mining drones) but can easily mean the difference between a gank attempt succeeding or otherwise. somewhat AFK friendly as you can have them out on aggressive mode with focused fire.
2) mining aligned - unbonused strip miners have a 15km range, with orca bonuses that goes up to 22km, mindlinked to 25km - disadvantage is that you might be observed and the gank attempt may take place while you realign - but it'd have to be very well-timed. not terribly AFK friendly unless you have a stopwatch on your desk.
3) fitting a brick tank - if you specifically tank for Catalysts (meta 4 MSE, invuln, kinetic hardener, thermic hardener), you can easily get close to 50k EHP against blasters, which is nothing to shake a stick at. requires relevant fitting skills at V and a genolution set (which is cheap) and a +1% PG implant (which is laughably cheap)
4) mining in probed sites. gankers really aren't inclined to look for you in a grav site (unless they're actually miners who want to take the site from you, I guess)
there's more but I really can't be bothered a rogue goon |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1714
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 06:33:00 -
[1083] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:okay the second question was a bit of a **** move considering that it's terribly inconclusive, but if it it died to one catalyst then i somehow doubt that it had its hardeners on Well if you put uber killmail detective mode on it's possible to guess, but who has that kind of patience? let's not forget that he's just vaguely referring to some random killmail link buried deep in some thread somewhere so, well, its veracity can easily be questioned
Yeah there are currently 3 threads about this topic, it's clearly buried in a 2005 kill mail. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
123
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 06:33:00 -
[1084] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:1) ECM drones - requires a very minor sacrifice (can't use mining drones) but can easily mean the difference between a gank attempt succeeding or otherwise. somewhat AFK friendly as you can have them out on aggressive mode with focused fire.
And here comes belt rats. Ganker ganks with a little help from belt rats. |
Pipa Porto
512
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 06:35:00 -
[1085] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:You don't need to use one at all. Your lasers don't break if they run out of ore mid-cycle, do they? Nope. It's a yield module fitted at the expense of tank. "Don't fit it you dumbass!" works only for afk miners. Active miners can actually increase their yield by actively paying attention to what they are doing. But oh no "all hisec miners are afk or bots!" Pipa Porto wrote:Why would the Orca be 70-80km from the Hulk? Role Bonus: 250% bonus to tractor beam range 100% bonus to tractor beam velocity
Then they can be aligned or actively watching for ganks, so they can fit for yield.
So? What benefit do you get from putting it 80km from the Hulks? Doing stupid stuff because you want to is fine, but you don't get to complain that it's inconvenient. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Pipa Porto
512
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 06:35:00 -
[1086] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:1) ECM drones - requires a very minor sacrifice (can't use mining drones) but can easily mean the difference between a gank attempt succeeding or otherwise. somewhat AFK friendly as you can have them out on aggressive mode with focused fire. And here comes belt rats. Ganker ganks with a little help from belt rats.
A tanked Hulk will trivially tank HS rats. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
123
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 06:37:00 -
[1087] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:So? What benefit do you get from putting it 80km from the Hulks? Doing stupid stuff because you want to is fine, but you don't get to complain that it's inconvenient.
Do you even know how big 0.0 belts/gravs (+ WH gravs) are? It's better to have ships scattered all around. Only stupid people sit in one spot on grav sites.
Richard Desturned wrote:3) fitting a brick tank - if you specifically tank for Catalysts (meta 4 MSE, invuln, kinetic hardener, thermic hardener), you can easily get close to 50k EHP against blasters, which is nothing to shake a stick at. requires relevant fitting skills at V and a genolution set (which is cheap) and a +1% PG implant (which is laughably cheap)
And here comes Thrasher and ganks it.
Pipa Porto wrote:A tanked Hulk will trivially tank HS rats.
And that 700 dps Catalyst too?
Btw, passive regen isn't enough to survive 3 cruiser rats. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 06:39:00 -
[1088] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:1) ECM drones - requires a very minor sacrifice (can't use mining drones) but can easily mean the difference between a gank attempt succeeding or otherwise. somewhat AFK friendly as you can have them out on aggressive mode with focused fire. And here comes belt rats. Ganker ganks with a little help from belt rats.
yeah that serpentis spy isn't even going to break the passive regen
please try harder a rogue goon |
Pipa Porto
512
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 06:41:00 -
[1089] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:So? What benefit do you get from putting it 80km from the Hulks? Doing stupid stuff because you want to is fine, but you don't get to complain that it's inconvenient. Do you even know how big 0.0 belts/gravs (+ WH gravs) are? It's better to have ship scattered all around. Only stupid people sit in one spot on grav sites.
We're talking about HS. Did you forget again? Is your Head Injury acting up again?
In Null, you don't need much tank at all because if you get pointed you die period. No hoping the hostile is low on DPS. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
dexington
83
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 06:41:00 -
[1090] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Btw, passive regen isn't enough to survive 3 cruiser rats.
do the belts spawn anything else then frigs?
GÇ£The best way to keep something bad from happening is to see it ahead of time, and you can't see it if you refuse to face the possibility.GÇ¥-á |
|
Pipa Porto
512
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 06:42:00 -
[1091] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:A tanked Hulk will trivially tank HS rats. And that 700 dps Catalyst too? Btw, passive regen isn't enough to survive 3 cruiser rats.
5 ECM Drones, 5 Warrior IIs. Dscan, pull ECM, put out warriors, kill Rats, put ECM back out.
How much handholding do you need, honestly? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
123
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 06:44:00 -
[1092] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:We're talking about HS. Did you forget again?
No you were talking about how tractor beam is stupid/useless module.
Pipa Porto wrote:In Null, you don't need much tank at all because if you get pointed you die period. No hoping the hostile is low on DPS.
Can your Erebus destroy that Hulk before it gets to complete safety of POS? |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 06:45:00 -
[1093] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:And here comes Thrasher and ganks it.
23k ehp against RF EMP, 44k against fusion and 38k against phased plasma
next a rogue goon |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 06:46:00 -
[1094] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Can your Erebus destroy that Hulk before it gets to complete safety of POS?
please tell me how you'd get into a POS when you're tackled in a grav site/belt a rogue goon |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
123
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 06:47:00 -
[1095] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:please tell me how you'd get into a POS when you're tackled in a grav site/belt
Why are you tackled in Hulk in nullsec? Talk about AFK mining...
dexington wrote:do the belts spawn anything else then frigs?
I wasn't talking about betls. Hisec rats. You know, mining missions. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 06:47:00 -
[1096] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:5 ECM Drones, 5 Warrior IIs. Dscan, pull ECM, put out warriors, kill Rats, put ECM back out.
How much handholding do you need, honestly?
you really have to be grasping at straws to bring /belt rats/ into the equation
if you can't deal with belt rats in hisec please just unsub and find an easier game a rogue goon |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 06:49:00 -
[1097] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:please tell me how you'd get into a POS when you're tackled in a grav site/belt Why are you tackled in Hulk in nullsec? Talk about AFK mining...
you cannot anchor a tower anywhere besides a moon
please show me all of those asteroids right next to POS shields
or please just stop opining on things that you have no clue about a rogue goon |
pussnheels
490
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 06:50:00 -
[1098] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:We're talking about HS. Did you forget again? No you were talking about how tractor beam is stupid/useless module. Pipa Porto wrote:In Null, you don't need much tank at all because if you get pointed you die period. No hoping the hostile is low on DPS. Can your Erebus destroy that Hulk before it gets to complete safety of POS? another nullsec elitist completely out of touch on what the other 95 % of the players do
you gankers brought these changes on yourself and about time they are here so deal with it end discussion
anyway i am suppose to be on vacation , time to take a dip in the pool , have fun all I do not agree with what you are saying , but i will defend to the death your right to say it...... Voltaire |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
123
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 06:50:00 -
[1099] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:if you can't deal with belt rats in hisec please just unsub and find an easier game
- Jump into your Hulk (oh no, you don't have skills. ok that Catalyst is ok) - Go to nearest incursion area. - Warp to belt - Profit! |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 06:51:00 -
[1100] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:- Jump into your Hulk (oh no, you don't have skills. ok that Catalyst is ok) - Go to nearest incursion area. - Warp to belt - Profit!
>belt rats in incursion constellations
holy **** talk about grasping at straws a rogue goon |
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 06:52:00 -
[1101] - Quote
"guys hulks aren't balanced because if you buffer tank them the incursion belt rats will chew through your tank, because they can somehow tank them with an active tank" ~ miners, 2012 a rogue goon |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
123
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 06:53:00 -
[1102] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:>belt rats in incursion constellations
holy **** talk about grasping at straws
Are Sanshas too tough challenge for pvper? |
Pipa Porto
512
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 06:54:00 -
[1103] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:We're talking about HS. Did you forget again? No you were talking about how tractor beam is stupid/useless module. Pipa Porto wrote:In Null, you don't need much tank at all because if you get pointed you die period. No hoping the hostile is low on DPS. Can your Erebus destroy that Hulk before it gets to complete safety of POS?
No, I asked why you would intentionally put an Orca 70-80km away from your mining fleet. Try to keep track of things that you say.
If the Hulk gets pointed, yes. But again, we're talking about HS. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 06:58:00 -
[1104] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:>belt rats in incursion constellations
holy **** talk about grasping at straws Are Sanshas too tough challenge for pvper?
yeah i forgot about all the hulks you see mining in incursion constellations
clearly that happens all the time a rogue goon |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1664
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 06:59:00 -
[1105] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:We're talking about HS. Did you forget again? No you were talking about how tractor beam is stupid/useless module.
The tractor beam is not worth fitting for hisec fleets, where every hulk can hug the Orca and reach the entire belt without moving.
Things work differently in null sec: in null sec it makes sense to fit an active tank to a Hulk because you will be tanking damage from a bunch of battleship NPCs for a long time. In null sec it makes sense to have a tractor beam on the Orca because the belts are larger, hulks will be spread out, and the links you're sacrificing from the Orca are running more effectively on the Rorqual instead.
In hisec, the Orca is the boosting ship, there is no reason to tractor cans (and every reason to not use cans), and belts are 60km across, maximum.
There is no suicide banking in null sec: you can shoot first. You don't need to spam d-scan since you can just watch local. Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 06:59:00 -
[1106] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:If the Hulk gets pointed, yes. But again, we're talking about HS.
they already think that you can have a tower anywhere a rogue goon |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
123
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 07:00:00 -
[1107] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:But again, we're talking about HS.
Why does it matter if player if AFK because it means he/she is AFK (away from keyboard)? |
Pipa Porto
512
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 07:01:00 -
[1108] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:>belt rats in incursion constellations
holy **** talk about grasping at straws Are Sanshas too tough challenge for pvper?
You're the only one claiming that ganking miners is "challenging" or "elite" or any of the other words.
We think it's fun and just profitably enough to be self sustaining (so long as miners continue to refuse to adapt to the risk of ganking). EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Pipa Porto
512
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 07:02:00 -
[1109] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:But again, we're talking about HS. Why does it matter if player if AFK because it means he/she is AFK (away from keyboard)?
If he's AFK, there's no reason for him to have a Survey scanner, so he can easily fit a brick tank which is unprofitable to gank anywhere in HS.
If he's ATK, he might consider fitting for yield and using one of the many other ways to avoid getting ganked instead of the brick tank. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 07:03:00 -
[1110] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:We're talking about HS. Did you forget again? No you were talking about how tractor beam is stupid/useless module. The tractor beam is not worth fitting for hisec fleets, where every hulk can hug the Orca and reach the entire belt without moving. Things work differently in null sec: in null sec it makes sense to fit an active tank to a Hulk because you will be tanking damage from a bunch of battleship NPCs for a long time. In null sec it makes sense to have a tractor beam on the Orca because the belts are larger, hulks will be spread out, and the links you're sacrificing from the Orca are running more effectively on the Rorqual instead. In hisec, the Orca is the boosting ship, there is no reason to tractor cans (and every reason to not use cans), and belts are 60km across, maximum. There is no suicide banking in null sec: you can shoot first. You don't need to spam d-scan since you can just watch local.
actually, you don't fit an active tank on a nullsec hulk because you have a ship dedicated to tanking the rats a rogue goon |
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
123
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 07:03:00 -
[1111] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:You're the only one claiming that ganking miners is "challenging" or "elite" or any of the other words.
No it's not. If you want a challenge go to lowsec and start shooting people. You have very good chance they will return fire. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 07:05:00 -
[1112] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:No it's not. If you want a challenge go to lowsec and start shooting people. You have very good chance they will dock up when they can't beat you.
fixed a rogue goon |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
123
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 07:06:00 -
[1113] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:If he's AFK, there's no reason for him to have a Survey scanner, so he can easily fit a brick tank which is unprofitable to gank anywhere in HS.
If miner fits tank don't complain then. |
Pipa Porto
512
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 07:06:00 -
[1114] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:You're the only one claiming that ganking miners is "challenging" or "elite" or any of the other words. No it's not. If you want a challenge go to lowsec and start shooting people. You have very good chance they will return fire.
You really have ****** reading comprehension skills, don't you. Ganking Hulks isn't challenging. I never said it was. The only time anyone says it's challenging is when you say it.
Ganking hulks is a nice, relaxing pastime that I can do after work with a cold beer. Some people mine when they're in that "I want to relax" mood, some people gank miners. Mining actually makes more Isk/hr than ganking. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Halcyon Ingenium
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
144
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 07:07:00 -
[1115] - Quote
Turifica wrote:You're problem isn't that its being rebalanced, its that you know you can't put together a group of ten people who would give you the ******* time of day, never mind listen to your pathetic drivel.
Priceless. That which always was, and is, and will be everlasting fire, the same for all, the cosmos, made neither by god nor man, replenishes in measure as it burns away. -Heraclitus |
Soundwave Plays Diablo
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
62
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 07:08:00 -
[1116] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:I don't want you to stop ganking nor am I going to remove aggression in high sec vOv You got the Insurance Nerf. You got the Suddenly CONCORD fix to aggro kiting. You got the wardec changes that Dramatically favor the defenders. You got the proposed Crimewatch changes that make it essentially impossible to loot the cargo of a ganked Freighter. You got the proposed Crimewatch changes that were originally going to allow RR with CONCORD protection. It all paints a picture, no matter what your stated objectives are. Hulks can be fit such that they are not profitable to gank right now. The others need roles to fill, but if one ship's going to have the role of Tankey Miner, why are they all getting buffs that take away from that role bonus? To fit the roles, the Skiff should have a great Tank, a middling Yield, and a smallish Cargo. The Mackinaw should have a small Tank, a middling Yield, and a Great Cargo. The Hulk should have a small Tank, a Great Yield, and a smallish Cargo. You're giving the Skiff an insane Tank, a middling Yield, and a very good Cargo. The Mackinaw a great Tank, a middling Yield, and a Great Cargo. The Hulk a great Tank, a Great Yield, and a smallish Cargo. When the Mack can have ~60k EHP, why bother with the Skiff? When the Hulk can have ~45k EHP, why bother with the Skiff? 35k EHP is already unprofitable to Gank. The Extra 10k will remove Exhumer ganking entirely. Oh, and the other 2 Exhumers with max MLUs should be able to out-mine a 0 MLU Hulk. Otherwise people are going to keep using the Hulk and tanking it (probably badly). 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.
Funny, when I complained about it in 2009, I was told to HTFU. 3 years later you admit that it is *STILL* not working right, ergo I didn't need to HTFU, you needed to fix it.
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
123
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 07:08:00 -
[1117] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:You really have ****** reading comprehension skills, don't you. Ganking Hulks isn't challenging. I never said it was. The only time anyone says it's challenging is when you say it.
I've never said it's a challenge.
But you guys are the ones who don't like challenges... |
Pipa Porto
512
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 07:10:00 -
[1118] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:If he's AFK, there's no reason for him to have a Survey scanner, so he can easily fit a brick tank which is unprofitable to gank anywhere in HS. If miner fits tank don't complain then.
Where have I ever complained when a miner has fitted a tank?
If a Miner fits a Tank, I'll be shocked.
Since you haven't been paying attention, that's my entire point. Miners have been whining that they have to fit a tank [gasp] while refusing to do so. They can fit a tank such that you cannot be profitably suicide ganked.
If they do so, GREAT!
But they don't. Instead, CCP has decided to reward them for their stunning incompetence and changed the Hull so that fitting a tank is irrelevant. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 07:10:00 -
[1119] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:You really have ****** reading comprehension skills, don't you. Ganking Hulks isn't challenging. I never said it was. The only time anyone says it's challenging is when you say it. I've never said it's a challenge.
it's almost like you're being deliberately obtuse and just trolling
npc alts, lol a rogue goon |
Pipa Porto
512
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 07:11:00 -
[1120] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:You really have ****** reading comprehension skills, don't you. Ganking Hulks isn't challenging. I never said it was. The only time anyone says it's challenging is when you say it. I've never said it's a challenge. But you guys are the ones who don't like challenges...
And Miners are all about the challenge?
Miners are not going to win much high ground claiming "mining is sooooo hard " EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
123
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 07:11:00 -
[1121] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:If he's AFK, there's no reason for him to have a Survey scanner, so he can easily fit a brick tank which is unprofitable to gank anywhere in HS. If miner fits tank don't complain then. Where have I ever complained when a miner has fitted a tank? If a Miner fits a Tank, I'll be shocked. Since you haven't been paying attention, that's my entire point. Miners have been whining that they have to fit a tank [gasp] while refusing to do so. They can fit a tank such that you cannot be profitably suicide ganked. If they do so, GREAT! But they don't. Instead, CCP has decided to reward them for their stunning incompetence and changed the Hull so that fitting a tank is irrelevant.
If tank is good then why are you whining in this thread. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 07:12:00 -
[1122] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:And Miners are all about the challenge? Miners are not going to win much high ground claiming "mining is sooooo hard "
figuring out whether to mine veldspar, scordite or pyroxeres by looking at a pre-made spreadsheet is so hard, i tell you a rogue goon |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 07:14:00 -
[1123] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:If tank is good then why are you whining in this thread.
because you can already fit one but you don't want to sacrifice that ~max yield~ so you want it to already come on your hulk so that you don't have to be burdened with making such a difficult choice like "do I want to keep my ship" a rogue goon |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1714
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 07:15:00 -
[1124] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:We're talking about HS. Did you forget again? No you were talking about how tractor beam is stupid/useless module. Pipa Porto wrote:In Null, you don't need much tank at all because if you get pointed you die period. No hoping the hostile is low on DPS. Can your Erebus destroy that Hulk before it gets to complete safety of POS? No, I asked why you would intentionally put an Orca 70-80km away from your mining fleet. Try to keep track of things that you say. If the Hulk gets pointed, yes. But again, we're talking about HS.
Are you seriously keeping an Orca close to Macks? Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 07:16:00 -
[1125] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:We're talking about HS. Did you forget again? No you were talking about how tractor beam is stupid/useless module. Pipa Porto wrote:In Null, you don't need much tank at all because if you get pointed you die period. No hoping the hostile is low on DPS. Can your Erebus destroy that Hulk before it gets to complete safety of POS? No, I asked why you would intentionally put an Orca 70-80km away from your mining fleet. Try to keep track of things that you say. If the Hulk gets pointed, yes. But again, we're talking about HS. Are you seriously keeping an Orca close to Macks?
considering that you can huddle up 200 mackinaws on a single ice rock which never depletes, well a rogue goon |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1714
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 07:17:00 -
[1126] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:
considering that you can huddle up 200 mackinaws on a single ice rock which never depletes, well
Pray tell me where, I'll tell a friend where to disco and then post a FRAPS about it. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1714
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 07:19:00 -
[1127] - Quote
A long TLDR tale detailing why a change (not necessarily this change) was needed
Premise
As everyone on Market Discussion knows (and screenshots on my website) I am a minerals trader. I am also a large amounts of BPOs holder including being able to manufacture fully fitted and rigged Orcas from scratch, fully fitted and rigged exhumers and so on (I can provide screenshots of all what I say). I also own Tornado (not Talos), Thrasher and Catalyst (and Cormorant but that ship is bad for ganking) BPOs including all their mods and rigs. I am heavily interested into the highest minerals prices for my trading and the maximum number of kills for my manufacturing.
BUT
Due to my auditor meta profession I have to experience all what I can about the game. Living what you talk about is much more solid than using EFT theorycraft.
The event
So, when ice went above 1100 I decided to give ice mining a try. I already had a couple of ancient max yeld and cargo Macks I used up to 1 year ago when I needed isotopes for fuel. I made an Orca with gun mined minerals (mining cycle + shield + armor links).
Willing to give Ruby Porto benefit of doubt I took one of his "all V skills plus +CPU blah blah" fittings. I painfully trained a pilot to comply with all the required skills (new player unfriendly, CCP does not like it). I had to replace a PG implant (Minmatar fits tend to be greedy with PG) with a CPU implant. I did not need the PG any more so it was not really a loss to me, but I suppose a new player would not have money for multiple +4 / +5 implants clones to swap so it'd be a pain to them.
End result: the mythical 22K EHP Mack apparently miners have to use or are "stupid pigs", everything both cargo and yield sacrificed for tank.
Now, I suspected the ship would blow hard but I got really surprised discovering it'd:
- only held 6 blocks. Not a surprise but I have to manually interrupt mining in half cycle and be careful with the timing else you only get 4 blocks and just wasted minutes for nothing. - mined slightly above 6 blocks in the time the other ships mined their full amount of 10. That's a drop of about 35% in yield.
This alone makes feel the pilot wasted training weeks for nothing and with such a loss in performance the other ships WILL out-do it so hard that they will repay their lower survivability in few days.
But this is just a piece of the puzzle.
Being in an ice system means 70-80 in local even not in prime time.
Now comes the second part of my former post talking about how CCP has to put a brake to overly emergent / zealot players.
Over 2 months, during a regular day the ice system sported an average of 2 suicide gankers (players not alts, they all use 2-4 alts each) and an average of 14 ship deaths. That's ok, weeds off the careless noobs and makes my mineral trading and manufacturing richer.
But then come the industrialized carpet bombing, which is CCP nerfed time and again so it's not like it's a surprise they would nerf this as well. Bat Country guy comes in. Unlike casual gankers he staggered alts to have close to zero downtime. He used 1 Probe and 1 cov ops as scan + warp ins, he used 1-2 catalyst or 1 Amarr BC (don't recall the name) or 1 Tornado.
No other gankers could do anything, he "soloed" 78 kills in one day. This is a big step up. He killed so hard that everyone including Orcas + fleets had to move away. As "Mara Rinn compliant" miner I added the various alts to contact list. Now this is just 1 guy wreaking all this havoc, is it OK for CCP? Seems it's not.
But it's not over yet.
Seeing the mass slaugther I docked the max yield Macks and only left out the Ruby Porto's one + Orca. Since I don't trust ANY exhumer to surivive a Bat Country guy, I also employed additional tricks including being aligned in a particular way that saved my butt several times.
In some way the guy scanned that overtanked Mack (I suppose he used the cov ops) and seeing the juicy T2 mods he decided to gank it.
Lo and behold he warped in *3* Tornadoes, 2 off alts that he did not use yet (so even dutifully adding the other alts as contacts was moot) and managed to shoot 1 salvo heavily hitting the ship before I warped out. End result, I got a damaged ship and he lost 1 of his.
Now, is this what every miner is supposed to endure? Absolute crap yield, have endless contact lists on all alts, stay on toes and aligned like an hawk and even then they just bring in 3 Tornadoes (he clearly did not do it for the income)?
I am NOT surprised to see CCP taking action, once again Goons pushed their "emergent gameplay" till CCP intervened.
I put it along the insurance nerf, FW LP hotfix, boomerang nerf. Doing is fine, overdoing on a prolonged, advertised grand scale is not.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 07:19:00 -
[1128] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pray tell me where, I'll tell a friend where to disco and then post a FRAPS about it.
ice harvesters have a 10km range a rogue goon |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 07:20:00 -
[1129] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:(new player unfriendly, CCP does not like it).
I sincerely hope that CCP isn't dense enough to balance exhumers, which are supposed to be the top-of-the-line mining ships, not ships meant for new players, around the idea that (misguided) new players are flying them a rogue goon |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
123
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 07:21:00 -
[1130] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:because you can already fit one but you don't want to sacrifice that ~max yield~ so you want it to already come on your hulk so that you don't have to be burdened with making such a difficult choice like "do I want to keep my ship"
When was the last time undocked in untanked exhumer owned by me? Date? API verified killmail?
If you claim that as truth you should have some facts to back it up. |
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 07:22:00 -
[1131] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:When was the last time I undocked in untanked exhumer owned by me? Date? API verified killmail?
If you claim that as truth you should have some facts to back it up.
please show me the "tank" on your exhumer
no, the civilian shield booster you have does not constitute a tank a rogue goon |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1714
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 07:29:00 -
[1132] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pray tell me where, I'll tell a friend where to disco and then post a FRAPS about it. ice harvesters have a 10km range
Have fun placing your 200 ships to not have any overlap. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
123
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 07:29:00 -
[1133] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:please show me the "tank" on your exhumer
no, the civilian shield booster you have does not constitute a tank
[Hulk]
Damage Control II Micro Auxiliary Power Core I
Medium F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Limited Adaptive Invulnerability Field I Limited Adaptive Invulnerability Field I
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 Ancillary Current Router I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Yes, I know it's not "perfect".
Forgot drones. 5x Vespa EC-600 |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 07:32:00 -
[1134] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pray tell me where, I'll tell a friend where to disco and then post a FRAPS about it. ice harvesters have a 10km range Have fun placing your 200 ships to not have any overlap.
except nobody mines with 200 ships
i said that there is no real limit on how many ships can mine an ice rock because, well, it doesn't deplete
a rogue goon |
Betrinna Cantis
25
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 07:33:00 -
[1135] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Happy Miner is proud that he's too stupid to survive without CCP holding his hand and leading him to water. Bet you that in 6 months we're gonna hear Happy Miner turn into Sad Miner complaining that CCP hasn't forced him to drink. 1) I'm happy miner and yet to be ganked. 2) I do my mining mostly with Hulk. 3) If you want to gank me prepare to lose more destroyers than you thought you would lose. 4) Yes, there's still time before Inferno 1.2! What he ^^ said. Alts have been changed to protect the Innocent. You may have mistaken me for someone who cares..... |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 07:39:00 -
[1136] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:please show me the "tank" on your exhumer
no, the civilian shield booster you have does not constitute a tank [Hulk, ****] Damage Control II Micro Auxiliary Power Core I Medium F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Limited Adaptive Invulnerability Field I Limited Adaptive Invulnerability Field I 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 Ancillary Current Router I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Yes, I know it's not "perfect". Forgot drones. 5x Vespa EC-600
here: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/16196592/Hulk%20-%20catalyst%20tanked.jpg
they'd need 3 catalysts to kill you in an 0.5 and that's without any gang bonuses, fit a shield resist link on an orca and you'll get close to 50k against blasters, while still having more "uniform" EHP than what you have on that fit, and you're not really going to do much better against thrashers in either case
the stacking penalties are only screwing you over when you're fitting that many invulns a rogue goon |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1714
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 07:41:00 -
[1137] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:they'd need 3 catalysts to kill you in an 0.5 and that's without any gang bonuses
Not to rain your parade but 3 catalysts is the default setup even moderate casual gankers use...
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 07:42:00 -
[1138] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:they'd need 3 catalysts to kill you in an 0.5 and that's without any gang bonuses Not to rain your parade but 3 catalysts is the default setup even moderate casual gankers use...
"oh look catalysts are landing" *overheats mid rack, turns on hardeners*
also that "3 catalysts" figure assumes that it's 3 t2 fit catalysts with void and perfect gunnery skills, which isn't likely, especially if they need that many catalysts in 0.5 a rogue goon |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 07:47:00 -
[1139] - Quote
can't wait for the "well if they flub you still have to pay more to repair in station than what one of their guns is worth" argument a rogue goon |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
123
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 07:49:00 -
[1140] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:here: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/16196592/Hulk%20-%20catalyst%20tanked.jpgthey'd need 3 catalysts to kill you in an 0.5 and that's without any gang bonuses, fit a shield resist link on an orca and you'll get close to 50k against blasters, while still having more "uniform" EHP than what you have on that fit, and you're not really going to do much better against thrashers in either case the stacking penalties are only screwing you over when you're fitting that many invulns
- Needs 6% CPU implant if I want to use cheaper T2 MSE. - Only 27k EHP (Hulk with one MLU, survey scanner and overheated invuls can beat that) |
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 07:51:00 -
[1141] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:This alone makes feel the pilot wasted training weeks for nothing and with such a loss in performance the other ships WILL out-do it so hard that they will repay their lower survivability in few days.
since they pay for themselves, and then some, in a yield fit, what's the problem? a rogue goon |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 07:54:00 -
[1142] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:- Needs 6% CPU implant if I want to use cheaper T2 MSE. - Only 27k EHP (Hulk with one MLU, survey scanner and overheated invuls can beat that)
you can't fit a T2 MSE on that setup anyway since CPU and PG hardwirings use the same slot, and this fit completely uses both, and that's with a genolution set (cheap) and a +1% PG hardwiring (even cheaper)
also, a meta 4 MSE is 1.5M in Jita a rogue goon |
Pipa Porto
516
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 07:55:00 -
[1143] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
If tank is good then why are you whining in this thread.
Untanked Hulk can be ganked in hisec after the changes. Just in case you haven't noticed that Hulk doesn't get huge buff.
30% isn't a huge Buff? In what universe?
The Hulk is getting a ~30% boost to it's tank. It will be able to fit enough tank such that it is unprofitable to gank it while still fitting 2 MLUIIs.
This means that the Skiff's new role is worthless. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
123
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 07:55:00 -
[1144] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:you can't fit a T2 MSE on that setup anyway since CPU and PG hardwirings use the same slot, and this fit completely uses both, and that's with a genolution set (cheap) and a +1% PG hardwiring (even cheaper)
You can't put two implants into same slot on same clone. |
Pipa Porto
517
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 07:57:00 -
[1145] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:please show me the "tank" on your exhumer
no, the civilian shield booster you have does not constitute a tank [Hulk] Damage Control II Micro Auxiliary Power Core I Medium F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Limited Adaptive Invulnerability Field I Limited Adaptive Invulnerability Field I 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 Ancillary Current Router I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Yes, I know it's not "perfect". Forgot drones. 5x Vespa EC-600
Oh, you mean the fit that you claimed over and over again wouldn't be able to stop a HS gank? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 07:58:00 -
[1146] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:you can't fit a T2 MSE on that setup anyway since CPU and PG hardwirings use the same slot, and this fit completely uses both, and that's with a genolution set (cheap) and a +1% PG hardwiring (even cheaper) You can't put two implants into same slot on same clone.
except all three of those implants use different slots
the genolution set gives you a decent bonus to both CPU and powergrid a rogue goon |
Pipa Porto
517
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 07:59:00 -
[1147] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:they'd need 3 catalysts to kill you in an 0.5 and that's without any gang bonuses Not to rain your parade but 3 catalysts is the default setup even moderate casual gankers use...
3 T2 Catalysts is an unprofitable gank. By a LOT. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
123
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 08:00:00 -
[1148] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Oh, you mean the fit that you claimed over and over again wouldn't be able to stop a HS gank?
Are you now saying it can be ganked? Great. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 08:02:00 -
[1149] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Oh, you mean the fit that you claimed over and over again wouldn't be able to stop a HS gank? Are you now saying it can be ganked? Great.
the veldnaught can be ganked if you bring enough ships to kill it a rogue goon |
dexington
83
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 08:02:00 -
[1150] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:they'd need 3 catalysts to kill you in an 0.5 and that's without any gang bonuses Not to rain your parade but 3 catalysts is the default setup even moderate casual gankers use... 3 T2 Catalysts is an unprofitable gank. By a LOT.
CCP Soundwave wrote: 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.
working as intended GÇ£The best way to keep something bad from happening is to see it ahead of time, and you can't see it if you refuse to face the possibility.GÇ¥-á |
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1464
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 08:04:00 -
[1151] - Quote
dexington wrote:working as intended
it's working as intended because we're talking about a ship that is fitted to be unprofitable to gank, you see a rogue goon |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
123
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 08:09:00 -
[1152] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:the veldnaught can be ganked if you bring enough ships to kill it
Only if you can gank it before node crashes... |
Pipa Porto
517
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 08:09:00 -
[1153] - Quote
dexington wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:they'd need 3 catalysts to kill you in an 0.5 and that's without any gang bonuses Not to rain your parade but 3 catalysts is the default setup even moderate casual gankers use... 3 T2 Catalysts is an unprofitable gank. By a LOT. CCP Soundwave wrote: 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.
working as intended
Yes. Exactly. So the buff to mining barges is entirely unnecessary. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1466
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 08:12:00 -
[1154] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:the veldnaught can be ganked if you bring enough ships to kill it Only if you can gank it before node crashes...
problem is that you'd need 900 tornadoes to pull it off because, heh, it's in 1.0, unless he has a slave set plugged in (which isn't a distant possibility) a rogue goon |
Pipa Porto
517
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 08:12:00 -
[1155] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Oh, you mean the fit that you claimed over and over again wouldn't be able to stop a HS gank? Are you now saying it can be ganked? Great.
1. It's the fit YOU, Jorma Morkkis claimed was insufficiently tanked.
2. Never said it couldn't. Just that it can't be profitably tanked (something that you disagreed with, ad nauseaum in another thread).
3. Seriously, Head Injuries presenting with memory lapses are serious. See a Doctor.
[/quote]
Pipa Porto wrote:3 T2 Catalysts is an unprofitable gank. By a LOT.
Not if you gank Itty5 full of officer mods.[/quote]
We are Talking about Mining barges. FFS. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Pipa Porto
517
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 08:13:00 -
[1156] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:the veldnaught can be ganked if you bring enough ships to kill it Only if you can gank it before node crashes...
TiDi's largely taken care of node crashes even in systems which aren't RFed. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
123
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 08:15:00 -
[1157] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:2. Never said it couldn't. Just that it can't be profitably tanked (something that you disagreed with, ad nauseaum in another thread).
What? I don't even... |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1467
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 08:18:00 -
[1158] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:2. Never said it couldn't. Just that it can't be profitably tanked (something that you disagreed with, ad nauseaum in another thread). What? I don't even...
if you actually disputed that your hulk can't be profitably ganked in any sec, well, i think you're vastly overestimating how valuable the drops/salvage are EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
123
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 08:20:00 -
[1159] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:if you actually disputed that your hulk can't be profitably ganked in any sec, well, i think you're vastly overestimating how valuable the drops/salvage are
25M in salvage. 7-11M in T2 strip miners. 10M from Goons.
And whatever you can get back from your Catalyst wreck. But that's not actually profit. |
Horace Nancyball
The Whiskers of Kurvi-Tasch
8
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 08:22:00 -
[1160] - Quote
Almost 60 pages on a topic done to death every month for the last seven years... |
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1467
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 08:22:00 -
[1161] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:25M in salvage. 7-11M in T2 strip miners. 10M from Goons.
i hope you're not trying to bring up a reward paid by a player corporation in a thread about balance
also fyi that doesn't pay for 3 T2 fit catalysts EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
dexington
83
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 08:24:00 -
[1162] - Quote
Horace Nancyball wrote:Almost 60 pages on a topic done to death every month for the last seven years...
Why are you then surprised it's happening again this month? GÇ£The best way to keep something bad from happening is to see it ahead of time, and you can't see it if you refuse to face the possibility.GÇ¥-á |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
123
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 08:25:00 -
[1163] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:also fyi that doesn't pay for 3 T2 fit catalysts
3 * 11M = 33M
And if you don't insure your ship you're doing it wrong. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1467
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 08:27:00 -
[1164] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:And if you don't insure your ship you're doing it wrong.
feel free to go suicide gank something in an insured ship
hint: there's a reason people don't use brutixes anymore
also a T2 fit catalyst costs a good 15M EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
dexington
83
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 08:27:00 -
[1165] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:also fyi that doesn't pay for 3 T2 fit catalysts 3 * 11M = 33M And if you don't insure your ship you're doing it wrong.
Concord destroyed ships don't payout insurance, do they? GÇ£The best way to keep something bad from happening is to see it ahead of time, and you can't see it if you refuse to face the possibility.GÇ¥-á |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1715
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 08:27:00 -
[1166] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:This alone makes feel the pilot wasted training weeks for nothing and with such a loss in performance the other ships WILL out-do it so hard that they will repay their lower survivability in few days. since they pay for themselves, and then some, in a yield fit, what's the problem?
Not a problem. Just showing the high skills, "overtank" fits spewed for all these months are just inefficient and provide additional loot for those who sooner or later will kill you anyway.
For me it was money well spent learning the overtank way was so sub-optimal, I wanted to adopt a middle range solution for the next time I'll mine (prolly in a year) but then the new mining ships overhaul devblog appeared. So I'll check what real world functional fittings will exist after the patch. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1467
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 08:29:00 -
[1167] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:provide additional loot for those who sooner or later will kill you anyway.
because the 30m in drops makes it so worth it to burn 60M in ships to kill you EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
123
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 08:30:00 -
[1168] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:also a T2 fit catalyst costs a good 15M
You probably want to produce some of the modules by yourself if you get that bad deals from your supplier. |
dexington
83
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 08:31:00 -
[1169] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:provide additional loot for those who sooner or later will kill you anyway. because the 30m in drops makes it so worth it to burn 60M in ships to kill you
then don't do it... you are not being forced to suicide gank miners, go shoot at players in low or null for free. GÇ£The best way to keep something bad from happening is to see it ahead of time, and you can't see it if you refuse to face the possibility.GÇ¥-á |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1467
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 08:31:00 -
[1170] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:also a T2 fit catalyst costs a good 15M You probably want to produce some of the modules by yourself if you get that bad deals from your supplier.
yeah if you think that gankers have a fully operational t2 production chain, well EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1467
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 08:32:00 -
[1171] - Quote
dexington wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:provide additional loot for those who sooner or later will kill you anyway. because the 30m in drops makes it so worth it to burn 60M in ships to kill you then don't do it... you are not being forced to suicide gank miners, go shoot at players in low or null for free.
wow it's like you don't understand context
let me help you
WE ARE DISCUSSING EXHUMERS IN THEIR CURRENT STATE, FIT FOR THE SAKE OF MAKING THEMSELVES UNPROFITABLE TO GANK EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1715
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 08:33:00 -
[1172] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:provide additional loot for those who sooner or later will kill you anyway. because the 30m in drops makes it so worth it to burn 60M in ships to kill you
1 ISK given away to an hostile is 1 ISK too many. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
123
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 08:33:00 -
[1173] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:yeah if you think that gankers have a fully operational t2 production chain, well
What's talk about "we don't need miners because we can produce our own ships and modules by ourselves"? |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1467
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 08:33:00 -
[1174] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:provide additional loot for those who sooner or later will kill you anyway. because the 30m in drops makes it so worth it to burn 60M in ships to kill you 1 ISK given away to an hostile is 1 ISK too many.
wow with that attitude you might as well not do anything in this game at all EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1467
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 08:34:00 -
[1175] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:What's talk about "we don't need miners because we can produce our own ships and modules by ourselves"?
now you're just making crap up lol EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
123
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 08:36:00 -
[1176] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:now you're just making crap up lol
Nope.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=101626 |
dexington
83
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 08:37:00 -
[1177] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:WE ARE DISCUSSING EXHUMERS IN THEIR CURRENT STATE, FIT FOR THE SAKE OF MAKING THEMSELVES UNPROFITABLE TO GANK
EXHUMERS IN THEIR CURRENT STATE, ARE GANKED JUST FOR THE LOLZ OF WATCHING PEOPLE CRY OVER LOSING A 250M SHIP GÇ£The best way to keep something bad from happening is to see it ahead of time, and you can't see it if you refuse to face the possibility.GÇ¥-á |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1715
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 08:38:00 -
[1178] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:provide additional loot for those who sooner or later will kill you anyway. because the 30m in drops makes it so worth it to burn 60M in ships to kill you 1 ISK given away to an hostile is 1 ISK too many. wow with that attitude you might as well not do anything in this game at all
It's the same attitude that in WAR nets me 40 kills zero deaths in an evening and that lets me get blasphemously rich in EvE with no loss.
I feel just fine doing it. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1467
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 08:41:00 -
[1179] - Quote
dexington wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:WE ARE DISCUSSING EXHUMERS IN THEIR CURRENT STATE, FIT FOR THE SAKE OF MAKING THEMSELVES UNPROFITABLE TO GANK EXHUMERS IN THEIR CURRENT STATE, ARE GANKED JUST FOR THE LOLZ OF WATCHING PEOPLE CRY OVER LOSING A 250M SHIP
yeah
except it's a lot less of a pain to gank the untanked hulk next to your well-tanked one EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Mallak Azaria
395
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 08:42:00 -
[1180] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:End result: the mythical 22K EHP Mack apparently miners have to use or are "stupid pigs", everything both cargo and yield sacrificed for tank.
I'm going to go out on a limb here & say that you never thought of staggering your ice harvester cycles. Mining Barge buff: CCP-áhas acknowledged that miners in general-áare too stupid to make the correct fitting choices to make ganking them unprofitable. |
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1467
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 08:42:00 -
[1181] - Quote
please quote the part where he said that gankers produce all of their ships and modules from scratch EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
123
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 08:46:00 -
[1182] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:please quote the part where he said that gankers produce all of their ships and modules from scratch
Read posts from other gankers in that thread. James is lord of EVE so he doesn't need to explain his thoughts. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1467
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 08:47:00 -
[1183] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:please quote the part where he said that gankers produce all of their ships and modules from scratch Read posts from other gankers in that thread. James is lord of EVE so doesn't need to explain his thoughts.
no please feel free to point them out because i can't be bothered to read through all of that pubbie drivel about how wrong he is for saying that miners and their ilk want all PvP removed from hisec
because, as we've seen from posts, they actually want PvP removed from hisec, see all of the "well if u wan2 pvp u shuld go 2 low or null bc hi is 4 pve only" crap EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Myz Toyou
Bite Me inc Elysian Empire
140
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 08:48:00 -
[1184] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:All we are going to get out of this are fleets of untouchable mining bots and a massive market crash in low end ore just when it became worth mining.
+1
Can`t wait to salvage the tears from miners whining on these forums about their bad isk/hour ratio.
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1467
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 08:49:00 -
[1185] - Quote
Myz Toyou wrote:baltec1 wrote:All we are going to get out of this are fleets of untouchable mining bots and a massive market crash in low end ore just when it became worth mining. +1 Can`t wait to salvage the tears from miners whining on these forums about their bad isk/hour ratio.
you'll still get the "MY HULK got blown up this is totally unfair why did my AFK untanked ship get killed in 0.5" threads because 15k ehp hulks can still be ganked with ease
on top of that you'll also see "WHY IS HISEC MINING SO UNPROFITABLE NOW REMEMBER WHEN VELDSPAR MINING NETTED 30M ISK/HR" threads EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1715
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 08:50:00 -
[1186] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:End result: the mythical 22K EHP Mack apparently miners have to use or are "stupid pigs", everything both cargo and yield sacrificed for tank.
I'm going to go out on a limb here & say that you never thought of staggering your ice harvester cycles.
Achieving what? Besides being easily flagged as a bot. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
277
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 08:51:00 -
[1187] - Quote
Myz Toyou wrote:baltec1 wrote:All we are going to get out of this are fleets of untouchable mining bots and a massive market crash in low end ore just when it became worth mining. +1 Can`t wait to salvage the tears from miners whining on these forums about their bad isk/hour ratio.
nobody will care about the isk/hour ratio. minerals are used to build things. if it takes 4 hours of mining to buy something now, it'll take 4 hours after a market crash. infact, with tech nerfs and tech 2 possibly coming down in price, miners are in a better position. [as is every one else]
miners are largely unaffected by mineral prices going up and down in terms of buying and selling; it takes the same amount of time mining to buy things before and after. i made the point ages ago with the cost of a hulk.
then, 3.4isk/unit trit, 130m hulk. now, 6.5isk/unit trit, 250m hulk.
isk/hour really doesn't matter that much. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
123
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 08:53:00 -
[1188] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:because, as we've seen from posts, they actually want PvP removed from hisec, see all of the "well if u wan2 pvp u shuld go 2 low or null bc hi is 4 pve only" crap
Where did I say I'm against pvp in hisec?
There's actual pvp corps in hisec that don't do it for griefing, just to get their pewpew. I'm not against that at all. I'm not against ganking stupid haulers (20 PLEXes in shuttle and so on, you get the point). I'm not against ganking officer fit mission ship in hisec (it's just pure stupidity)... I'm not against ganking Hulks with cargo rigs (very bad combination)...
Do you get the point? |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1467
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 08:53:00 -
[1189] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Achieving what? Besides being easily flagged as a bot.
so you're admitting that you bot EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1467
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 08:55:00 -
[1190] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Where did I say I'm against pvp in hisec?
There's actual pvp corps in hisec that don't do it for griefing, just to get their pewpew. I'm not against that at all. I'm not against ganking stupid haulers (20 PLEXes in shuttle and so on, you get the point). I'm not against ganking officer fit mission ship in hisec (it's just pure stupidity)...
Do you get the point?
with crimewatch, ganking idiots who officer fit their mission ships and carry 20 plexes in shuttles will mean that your mule alt will have to deal with being shot at by dudes with neutral logis that you can't shoot at
and you can't really kill that proteus yourself because, well, it's basically you vs everyone in hisec, and his RR alt that you can't shoot will keep him from dying EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
123
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 08:58:00 -
[1191] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:with crimewatch, ganking idiots who officer fit their mission ships and carry 20 plexes in shuttles will mean that your mule alt will have to deal with being shot at by dudes with neutral logis that you can't shoot at
and you can't really kill that proteus yourself because, well, it's basically you vs everyone in hisec
EVE Online is MMO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_multiplayer_online_game). |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1467
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 09:00:00 -
[1192] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:EVE Online is MMO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_multiplayer_online_game).
oh and if you bring your own RR alt everyone in hisec will be able to shoot that
you must love this, considering that you want all nonconsensual PvP eliminated from hisec EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1715
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 09:00:00 -
[1193] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Achieving what? Besides being easily flagged as a bot. so you're admitting that you bot
No, if you ALT TAB and stagger ice miners you appear to be a bot. In the logs you'll appear doing multiple staggered things in close time frames across multiple accounts.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Pipa Porto
519
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 09:00:00 -
[1194] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:2. Never said it couldn't. Just that it can't be profitably tanked (something that you disagreed with, ad nauseaum in another thread). What? I don't even... Keep throwing those Catalysts at my Hulk one at a time and I'm sure I can make some profit out of it.
Slight typo. Can't be profitably Ganked.
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:2) Even if that were true, what's the problem? You say it can be tanked to make profitable ganking impossible. Two T1 gank fit Catalysts can destroy it in 0.5 even with maximum tank (15k EHP). https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1595540#post1595540
Jorma Morkkis wrote:All it takes to gank tanked Hulk in 0.5 is two Catalysts (~30 million ISK). https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1565883#post1565883 EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1467
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 09:01:00 -
[1195] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:No, if you ALT TAB and stagger ice miners you appear to be a bot. In the logs you'll appear doing multiple staggered things in close time frames across multiple accounts.
the only ones who should worry about being flagged as botters are, well, botters
believe it or not Sreegs and the GMs are aware that isboxer exists EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
202
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 09:05:00 -
[1196] - Quote
It's just another nail in the coffin.... im not interested in experiencing another Ultima Online Trammel amputation in EvE. I will never go thru that experience again, it's just too painfull.
Sad times we live, the last true old school sandbox mmo being is ripped apart. Even the forums have been "trammelized". If you want instant gratification, go stimulate your genitals. EvE is Hard, deal with it. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
123
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 09:05:00 -
[1197] - Quote
Way to take that 15k EHP out of context...
You were claiming Hulk is T1 cruiser.
Avg. EHP for T1 cruiser is around 10k-15k EHP. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1467
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 09:06:00 -
[1198] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Way to take that 15k EHP out of context...
You were claiming Hulk is T1 cruiser.
Avg. EHP for T1 cruiser is around 10k-15k EHP.
with
a
tank
fitted EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1715
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 09:07:00 -
[1199] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:No, if you ALT TAB and stagger ice miners you appear to be a bot. In the logs you'll appear doing multiple staggered things in close time frames across multiple accounts.
the only ones who should worry about being flagged as botters are, well, botters believe it or not Sreegs and the GMs are aware that isboxer exists
With 2 months petition queues on some topics, better being safe than sorry. Also, no need to use stinky isboxer, even when 5 box full glass cannon missioning... "EvE is hard". Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1467
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 09:07:00 -
[1200] - Quote
Vaju Enki wrote:It's just another nail in the coffin.... im not interested in experiencing another Ultima Online Trammel amputation in EvE. I will never go thru that experience again, it's just too painfull.
Sad times we live, the last true old school sandbox mmo being is ripped apart. Even the forums have been "trammelized".
"but it's not Trammel because you can still shoot people in hisec but you'll just die instantly to a death ray that equalizes response times in 1.0 and 0.5 and we're discouraging it as much as possible!" EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
123
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 09:07:00 -
[1201] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Way to take that 15k EHP out of context...
You were claiming Hulk is T1 cruiser.
Avg. EHP for T1 cruiser is around 10k-15k EHP. with a tank fitted
Yes. Is there a part you didn't understand? |
Alpheias
Euphoria Released Verge of Collapse
710
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 09:08:00 -
[1202] - Quote
OP is seriously ßâÜ(a¦át¢èa¦áßâÜ) I'd kill kittens and puppies and bunnies I'd maim toddlers and teens and then more |
Pipa Porto
519
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 09:08:00 -
[1203] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Way to take that 15k EHP out of context...
You were claiming Hulk is T1 cruiser.
Avg. EHP for T1 cruiser is around 10k-15k EHP.
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:2) Even if that were true, what's the problem? You say it can be tanked to make profitable ganking impossible. Two T1 gank fit Catalysts can destroy it in 0.5 even with maximum tank (15k EHP). https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1595540#post1595540
Jorma Morkkis wrote:All it takes to gank tanked Hulk in 0.5 is two Catalysts (~30 million ISK). https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1565883#post1565883 EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1467
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 09:09:00 -
[1204] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Yes. Is there a part you didn't understand?
the hulk will have 15k ehp without fitting a tank at all EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
123
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 09:09:00 -
[1205] - Quote
Ok, for Minnie cruisers because they have other ways to get away. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1467
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 09:11:00 -
[1206] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Ok, for Minnie cruisers because they have other ways to get away.
yes we should just give exhumers the agility and speed of a dramiel, the tank of a brick damnation and the mining yield of a hulk just because
i guess a damnation should be able to mine just like a hulk then, because it's expensive too EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
123
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 09:15:00 -
[1207] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Ok, for Minnie cruisers because they have other ways to get away. yes we should just give exhumers the agility and speed of a dramiel, the tank of a brick damnation and the mining yield of a hulk just because i guess a damnation should be able to mine just like a hulk then, because it's expensive too
You forgot neuting power of Curse. Because neuts are the modules that seperates Minmatar from inferior races. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1467
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 09:19:00 -
[1208] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Ok, for Minnie cruisers because they have other ways to get away. yes we should just give exhumers the agility and speed of a dramiel, the tank of a brick damnation and the mining yield of a hulk just because i guess a damnation should be able to mine just like a hulk then, because it's expensive too You forgot neuting power of Curse. Because neuts are the modules that seperates Minmatar from inferior races.
the curse is an amarr ship
i thought the gold plated hull and "amarr cruiser" requirement would give that away EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Tarassse
Republic University Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 09:25:00 -
[1209] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:with crimewatch, ganking idiots who officer fit their mission ships and carry 20 plexes in shuttles will mean that your mule alt will have to deal with being shot at by dudes with neutral logis that you can't shoot at
and you can't really kill that proteus yourself because, well, it's basically you vs everyone in hisec, and his RR alt that you can't shoot will keep him from dying
Your griefer tears are exquisite. Please go on, goon scum.
Btw, U MAD? |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
278
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 09:27:00 -
[1210] - Quote
Tarassse wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:with crimewatch, ganking idiots who officer fit their mission ships and carry 20 plexes in shuttles will mean that your mule alt will have to deal with being shot at by dudes with neutral logis that you can't shoot at
and you can't really kill that proteus yourself because, well, it's basically you vs everyone in hisec, and his RR alt that you can't shoot will keep him from dying Your griefer tears are exquisite. Please go on, goon scum. Btw, U MAD?
oh look, a goon posted! let's skip over the entire point and just call it tears. sigh... Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
123
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 09:28:00 -
[1211] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:the curse is an amarr ship
i thought the gold plated hull and "amarr cruiser" requirement would give that away
Original design is from Minmatar scientists.
Even Rupture can solo two Prophecies... |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1715
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 09:31:00 -
[1212] - Quote
Vaju Enki wrote:It's just another nail in the coffin.... im not interested in experiencing another Ultima Online Trammel amputation in EvE. I will never go thru that experience again, it's just too painfull.
Sad times we live, the last true old school sandbox mmo being is ripped apart. Even the forums have been "trammelized".
First of all it's not "the last true old school sandbox MMO".
Second, EvE is dying since 2003 and also being Trammel-ized since they made CONCORD un-tankable, added warp to zero and nerfed nano boats. Long live EvE! Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1468
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 09:33:00 -
[1213] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Second, EvE is dying since 2003 and also being Trammel-ized since they made CONCORD un-tankable, added warp to zero and nerfed nano boats. Long live EvE!
no, Crimewatch IS effectively Trammelizing it considering that they're doing literally everything they can do discourage suicide ganks even on those who decide that a shuttle is the best way to move 70 PLEX around. EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1468
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 09:35:00 -
[1214] - Quote
Tarassse wrote:Your griefer tears are exquisite. Please go on, goon scum. Btw, U MAD?
You should go play another MMO if you want to safely PvE in a designated safe zone. EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
dexington
83
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 09:35:00 -
[1215] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Second, EvE is dying since 2003 and also being Trammel-ized since they made CONCORD un-tankable, added warp to zero and nerfed nano boats. Long live EvE! no, Crimewatch IS effectively Trammelizing it considering that they're doing literally everything they can do discourage suicide ganks even on those who decide that a shuttle is the best way to move 70 PLEX around.
How is crimewatch doing to stop you from blowing up the shuttle? GÇ£The best way to keep something bad from happening is to see it ahead of time, and you can't see it if you refuse to face the possibility.GÇ¥-á |
DrSmegma
Smegma United Asgard Supplies and Logistics
67
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 09:39:00 -
[1216] - Quote
Man, I blew up in shuttle once in low sec. My only kill in several years of game time. .......... and damn, it was worth every second. Hahahahahahaha. I showed that autopiloting moron. I don't really want to troll you. If I trolled you anyway, I'll probably edit it out as soon as the rage fades. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1468
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 09:41:00 -
[1217] - Quote
dexington wrote:How is crimewatch doing to stop you from blowing up the shuttle?
It's not going to stop you from blowing it up, just from making it worth your while. It's going to equalize response times in all of hisec, so system sec is absolutely irrelevant. Killing anything will mean that you'll be chased by faction navies because your sec status will instantly go -5. Anyone can shoot you for looting a wreck or can - not just members of the player corporation "owning" that wreck/can.
That isn't a "reasonable consequence," that's a complete and total nerf to virtually all PvP in hisec that takes place outside of dumb ~honour fights~ and wardecs.
"Cold and harsh universe" my aching ass. Trammel.
Oh, and "risk/reward?" They're rebuffing incursions and nullsec is taking another nerf. EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
DrSmegma
Smegma United Asgard Supplies and Logistics
67
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 09:42:00 -
[1218] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:dexington wrote:How is crimewatch doing to stop you from blowing up the shuttle? It's not going to stop you from blowing it up, just from making it worth your while. It's going to equalize response times in all of hisec, so system sec is absolutely irrelevant. Killing anything will mean that you'll be chased by faction navies because your sec status will instantly go -5. Anyone can shoot you for looting a wreck or can - not just members of the player corporation "owning" that wreck/can. That isn't a "reasonable consequence," that's a complete and total nerf to virtually all PvP in hisec that takes place outside of dumb ~honour fights~ and wardecs. "Cold and harsh universe" my aching ass. Trammel.
Excuse me. Did I miss anything? Is that actually going to be implemented? I don't really want to troll you. If I trolled you anyway, I'll probably edit it out as soon as the rage fades. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1468
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 09:45:00 -
[1219] - Quote
DrSmegma wrote:Excuse me. Did I miss anything? Is that actually going to be implemented?
Not to mention that the dudes shooting you can bring all the RR and ships they want, and you literally won't be able to RR yourself at all. EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Manar Detri
26
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 09:47:00 -
[1220] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:dexington wrote:How is crimewatch doing to stop you from blowing up the shuttle? It's not going to stop you from blowing it up, just from making it worth your while. It's going to equalize response times in all of hisec, so system sec is absolutely irrelevant. Killing anything will mean that you'll be chased by faction navies because your sec status will instantly go -5. Anyone can shoot you for looting a wreck or can - not just members of the player corporation "owning" that wreck/can. That isn't a "reasonable consequence," that's a complete and total nerf to virtually all PvP in hisec that takes place outside of dumb ~honour fights~ and wardecs. "Cold and harsh universe" my aching ass. Trammel. Oh, and "risk/reward?" They're rebuffing incursions and nullsec is taking another nerf.
The tears are strong in this one. Nothings set in stone and you cry like a baby already. That aside, it was plain stupid that you can gank a mining ship with a few catalysts, even if it was tanked to hell and back. You do know that the amoutn of tank you can fit in a mining ship is very little. You are basicly crying that you no longer can kill something with just one ship, you actually need some more team effort in it. Funny right, team effort in an mmo, must come as a shocker. |
|
DrSmegma
Smegma United Asgard Supplies and Logistics
67
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 09:49:00 -
[1221] - Quote
Manar Detri wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:dexington wrote:How is crimewatch doing to stop you from blowing up the shuttle? It's not going to stop you from blowing it up, just from making it worth your while. It's going to equalize response times in all of hisec, so system sec is absolutely irrelevant. Killing anything will mean that you'll be chased by faction navies because your sec status will instantly go -5. Anyone can shoot you for looting a wreck or can - not just members of the player corporation "owning" that wreck/can. That isn't a "reasonable consequence," that's a complete and total nerf to virtually all PvP in hisec that takes place outside of dumb ~honour fights~ and wardecs. "Cold and harsh universe" my aching ass. Trammel. Oh, and "risk/reward?" They're rebuffing incursions and nullsec is taking another nerf. The tears are strong in this one. Nothings set in stone and you cry like a baby already. That aside, it was plain stupid that you can gank a mining ship with a few catalysts, even if it was tanked to hell and back. You do know that the amoutn of tank you can fit in a mining ship is very little. You are basicly crying that you no longer can kill something with just one ship, you actually need some more team effort in it. Funny right, team effort in an mmo, must come as a shocker.
Sounds like I need 6-10 friends who just keep making new trial accounts. Great gameplay. I'm glad CCP finally found a permanent solution to the suckiness that is their sec system. I don't really want to troll you. If I trolled you anyway, I'll probably edit it out as soon as the rage fades. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1468
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 09:52:00 -
[1222] - Quote
Manar Detri wrote:The tears are strong in this one. Nothings set in stone and you cry like a baby already.
I don't care if the finer points aren't yet set in stone. Even if it isn't implemented, it's indicative of CCP trying to convince themselves that they are not "Trammelizing" the game because you "can still technically engage somebody in hisec but we want to discourage it as much as possible."
Manar Detri wrote:That aside, it was plain stupid that you can gank a mining ship with a few catalysts, even if it was tanked to hell and back.
It takes more than a few Catalysts to gank a mining ship in 0.7 space and above. In 0.8 and above, you will need alpha.
Manar Detri wrote:You do know that the amoutn of tank you can fit in a mining ship is very little.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/16196592/Hulk%20-%20catalyst%20tanked.jpg
Manar Detri wrote:You are basicly crying that you no longer can kill something with just one ship, you actually need some more team effort in it. Funny right, team effort in an mmo, must come as a shocker.
As opposed to miners being told "bring RR" and flat-out refusing to invest any more effort into their gameplay?
EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Pipa Porto
520
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 09:56:00 -
[1223] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:the curse is an amarr ship
i thought the gold plated hull and "amarr cruiser" requirement would give that away Original design is from Minmatar scientists. Even Rupture can solo two Prophecies...
Sure, if they're terribly piloted. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
123
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 10:09:00 -
[1224] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:As opposed to miners being told "bring RR" and flat-out refusing to invest any more effort into their gameplay?
Cap stable Scimi + Mack... Have to think about that... |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
9014
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 10:11:00 -
[1225] - Quote
In a nut shell. (Me, from another thread)
Miners were told to HTFU and adapt, they seemingly couldn't do that. So CCP held their hand and moved the goal posts for them.
Some have taken exception to this, as it's not in the spirit of Eve. But many of us know, that most miners will still not fit for anything but maximum yield. So gankers will once again adapt and miners will still DIAF and whine about it.
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
marVLs
25
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 10:14:00 -
[1226] - Quote
Still ***** gankers complain about that they can't kill not moving, defenseless ships? Pathetic
BTW nice changes CCP |
Ohanka
Aggressive Narcissists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
172
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 10:14:00 -
[1227] - Quote
Mag's wrote:In a nut shell. (Me, from another thread) Miners were told to HTFU and adapt, they seemingly couldn't do that. So CCP held their hand and moved the goal posts for them. Some have taken exception to this, as it's not in the spirit of Eve. But many of us know, that most miners will still not fit for anything but maximum yield. So gankers will once again adapt and miners will still DIAF and whine about it.
Again, you are wrong, as usual. |
Pipa Porto
520
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 10:18:00 -
[1228] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:As opposed to miners being told "bring RR" and flat-out refusing to invest any more effort into their gameplay? Cap stable Scimi + Mack... Have to think about that...
Last time we ran into this, you decided you'd gank the Scimi with two Rail Nados at 250km o.0 EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1468
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 10:19:00 -
[1229] - Quote
Ohanka wrote:Again, you are wrong, as usual. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong all the time?
You're in SMA, you can't be suicide ganked in nullsec where your alliance owns space, silly. EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
123
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 10:20:00 -
[1230] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Last time we ran into this, you decided you'd gank the Scimi with two Rail Nados at 250km o.0
Nagas, Nagas.
It's possible. |
|
Ohanka
Aggressive Narcissists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
172
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 10:22:00 -
[1231] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Ohanka wrote:Again, you are wrong, as usual. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong all the time? You're in SMA, you can't be suicide ganked in nullsec where your alliance owns space, silly.
I dunno, Awoxing as always seemed somewhat suicidal to me. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1468
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 10:23:00 -
[1232] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Last time we ran into this, you decided you'd gank the Scimi with two Rail Nados at 250km o.0 Nagas, Nagas. It's possible.
"it's possible so everyone does it"
this is what you believe
it is wrong, but you continuously convince yourself that it is true EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Pipa Porto
520
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 10:23:00 -
[1233] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Last time we ran into this, you decided you'd gank the Scimi with two Rail Nados at 250km o.0 Nagas, Nagas. It's possible.
Whoops, there's a typo. Nados on the brain.
2 Rail Nagas at 250km cannot Suicide Gank any reasonably fit Scimitar. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Manar Detri
26
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 10:28:00 -
[1234] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Manar Detri wrote:The tears are strong in this one. Nothings set in stone and you cry like a baby already. I don't care if the finer points aren't yet set in stone. Even if it isn't implemented, it's indicative of CCP trying to convince themselves that they are not "Trammelizing" the game because you "can still technically engage somebody in hisec but we want to discourage it as much as possible." Manar Detri wrote:That aside, it was plain stupid that you can gank a mining ship with a few catalysts, even if it was tanked to hell and back. It takes more than a few Catalysts to gank a mining ship in 0.7 space and above. In 0.8 and above, you will need alpha. Manar Detri wrote:You do know that the amoutn of tank you can fit in a mining ship is very little. https://dl.dropbox.com/u/16196592/Hulk%20-%20catalyst%20tanked.jpgManar Detri wrote:You are basicly crying that you no longer can kill something with just one ship, you actually need some more team effort in it. Funny right, team effort in an mmo, must come as a shocker. As opposed to miners being told "bring RR" and flat-out refusing to invest any more effort into their gameplay?
Risk goes up the higher sec system you go ganknig, isn't that what you're always spouting anywho?
Now make real fit that doesn't use implants not possible to get into the system (genolutions, really..) And do remember, make it omni tank, that nado will use any type of ammo, just thinking "it's just always a catalyst" doesn't cut it.
Also what the hell are you talking about rr for ? RR does **** if you face volley weapons. And really what the hells this about, you aren't whining about battleships having alot of ehp and being able to do what they're meant to do. If you're ganking something to an end, then you should be happier that it's atleast a bit harder and not just cake walk.
Now let's actually make the game better and take make it you can't jump to a cyno if within 15km of a station. Maybe then we'll be able to touch the invincible goon jf's that can't be caught, as they're actually uncatchable. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
123
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 10:28:00 -
[1235] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:2 Rail Nagas at 250km cannot Suicide Gank any reasonably fit Scimitar.
It's possible.
Typical Scimi has 14k EHP against kin/therm. |
Ohanka
Aggressive Narcissists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
172
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 10:33:00 -
[1236] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:2 Rail Nagas at 250km cannot Suicide Gank any reasonably fit Scimitar. It's possible. Typical Scimi has 14k EHP against kin/therm.
3 Rifters can destroy anything sub-capital in the game. |
Pipa Porto
523
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 10:37:00 -
[1237] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:2 Rail Nagas at 250km cannot Suicide Gank any reasonably fit Scimitar. It's possible. Typical Scimi has 14k EHP against kin/therm.
My old fleet fit Scimi for Logi 4 (terrible, I know) has 22k EHP vs Spike (24k OH)
My new standard Scimi for Logi 5 has 24k (25.7k).
A smart one for HS doesn't need ECCM and will do fine with an AB instead of an MWD, so you can have 33.5k (37.7k). EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Manar Detri
26
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 10:38:00 -
[1238] - Quote
Actually to make this thing even clearer to you dear Richard Desturned. Every single argument you come up is garbage, you know why ? Because the alliance you are part of, goonswarm whined so long and hard that blapper titans got nerfed, just because you couldn't adapt to it.
You opened this can of whining worms, live with it. |
Mr M
Agony Unleashed
185
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 10:39:00 -
[1239] - Quote
I didn't really bother to read this thread but I blame the ********** and their damned taxes.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1715
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 10:40:00 -
[1240] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:DrSmegma wrote:Excuse me. Did I miss anything? Is that actually going to be implemented? Not to mention that the dudes shooting you can bring all the RR and ships they want, and you literally won't be able to RR yourself at all. Piracy will still be possible, but it will simply be a full-time job that nobody will bother with. Or they'll figure something out and CCP will nerf that. vOv
Are you sure it's going to be implemented right like that, with no change? Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
|
Ohanka
Aggressive Narcissists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
172
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 10:40:00 -
[1241] - Quote
Manar Detri wrote:Actually to make this thing even clearer to you dear Richard Desturned. Every single argument you come up is garbage, you know why ? Because the alliance you are part of, goonswarm whined so long and hard that blapper titans got nerfed, just because you couldn't adapt to it.
You opened this can of whining worms, live with it.
You're garbage. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1715
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 10:41:00 -
[1242] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:As opposed to miners being told "bring RR" and flat-out refusing to invest any more effort into their gameplay? Cap stable Scimi + Mack... Have to think about that...
Hi, my name is Alpha. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1469
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 10:43:00 -
[1243] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:As opposed to miners being told "bring RR" and flat-out refusing to invest any more effort into their gameplay? Cap stable Scimi + Mack... Have to think about that... Hi, my name is Alpha.
i see your glass is half empty EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1715
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 10:45:00 -
[1244] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:As opposed to miners being told "bring RR" and flat-out refusing to invest any more effort into their gameplay? Cap stable Scimi + Mack... Have to think about that... Hi, my name is Alpha. i see your glass is half empty
... as are my Macks losses. Maybe because I don't outlive gankers like a fat sack of potatoes but I outplay them. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Pipa Porto
523
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 10:47:00 -
[1245] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:As opposed to miners being told "bring RR" and flat-out refusing to invest any more effort into their gameplay? Cap stable Scimi + Mack... Have to think about that... Hi, my name is Alpha.
Hi, my name is staggered Reps on a tanked Mack. And an Alpha gank (even of a Mack) is unprofitable (massively so), so who cares? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1469
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 10:48:00 -
[1246] - Quote
Manar Detri wrote:Actually to make this thing even clearer to you dear Richard Desturned. Every single argument you come up is garbage, you know why ? Because the alliance you are part of, goonswarm whined so long and hard that blapper titans got nerfed, just because you couldn't adapt to it.
You opened this can of whining worms, live with it.
thank you for your opinion, faceless npc alt
we tested setups 100 ways from sunday to counter "blapper titans," you know, the 20-30 dudes that decided coalition-level engagements at every turn
you know, the ewar-immune ships with millions upon millions of EHP and better tracking than arty battleships?
yeah, those "blapper titans"
every "counter" we tested was either overhyped, unrealistic in TQ conditions or simply useless
in addition, the growing number of titans was making other ships absolutely irrelevant. if titans were in the same state as they were before Crucible, our line members' entire gameplay in fleets would involve sitting on a titan just in case our own titan blob was in danger. how fun is that?
so yes, compare this to the titan nerf - catalysts are, after all, just
like
titans EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
123
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 10:54:00 -
[1247] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:As opposed to miners being told "bring RR" and flat-out refusing to invest any more effort into their gameplay? Cap stable Scimi + Mack... Have to think about that... Hi, my name is Alpha.
True, not getting away from that.
They have to deal with that 40k+ EHP tank my Mack will have. That's quite a few Tornadoes...
Should be hilarious though. |
Josef Djugashvilis
The Scope Gallente Federation
378
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 10:54:00 -
[1248] - Quote
Richard Desturned
thank you for your opinion, faceless npc alt
I always think folk will stop posting with faceless alts, around the same time alliances stop using faceless alts to move goods in and out of hi-sec. You want fries with that? |
Pipa Porto
525
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 10:56:00 -
[1249] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:Richard Desturned
thank you for your opinion, faceless npc alt
I always think folk will stop posting with faceless alts, around the same time alliances stop using faceless alts to move goods in and out of hi-sec.
Josef Djugashvilis The Scope Gallente Federation EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Mallak Azaria
395
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 10:56:00 -
[1250] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:End result: the mythical 22K EHP Mack apparently miners have to use or are "stupid pigs", everything both cargo and yield sacrificed for tank.
I'm going to go out on a limb here & say that you never thought of staggering your ice harvester cycles. Achieving what? Besides being easily flagged as a bot.
Achieving those unwasted harvester cycles because your cargo only holds enough for 1.5 cycles from 2 harvesters. Stagger by 30 seconds, don't mine afk & there's no problem with wasted cycles. Mining Barge buff: CCP-áhas acknowledged that miners in general-áare too stupid to make the correct fitting choices to make ganking them unprofitable. |
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1470
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 10:58:00 -
[1251] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:Richard Desturned
thank you for your opinion, faceless npc alt
I always think folk will stop posting with faceless alts, around the same time alliances stop using faceless alts to move goods in and out of hi-sec.
You can't log in a faceless alt because you have to create a portrait. Duh. EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
123
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 11:01:00 -
[1252] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:You can't log in a faceless alt because you have to create a portrait. Duh.
For some reason I've seen a lot of faceless characters lately. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1472
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 11:14:00 -
[1253] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:You can't log in a faceless alt because you have to create a portrait. Duh. For some reason I've seen a lot of faceless characters lately.
my face is there, just not all of it EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Manar Detri
26
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 11:16:00 -
[1254] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Manar Detri wrote:Actually to make this thing even clearer to you dear Richard Desturned. Every single argument you come up is garbage, you know why ? Because the alliance you are part of, goonswarm whined so long and hard that blapper titans got nerfed, just because you couldn't adapt to it.
You opened this can of whining worms, live with it. thank you for your opinion, faceless npc alt we tested setups 100 ways from sunday to counter "blapper titans," you know, the 20-30 dudes that decided coalition-level engagements at every turn you know, the ewar-immune ships with millions upon millions of EHP and better tracking than arty battleships? yeah, those "blapper titans" every "counter" we tested was either overhyped, unrealistic in TQ conditions or simply useless in addition, the growing number of titans was making other ships absolutely irrelevant. if titans were in the same state as they were before Crucible, our line members' entire gameplay in fleets would involve sitting on a titan just in case our own titan blob was in danger. how fun is that? so yes, compare this to the titan nerf - catalysts are, after all, just like titans
You whined because you got killed. Miners whined because they got killed.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1715
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 11:18:00 -
[1255] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:As opposed to miners being told "bring RR" and flat-out refusing to invest any more effort into their gameplay? Cap stable Scimi + Mack... Have to think about that... Hi, my name is Alpha. Hi, my name is staggered Reps on a tanked Mack. And an Alpha gank (even of a Mack) is unprofitable (massively so), so who cares?
Hi, Bat Country there. Some of them don't care about being cheap like you seem to be and will try use 3 Tornadoes against my Mack (as posted some posts of mine ago) Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1715
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 11:20:00 -
[1256] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:End result: the mythical 22K EHP Mack apparently miners have to use or are "stupid pigs", everything both cargo and yield sacrificed for tank.
I'm going to go out on a limb here & say that you never thought of staggering your ice harvester cycles. Achieving what? Besides being easily flagged as a bot. Achieving those unwasted harvester cycles because your cargo only holds enough for 1.5 cycles from 2 harvesters. Stagger by 30 seconds, don't mine afk & there's no problem with wasted cycles.
I can press F1 and F2 at half cycle just fine. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Mallak Azaria
395
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 11:20:00 -
[1257] - Quote
Manar Detri wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Manar Detri wrote:Actually to make this thing even clearer to you dear Richard Desturned. Every single argument you come up is garbage, you know why ? Because the alliance you are part of, goonswarm whined so long and hard that blapper titans got nerfed, just because you couldn't adapt to it.
You opened this can of whining worms, live with it. thank you for your opinion, faceless npc alt we tested setups 100 ways from sunday to counter "blapper titans," you know, the 20-30 dudes that decided coalition-level engagements at every turn you know, the ewar-immune ships with millions upon millions of EHP and better tracking than arty battleships? yeah, those "blapper titans" every "counter" we tested was either overhyped, unrealistic in TQ conditions or simply useless in addition, the growing number of titans was making other ships absolutely irrelevant. if titans were in the same state as they were before Crucible, our line members' entire gameplay in fleets would involve sitting on a titan just in case our own titan blob was in danger. how fun is that? so yes, compare this to the titan nerf - catalysts are, after all, just like titans You whined because you got killed. Miners whined because they got killed.
The thing is, Titans had to be nerfed because they weren't being killed, but could kill subcaps in 1 shot regardless of using a DD or not. There's a difference between lobbying for a change that is to the betterment of everyone involved & lobbying for a change that makes the game easier for you so you don't get blown up because you were too lazy or stupid to fit a tank. Mining Barge buff: CCP-áhas acknowledged that miners in general-áare too stupid to make the correct fitting choices to make ganking them unprofitable. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1473
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 11:27:00 -
[1258] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:The thing is, Titans had to be nerfed because they weren't being killed, but could kill subcaps in 1 shot regardless of using a DD or not. There's a difference between lobbying for a change that is to the betterment of everyone involved & lobbying for a change that makes the game easier for you so you don't get blown up because you were too lazy or stupid to fit a tank.
trying to explain these things to people who have never left hisec and have never taken part in a large fleet engagement is pointless
for all you know he probably thinks that a good alliance has 3, maybe 4 titans EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
123
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 11:30:00 -
[1259] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:The thing is, Titans had to be nerfed because they weren't being killed, but could kill subcaps in 1 shot regardless of using a DD or not.
Not if you DD'd wrong ship.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hk2cCe5GF-c |
Mallak Azaria
396
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 11:39:00 -
[1260] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:The thing is, Titans had to be nerfed because they weren't being killed, but could kill subcaps in 1 shot regardless of using a DD or not. Not if you DD'd wrong ship. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hk2cCe5GF-c
I don't see how a random DD video relates to titans not dying. Mining Barge buff: CCP-áhas acknowledged that miners in general-áare too stupid to make the correct fitting choices to make ganking them unprofitable. |
|
Pipa Porto
526
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 11:45:00 -
[1261] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:As opposed to miners being told "bring RR" and flat-out refusing to invest any more effort into their gameplay? Cap stable Scimi + Mack... Have to think about that... Hi, my name is Alpha. Hi, my name is staggered Reps on a tanked Mack. And an Alpha gank (even of a Mack) is unprofitable (massively so), so who cares? Hi, Bat Country there. Some of them don't care about being cheap like you seem to be and will try use 3 Tornadoes against my Mack (as posted some posts of mine ago)
If they have to throw away large amounts of Isk to kill you, then guess what. That's not broken. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1669
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 12:00:00 -
[1262] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Hi, Bat Country there. Some of them don't care about being cheap like you seem to be and will try use 3 Tornadoes against my Mack (as posted some posts of mine ago)
Hi, CCP Soundwave's design intention here, telling you that alpha ganking of brick hulks is 100% working as intended. Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
327
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 12:06:00 -
[1263] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Well played, CCP. Your DEVs/balancing team apparently have the reasoning ability of small children so I'll put this in terms they will understand. ********** "Once upon a time there were three little miners. They ventured into the big wide world to earn their fortunes. The First Little Miner went to Jita and fit his Hulk with Cargo Expanders.This way, he could AFK mine with a minimum of effort and fuss. It left the miner plenty of freetime to daydream, jerk off, and watch Japanese Anime while earning ISK. ....Then along came the Big Bad Ganker in a Catalyst, saying "Little miner, little miner, I'm going to ******* do you in." The first miner, predictably, was tabbed out and said nothing. So the Ganker loaded and overheated and blew the Hulk in, and splattered the pod, too. The Second Little Miner went to Jita, bought MLU's and a hauler.This way, he could mine faster than anyone else - and become quite wealthy in no time. It was a bit more work, of course, but he kept himself entertained chatting in local with his neighbors. ...Then along came the Big Bad Ganker, in a Tornado, saying "Little miner, little miner, I'm going to ******* do you in." The second miner, said "Not by the hair of my chinny, chin chin," aligns, and turned on his Small Booster II. So the Ganker loaded and overheated and blew the Hulk in. The frightened miner flees in his pod, broke, but alive. The Third Little Miner went to Jita and fit his Hulk with a DCII, MSE, Invulnerability Fields, and Shield Extender Rigs. Wisely, he sets his Hulk to orbit a nearby asteroid, and always kept an wary eye on his surroundings. ...Then along came the Big Bad Ganker, in a T2 Talos, saying "Little miner, little miner, I'm going to ******* do you in." The Third miner chuckles to himself, overheats his Invulnerability Fields and aligns to the nearest station. So the Ganker loaded, and overheated, and simply CANNOT blow the Hulk in.Defeated, the ganker slinks off in his pod, and the smart little Miner scoops the Talos wreckage and sells it for a tidy profit." THE END********** Cargo Hulk, Yield Hulk, Tank Hulk, those were the choices - all with drawbacks. Cargo - for a Hybrid Exhumer/Hauler, with a risky AFK 'cruise control' option. Yield - to maximize returns with friends providing transport. Tank - 30-40K EHP to discourage/thwart gankers. (and really, one could still put up a reasonable tank on either Cargo or Yield fit Hulks, if they used the mid-slots.... ) But choices are dangerous things. Given the choice, miners will take cargo/yield every time - and then throw a tantrum when they are ganked. The rare, clever miner who tanked his Hulk; well, he weathered the storm - and reaped the benefits as mineral prices rose. But throw that out the window, just give the whining miners all three. Notice how CCP put quite a bit of care into saving miners from their own bad choices. This is more than a buff - this is CCP acknowledging that miners, as a group, are too stupid to make the correct fitting choices.Step 1: Idiot miners don't even use the slots they have - so slap stupid amounts of EHP directly to the hull, rather than give them additional slots/PG or CPU. Frigate-size Skiff, Orca EHP. Really? Step 2: Idiot miners keep sacking their EHP with Cargo Expanders - so make Cargo Expanders pointless with the Ore Bay. (And I doubt the DEVs will get around to fixing the 'special cargo bays don't drop loot' bug, either - simply because fixing THAT bug would benefit the wrong kinds of players, I suppose.....) So, good game, CCP. Good to know we are still steaming, full speed ahead! - towards Hello-Kitty highsec, a paradise for bots and stupidass gameplay. Hard to hear myself say it, but I'm now officially nostalgic for the days of Incarna and WiS development. At least back then, the DEVs were merely wasting their own time. I have to say, the irony of a "Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service" member extracting and reclaiming his own tears carries a bit of amusement.
Those that enjoy doing the prodding are usually those that hate being prodded the most.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1715
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 12:17:00 -
[1264] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:
If they have to throw away large amounts of Isk to kill you, then guess what. That's not broken.
In any other PvP game (expecially GW2) I can counter it with ease and then jab them in the face.
In EvE? No, one got his "prey" role and have to get the beating. Can't even reship and go punch them in the face because they flee like rabbits nor they attack this character (who got decent PvP skills) but alts in other corps.
I hope crimewatch will make me able to defend my alts and my friends. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1715
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 12:21:00 -
[1265] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Hi, Bat Country there. Some of them don't care about being cheap like you seem to be and will try use 3 Tornadoes against my Mack (as posted some posts of mine ago) Hi, CCP Soundwave's design intention here, telling you that alpha ganking of brick hulks is 100% working as intended. PS: I love your histrionics about flying high-tank Hulks instead of high yield Macks. Next time, make sure you spam d-scan. Bat
1) I make and sell Hulks, don't use them. I gun-mine. 2) Spamming d-scan is pointless when (like I posted) the guy scanned with cov ops and then brought 2 "uncharted" alts, aka not known & not added as contacts yet. As long as it was just one, no problem to tank him.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1669
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 12:24:00 -
[1266] - Quote
And you knew it was just one guy, not thee Tornadoes because GǪ Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Pipa Porto
526
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 12:25:00 -
[1267] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:
If they have to throw away large amounts of Isk to kill you, then guess what. That's not broken.
In any other PvP game (expecially GW2) I can counter it with ease and then jab them in the face. In EvE? No, one got his "prey" role and have to get the beating. Can't even reship and go punch them in the face because they flee like rabbits nor they attack this character (who got decent PvP skills) but alts in other corps. I hope crimewatch will make me able to defend my alts and my friends.
Who cares about other PVP games?
In EVE, you get to choose what mechanics you want to fight under. Miners in HS choose to operate under mechanics that don't allow them to strike first or to effectively strike back. They choose that. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1715
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 12:27:00 -
[1268] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:And you knew it was just one guy, not thee Tornadoes because GǪ
I don't understand what you say.
The guy spent 8 hours killing peeps with a mix of catalysts, tornadoes, a mix of Amarr ships but all with 1 gank ship + 1 warp in ship. He switched to 3 just because of hot love for me. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1715
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 12:29:00 -
[1269] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:
If they have to throw away large amounts of Isk to kill you, then guess what. That's not broken.
In any other PvP game (expecially GW2) I can counter it with ease and then jab them in the face. In EvE? No, one got his "prey" role and have to get the beating. Can't even reship and go punch them in the face because they flee like rabbits nor they attack this character (who got decent PvP skills) but alts in other corps. I hope crimewatch will make me able to defend my alts and my friends. Who cares about other PVP games? In EVE, you get to choose what mechanics you want to fight under. Miners in HS choose to operate under mechanics that don't allow them to strike first or to effectively strike back. They choose that.
NP, come crimewatch maybe they'll have more options. More options is good. While I sadly don't have the time to return pew pew-ing in EvE, I am not one to say no to an attacker response. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1473
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 12:30:00 -
[1270] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:I hope crimewatch will make me able to defend my alts and my friends.
you already can, you just need to grow your corp beyond your main and some random alt EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1715
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 12:33:00 -
[1271] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:I hope crimewatch will make me able to defend my alts and my friends. you already can, you just need to grow your corp beyond your main and some random alt
Would love to, my EvE playtime ATM is about as much as to click PI and log off. In the future it can only shrink.
Helps fight the boredom, I can play so little that I can't get bored of EvE Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
JamesCLK
Lone Star Exploration Lone Star Partners
191
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 12:35:00 -
[1272] - Quote
You know... If you hide all the vv posts, this thread would effectively shrink by like 20 pages, and nothing would have been lost. Obsessive Compulsive Posting much?
|
Pipa Porto
526
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 12:36:00 -
[1273] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:
Who cares about other PVP games?
In EVE, you get to choose what mechanics you want to fight under. Miners in HS choose to operate under mechanics that don't allow them to strike first or to effectively strike back. They choose that.
NP, come crimewatch maybe they'll have more options. More options is good. While I sadly don't have the time to return pew pew-ing in EvE, I am not one to say no to an attacker response.
Crimewatch so far is not going to affect suicide ganking at all (except by making loot pickups nearly impossible if there's anyone with a point nearby).
Since your mining fleet should already be in a corp together (you're friends, right?), you already had the option of grabbing the guy looting the Hulk wrecks. Oh, and if you decide you want to profit off the dead gankers, you're gonna get killed because you'll be a FFA target. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1715
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 12:36:00 -
[1274] - Quote
JamesCLK wrote:You know... If you hide all the vv posts, this thread would effectively shrink by like 20 pages, and nothing would have been lost. Obsessive Compulsive Posting much?
They are all in reply to people commenting my other posts. It's rude to not answer. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1715
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 12:38:00 -
[1275] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:
Who cares about other PVP games?
In EVE, you get to choose what mechanics you want to fight under. Miners in HS choose to operate under mechanics that don't allow them to strike first or to effectively strike back. They choose that.
NP, come crimewatch maybe they'll have more options. More options is good. While I sadly don't have the time to return pew pew-ing in EvE, I am not one to say no to an attacker response. Crimewatch so far is not going to affect suicide ganking at all (except by making loot pickups nearly impossible if there's anyone with a point nearby). Since your mining fleet should already be in a corp together (you're friends, right?), you already had the option of grabbing the guy looting the Hulk wrecks. Oh, and if you decide you want to profit off the dead gankers, you're gonna get killed because you'll be a FFA target.
No, it's 3 corps. As for getting killed, it's not going to happen, all those guys around me got gifted exhumers, mods, got defended multiple times against suicide ganks, receive intel and links off me.
Also, ship happens, it means I'll make another ship. It means I'll only be able to plex for the next 9.95 years and not 10. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Lyron-Baktos
Selective Pressure Rote Kapelle
283
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 12:47:00 -
[1276] - Quote
and the tears are still flowing. lol On holiday. -áIn some other world. Where the music of the radio was a labyrinth of sonorous colours. To a bright centre of absolute convicton where the dripping patchouli was more than scent, It was a sun-á |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1473
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 12:48:00 -
[1277] - Quote
Lyron-Baktos wrote:and the tears are still flowing. lol i didn't know rote kapelle members hated PvP EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
nate555
GODHC INTERSTELLAR FLEET Primal Force
53
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 12:54:00 -
[1278] - Quote
Sigh, I don't want to have 2 isk tri again. Unless they can fix the botting then I don't want this change. But if it still comes to 2 isk per unit I guess I'll just build my ships with my 2 guys. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1473
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 12:56:00 -
[1279] - Quote
nate555 wrote:Sigh, I don't want to have 2 isk tri again. Unless they can fix the botting then I don't want this change. But if it still comes to 2 isk per unit I guess I'll just build my ships with my 2 guys.
no you see hulkageddon is irrelevant, despite the dip in hisec mining, the bleating by npc alts about sub numbers dropping, the 15000+ barge/exhumer body count, and something getting CCP's attention to make the wrong change to exhumers EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Mallak Azaria
396
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 13:00:00 -
[1280] - Quote
We'll just have to adapt by lowering suicide ganking & going on more safari's. Mining Barge buff: CCP-áhas acknowledged that miners in general-áare too stupid to make the correct fitting choices to make ganking them unprofitable. |
|
Arec Bardwin
Perkone Caldari State
696
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 13:09:00 -
[1281] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: They are all in reply to people commenting my other posts. It's rude to not answer.
Vaerah Vahrokha, I love you, but sooner or later you have to realize you're a goddamn moron. |
Aramatheia
European Nuthouse
49
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 13:18:00 -
[1282] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote: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. Tell that to the triple-digit billions I've made from ganking haulers and freighters carrying ungodly amounts of crap without a second though given to defense. I can safely say that I've caused many of those people to quit in anger. But go ahead, "adjust the numbers" if you need help with your mortgage payments. The point is, we're not going to stop ganking until you remove aggression in high-sec, which I'm sure you'll do within the next couple of years (it's the only logical conclusion to the gradual progression that's been going on). Until that happens, we'll continue doing what we do, either by using more people, or using different, valid game mechanics. All your actions are reactionary, and are only responses to the need for short-term subscription increases. Face the facts: we know more about this game than a whole lot of people currently in charge of maintaining it, and you guys are really regretting the whole "non-consensual pvp" thing in this here year 2012. If you really want that sub spike, stop beating around the bush with these gradual let-downs, and change the game in one fell swoop. At least that way you'll leave with a bang, and a nice bonus in the bank.
I think the difference is aside from the idiots hauling plexes in an iteron 1 most high value hauls are done in freighters or even jump freighters, those big unsighly things that have like 100k hull hp alone and therefore require more than just a throwaway catalyst to take down. Though you cant tank a freighter. A hulk can be tanked and if someone neglects to use thier mids accordingly then woe on them. Im sure the new mining ships will be easy to blow up if ppl still fail to fit tanks. It just means stepping up the overhead of the solo ganker, or enticing formation of gank squadrons of many ships |
Big Bossu
Enterprise Estonia Northern Coalition.
3
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 13:19:00 -
[1283] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:...
All I see here is 60+ pages of crying, because EVE isn't exactly like you want. Highsec already isn't some area where elite non-consensual pvp happens. I mean, it already isn't profitable to gank ravens, do you see that as a problem?
CCP has been pretty clear: 1. They want to boost miners. 2. Suicide ganking shouldn't be a profession, rather something only reserved for special cases. I see nothing gamebreaking with the coming changes.
Problems with 0.0 aren't located in highsec, just fyi. |
OmniBeton
OmniBeton Metatech
13
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 13:25:00 -
[1284] - Quote
This reminds me of many times when all thoose "hardcore" PVPers were whining like a little bi***es about overpowered Dramiels or Nanovagas (before speed nerf), and players flying those were teling them to adapt ... good times. |
Mallak Azaria
396
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 13:27:00 -
[1285] - Quote
Big Bossu wrote:I mean, it already isn't profitable to gank ravens.
Since when? Mining Barge buff: CCP-áhas acknowledged that miners in general-áare too stupid to make the correct fitting choices to make ganking them unprofitable. |
Kyra Yaken
State War Academy Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 13:34:00 -
[1286] - Quote
Big Bossu wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:... All I see here is 60+ pages of crying, because EVE isn't exactly like you want. Highsec already isn't some area where elite non-consensual pvp happens. I mean, it already isn't profitable to gank ravens, do you see that as a problem?
Its not that serious. Its just one goon and few of his alts that are crying over here. |
Manar Detri
26
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 13:34:00 -
[1287] - Quote
The 40-60 titan fleets wielded by the techboys could've been killed with a sizeable dread armada, you the goons just didn't have the balls to do it or didn't have enough pilots volunteering for it or possibly just didn't have enough dread pilots. Seems you didn't prepare for war enough. Just assuming you can plow through everything with 2 alpha mael fleet + scrubs fleet was shortsighted.
Now that being said, ccp didn't intend titans to kill subcaps with ease at this point in eve onlines life and that is the reason they were nerfed. But this was only brought to ccp's eyes by the huge amount of whine the goonswarm did when they couldn't win the war with the usual alpha mael fleet. Yes you whined only after it affected you, not before.
Now onto the miners problem, ccp has stated that ganking a ship in hisec is not meant to be profitable, that means you shouldn't be gaining more cash from suiciding and then salvaging a ship than you lose while doing it. Why is this important to ccp now? Well you guessed it, you dimwits went and took a crap on your own plate, you just had to gank and gank and gank. Now all the miners have had enough and whined, and as such ccp is doing the necessary changes.
After the changes, the ships are still gankable, it just takes more effort, and as has been said tons of times, idiots don't tank their ships. And really these things were being planned on since last summer. The reason the tanks were made better was goonswarms ice interdiction, and the growing love for hulkageddon.
Now i hope you atlast get it, you can whine as much as you whine it won't change the new reincarnations of mining ships.
Ps. now remember kids, titans were actually the counter to blob warfare which the cfc loves so much. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1473
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 13:38:00 -
[1288] - Quote
Big Bossu wrote:All I see here is 60+ pages of crying, because EVE isn't exactly like you want. Highsec already isn't some area where elite non-consensual pvp happens. I mean, it already isn't profitable to gank ravens, do you see that as a problem?
CCP has been pretty clear: 1. They want to boost miners. 2. Suicide ganking shouldn't be a profession, rather something only reserved for special cases. I see nothing gamebreaking with the coming changes.
Problems with 0.0 aren't located in highsec, just fyi.
So you're of the mindset that hisec should be a risk-free, high-reward area?
Kind of like Trammel! EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1473
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 13:39:00 -
[1289] - Quote
Manar Detri wrote:The 40-60 titan fleets wielded by the techboys could've been killed with a sizeable dread armada, you the goons just didn't have the balls to do it or didn't have enough pilots volunteering for it or possibly just didn't have enough dread pilots. Seems you didn't prepare for war enough. Just assuming you can plow through everything with 2 alpha mael fleet + scrubs fleet was shortsighted.
Now that being said, ccp didn't intend titans to kill subcaps with ease at this point in eve onlines life and that is the reason they were nerfed. But this was only brought to ccp's eyes by the huge amount of whine the goonswarm did when they couldn't win the war with the usual alpha mael fleet. Yes you whined only after it affected you, not before.
Now onto the miners problem, ccp has stated that ganking a ship in hisec is not meant to be profitable, that means you shouldn't be gaining more cash from suiciding and then salvaging a ship than you lose while doing it. Why is this important to ccp now? Well you guessed it, you dimwits went and took a crap on your own plate, you just had to gank and gank and gank. Now all the miners have had enough and whined, and as such ccp is doing the necessary changes.
After the changes, the ships are still gankable, it just takes more effort, and as has been said tons of times, idiots don't tank their ships. And really these things were being planned on since last summer. The reason the tanks were made better was goonswarms ice interdiction, and the growing love for hulkageddon.
Now i hope you atlast get it, you can whine as much as you whine it won't change the new reincarnations of mining ships.
Ps. now remember kids, titans were actually the counter to blob warfare which the cfc loves so much.
we tried dreads, we killed one (!) titan
the only thing that ever worked effectively was counterdropping them with more supercaps
sorry that you're so poorly informed about nullsec, it helps to leave the veldspar belt once in a blue moon EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Mallak Azaria
396
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 13:39:00 -
[1290] - Quote
Manar Detri wrote:The 40-60 titan fleets wielded by the techboys could've been killed with a sizeable dread armada, you the goons just didn't have the balls to do it or didn't have enough pilots volunteering for it or possibly just didn't have enough dread pilots. Seems you didn't prepare for war enough. Just assuming you can plow through everything with 2 alpha mael fleet + scrubs fleet was shortsighted.
Now that being said, ccp didn't intend titans to kill subcaps with ease at this point in eve onlines life and that is the reason they were nerfed. But this was only brought to ccp's eyes by the huge amount of whine the goonswarm did when they couldn't win the war with the usual alpha mael fleet. Yes you whined only after it affected you, not before.
Now onto the miners problem, ccp has stated that ganking a ship in hisec is not meant to be profitable, that means you shouldn't be gaining more cash from suiciding and then salvaging a ship than you lose while doing it. Why is this important to ccp now? Well you guessed it, you dimwits went and took a crap on your own plate, you just had to gank and gank and gank. Now all the miners have had enough and whined, and as such ccp is doing the necessary changes.
After the changes, the ships are still gankable, it just takes more effort, and as has been said tons of times, idiots don't tank their ships. And really these things were being planned on since last summer. The reason the tanks were made better was goonswarms ice interdiction, and the growing love for hulkageddon.
Now i hope you atlast get it, you can whine as much as you whine it won't change the new reincarnations of mining ships.
Ps. now remember kids, titans were actually the counter to blob warfare which the cfc loves so much.
I've underlined the one thing that you actually got right. The rest of it sounds like stuff you've heard through several other people who had no idea what they were talking about & therefore isn't worth arguing about.
Mining Barge buff: CCP-áhas acknowledged that miners in general-áare too stupid to make the correct fitting choices to make ganking them unprofitable. |
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1473
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 13:43:00 -
[1291] - Quote
please keep talking about 15,000,000 EHP ewar-immune tracking-fit turret titans and comparing them to 3,000 EHP gank destroyers that die to anything that sneezes at them, while pretending to have a clue
"drop dreads on them, it's not as if the titans will simply take half of that DPS off the field before any of them get locked by the dreads. i FC my npc corp's gigantic supercapital fleet, you see" EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
123
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 13:45:00 -
[1292] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:So you're of the mindset that hisec should be a risk-free, high-reward area?
Kind of like Trammel!
I've heard you can print more isk ratting in nullsec than mining scordite in hisec. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1473
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 13:46:00 -
[1293] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:So you're of the mindset that hisec should be a risk-free, high-reward area?
Kind of like Trammel! I've heard you can print more isk ratting in nullsec than mining scordite in hisec.
you can print more isk running the newly buffed OTAs in hisec in a kitchen sink fleet than blitzing anoms in nullsec with a faction battleship EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
123
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 13:50:00 -
[1294] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:you can print more isk running the newly buffed OTAs in hisec in a kitchen sink fleet than blitzing anoms in nullsec with a faction battleship
You can try those OTAs with poorly tanked fleet. I bet your ships don't last long enough to complete site. |
Manar Detri
26
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 14:12:00 -
[1295] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:
we tried dreads, we killed one (!) titan
the only thing that ever worked effectively was counterdropping them with more supercaps
sorry that you're so poorly informed about nullsec, it helps to leave the veldspar belt once in a blue moon
You brought some 80 dreads, they had some 40 titans (thats some 2,8 trillion) + 20 or more supercarriers. You didn't bring the required 500 dreads (only 1,5trillion about), why are you whining ? Ofcourse you lose if you don't bring enough firepower, do the maths, tidi was already here.
And still, you whined like mad bros, and now you cry like mad bros cause you no longer can gank mining ships at profit. There will still be idiots that won't place a single tanking module on their mining vessels, you can always have a go at them.
Stop being a little kid, quit eve or stop whining.
|
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
255
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 14:22:00 -
[1296] - Quote
Manar Detri wrote: You brought some 80 dreads, they had some 40 titans (thats some 2,8 trillion) + 20 or more supercarriers. You didn't bring the required 500 dreads (only 1,5trillion about), why are you whining ? Ofcourse you lose if you don't bring enough firepower, do the maths, tidi was already here.
dear worthless npc alt
cynoing in 500 dreads would cause bumps of absolutely massive proportions. The vast majority of your dps would be rendered useless as they skated away, unable to track and winding up out of range. meanwhile, your dps is getting ground down rapidly as you try to get your ships to a stop so they can fire
also the node is dialated to hell and back at this point, so the supercap fleet can call in anti-dictor reinforcements easily, pop dictors, and cyno anything in danger out
so end of the day you lose scads of dreadnaughts that cannot be rapidly replaced (because nobody really uses the things now so you can't just buy them off the market), for very little gain |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
255
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 14:23:00 -
[1297] - Quote
you see it turns out that in your career in empire you didn't learn how to use caps |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1228
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 14:26:00 -
[1298] - Quote
Love 2 Phoenix.
(Not really) Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Pipa Porto
532
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 14:29:00 -
[1299] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:you can print more isk running the newly buffed OTAs in hisec in a kitchen sink fleet than blitzing anoms in nullsec with a faction battleship You can try those OTAs with poorly tanked fleet. I bet your ships don't last long enough to complete site.
Kitchen Sink fleet != Being absolutely terrible at EVE. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Manar Detri
28
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 14:30:00 -
[1300] - Quote
EvilweaselSA wrote:Manar Detri wrote: You brought some 80 dreads, they had some 40 titans (thats some 2,8 trillion) + 20 or more supercarriers. You didn't bring the required 500 dreads (only 1,5trillion about), why are you whining ? Ofcourse you lose if you don't bring enough firepower, do the maths, tidi was already here.
dear worthless npc alt cynoing in 500 dreads would cause bumps of absolutely massive proportions. The vast majority of your dps would be rendered useless as they skated away, unable to track and winding up out of range. meanwhile, your dps is getting ground down rapidly as you try to get your ships to a stop so they can fire also the node is dialated to hell and back at this point, so the supercap fleet can call in anti-dictor reinforcements easily, pop dictors, and cyno anything in danger out so end of the day you lose scads of dreadnaughts that cannot be rapidly replaced (because nobody really uses the things now so you can't just buy them off the market), for very little gain
And yet it could be done with multiple cynos, being lazy and opening just one is your own problem. Just because you didn't prepare for the war with cap industry doesn't mean you could've. Starting a war and puttting your faith in the amount of whine you can make to nerf titans is the goon way ofcourse and thats how you played it. Also, everyone knows goons had some titans they could've used, plenty of them.
However, titans were nerfed and now mining vessels will be buffed, both of these decisions coincide with ccp's current design philosophy. You can't have risk free mining vessel popping anymore, now you actually have to take the risk of losing for nothing or losing and gaining what ever you want to gain by popping a mining vessel in hisec. If the thing gained no longer is worth it, well thats your problem isn't it? |
|
Werst Dendenahzees
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
94
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 14:31:00 -
[1301] - Quote
Manar Detri wrote:EvilweaselSA wrote:Manar Detri wrote: You brought some 80 dreads, they had some 40 titans (thats some 2,8 trillion) + 20 or more supercarriers. You didn't bring the required 500 dreads (only 1,5trillion about), why are you whining ? Ofcourse you lose if you don't bring enough firepower, do the maths, tidi was already here.
dear worthless npc alt cynoing in 500 dreads would cause bumps of absolutely massive proportions. The vast majority of your dps would be rendered useless as they skated away, unable to track and winding up out of range. meanwhile, your dps is getting ground down rapidly as you try to get your ships to a stop so they can fire also the node is dialated to hell and back at this point, so the supercap fleet can call in anti-dictor reinforcements easily, pop dictors, and cyno anything in danger out so end of the day you lose scads of dreadnaughts that cannot be rapidly replaced (because nobody really uses the things now so you can't just buy them off the market), for very little gain And yet it could be done with multiple cynos, being lazy and opening just one is your own problem. Just because you didn't prepare for the war with cap industry doesn't mean you could've. Starting a war and puttting your faith in the amount of whine you can make to nerf titans is the goon way ofcourse and thats how you played it. Also, everyone knows goons had some titans they could've used, plenty of them. However, titans were nerfed and now mining vessels will be buffed, both of these decisions coincide with ccp's current design philosophy. You can't have risk free mining vessel popping anymore, now you actually have to take the risk of losing for nothing or losing and gaining what ever you want to gain by popping a mining vessel in hisec. If the thing gained no longer is worth it, well thats your problem isn't it?
Now you're just giving us the dumb.
|
Mallak Azaria
397
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 14:32:00 -
[1302] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Love 2 Phoenix.
(Not really)
What are you talking about? Those ships are awesome If target is literally 0km away! Mining Barge buff: CCP-áhas acknowledged that miners in general-áare too stupid to make the correct fitting choices to make ganking them unprofitable. |
Werst Dendenahzees
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
94
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 14:33:00 -
[1303] - Quote
Ganking always has consequences. Even if it's not successful, you get a security status hit and lose a ship (without insurance). Grinding sec is a terrible, terrible thing. |
Mallak Azaria
398
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 14:37:00 -
[1304] - Quote
Werst Dendenahzees wrote:Ganking always has consequences. Even if it's not successful, you get a security status hit and lose a ship (without insurance). Grinding sec is a terrible, terrible thing.
It is. I can handle about 2 hours of sec grinding in a month. I'd rather mine than sec grind to be honest. Mining Barge buff: CCP-áhas acknowledged that miners in general-áare too stupid to make the correct fitting choices to make ganking them unprofitable. |
Jed Bobby
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
16
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 14:37:00 -
[1305] - Quote
this thread is still lulz |
Pipa Porto
533
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 14:41:00 -
[1306] - Quote
Jed Bobby wrote:this thread is still lulz
Scintillating analysis as always, Mr. Bobby. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
241
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 14:43:00 -
[1307] - Quote
This is fun.
CCP dev's gave griefers a huge gift of buffed Catalysts and the new T3 BC's. We were then told by the griefers "adapt or die". So the more determined and resourceful of the miner species adapted, the balance stopped mining.
16 months later CCP gives high sec miners a counter to the Catalyst and Tornado.
I am sure that the truly intelligent and resourceful of the various griefer species will adapt. For the balance of the various griefer species, well, in Eve and as in nature, evolution will do what it does best.
|
Mallak Azaria
399
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 14:46:00 -
[1308] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:This is fun.
CCP dev's gave griefers a huge gift of buffed Catalysts and the new T3 BC's. We were then told by the griefers "adapt or die". So the more determined and resourceful of the miner species adapted, the balance stopped mining.
16 months later CCP gives high sec miners a counter to the Catalyst and Tornado.
I am sure that the truly intelligent and resourceful of the various griefer species will adapt. For the balance of the various griefer species, well, in Eve and as in nature, evolution will do what it does best.
You mean to say not being afk, fitting a tank & paying attention was never a counter? Mining Barge buff: CCP-áhas acknowledged that miners in general-áare too stupid to make the correct fitting choices to make ganking them unprofitable. |
Charles Baker
Federal Mineral Acquisition VORTEX RISING
110
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 14:47:00 -
[1309] - Quote
Guys i think we need to stop the tears or we'll cause a Tsunami. |
Rain King
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
21
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 14:50:00 -
[1310] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Marconus Orion wrote:Oh he mad. But is he wrong? Nope. Fitted properly, a Hulk cannot be profitably ganked.
Yeah, he mad and wrong. Game got harder, and predictably, those wanting easy kills and grief now have to actually put more effort into their game.
The coin has flipped. |
|
Pipa Porto
533
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 14:50:00 -
[1311] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:This is fun.
CCP dev's gave griefers a huge gift of buffed Catalysts and the new T3 BC's. We were then told by the griefers "adapt or die". So the more determined and resourceful of the miner species adapted, the balance stopped mining.
16 months later CCP gives high sec miners a counter to the Catalyst and Tornado.
I am sure that the truly intelligent and resourceful of the various griefer species will adapt. For the balance of the various griefer species, well, in Eve and as in nature, evolution will do what it does best.
Gift. Yes, removing Insurance payouts for ganks was a gift. Absolutely.
Crucible increased the cost to gank anything. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1228
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 14:56:00 -
[1312] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:You mean to say not being afk, fitting a tank & paying attention was never a counter? It was costing them. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Pipa Porto
533
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 14:57:00 -
[1313] - Quote
Rain King wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Marconus Orion wrote:Oh he mad. But is he wrong? Nope. Fitted properly, a Hulk cannot be profitably ganked. Yeah, he mad and wrong. Game got harder, and predictably, those wanting easy kills and grief now have to actually put more effort into their game. The coin has flipped.
No extra effort, just extra money.
The problem is that without the changes, the only reason Hulks were profitable to gank was the bad choices of the miners. CCP is rewarding the stupid choices of miners.
They're giving the Hulk a buff that it does not need. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1474
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 14:57:00 -
[1314] - Quote
Manar Detri wrote:You brought some 80 dreads, they had some 40 titans (thats some 2,8 trillion) + 20 or more supercarriers. You didn't bring the required 500 dreads (only 1,5trillion about), why are you whining ? Ofcourse you lose if you don't bring enough firepower, do the maths, tidi was already here.
And still, you whined like mad bros, and now you cry like mad bros cause you no longer can gank mining ships at profit. There will still be idiots that won't place a single tanking module on their mining vessels, you can always have a go at them.
Stop being a little kid, quit eve or stop whining.
i'm sorry that you're absolutely clueless about capital warfare EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Pipa Porto
533
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 15:00:00 -
[1315] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Manar Detri wrote:You brought some 80 dreads, they had some 40 titans (thats some 2,8 trillion) + 20 or more supercarriers. You didn't bring the required 500 dreads (only 1,5trillion about), why are you whining ? Ofcourse you lose if you don't bring enough firepower, do the maths, tidi was already here.
And still, you whined like mad bros, and now you cry like mad bros cause you no longer can gank mining ships at profit. There will still be idiots that won't place a single tanking module on their mining vessels, you can always have a go at them.
Stop being a little kid, quit eve or stop whining.
i'm sorry that you're absolutely clueless about capital warfare
Bring Cruise Phoenixes and your entire fleet bumping away at great speed doesn't matter amirite? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Jed Bobby
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
16
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 15:00:00 -
[1316] - Quote
i no mor bout pixelz den yew! i r bester den yew yew mak mi laff yew newb bcuz i am smert |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
243
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 15:01:00 -
[1317] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:This is fun.
CCP dev's gave griefers a huge gift of buffed Catalysts and the new T3 BC's. We were then told by the griefers "adapt or die". So the more determined and resourceful of the miner species adapted, the balance stopped mining.
16 months later CCP gives high sec miners a counter to the Catalyst and Tornado.
I am sure that the truly intelligent and resourceful of the various griefer species will adapt. For the balance of the various griefer species, well, in Eve and as in nature, evolution will do what it does best.
Gift. Yes, removing Insurance payouts for ganks was a gift. Absolutely. Crucible increased the cost to gank anything.
Tell you what.....why don't you petition CCP to bring back insurance payouts when they introduce these improved buffered mining boats. Or better, roll back the game removing the Catalsyt buff and the introduction of the Tornado, and in exchange, CCP does not change mining boats. Got news for you, the vast majority of miners would take that deal in a second.
Eve introduced changes 16 months ago and the high sec community was forced to adapt to the huge increase in griefing. Now it is the griefers' turn to adapt. |
Mallak Azaria
399
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 15:06:00 -
[1318] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:huge increase in griefing. Now it is the griefers' turn to adapt.
Griefers get banned in EVE, because it's bannable. Your definition of griefing that you brought with you from some other game is not actually griefing in this game. Mining Barge buff: CCP-áhas acknowledged that miners in general-áare too stupid to make the correct fitting choices to make ganking them unprofitable. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1474
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 15:07:00 -
[1319] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Tell you what.....why don't you petition CCP to bring back insurance payouts when they introduce these improved buffered mining boats. Or better, roll back the game removing the Catalsyt buff and the introduction of the Tornado, and in exchange, CCP does not change mining boats. Got news for you, the vast majority of miners would take that deal in a second.
Eve introduced changes 16 months ago and the high sec community was forced to adapt to the huge increase in griefing. Now it is the griefers' turn to adapt.
the difference between suicide ganking before the insurance nerf and after is that the ~griefers~ started using catalysts instead of brutixes
as long as miners are mercilessly hunted, barges are "unbalanced" EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Pipa Porto
533
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 15:12:00 -
[1320] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:
Gift. Yes, removing Insurance payouts for ganks was a gift. Absolutely.
Crucible increased the cost to gank anything.
Tell you what.....why don't you petition CCP to bring back insurance payouts when they introduce these improved buffered mining boats. Or better, roll back the game removing the Catalsyt buff and the introduction of the Tornado, and in exchange, CCP does not change mining boats. Got news for you, the vast majority of miners would take that deal in a second. Eve introduced changes 16 months ago and the high sec community was forced to adapt to the huge increase in griefing. Now it is the griefers' turn to adapt.
Crucible was an overall nerf to Ganking. Why should miners get 2 buffs for the price of one ganker buff? Besides that, the Destroyer buff was absolutely necessary, Destroyers are actually useful now.
Ganking Hulks was CHEAPER before Crucible. Goonswarm just popularized it, and instead of adapting by tanking or, you know, paying attention to the game they are playing, miners cried until CCP changed their diaper.
The first Ice interdiction happened before Crucible, btw. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
|
Togg Bott
One Clone Gang
29
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 15:14:00 -
[1321] - Quote
As a part time miner... i am sadened by the massive numbers of mining ship fail fit kills. it is now very easy to survive being ganked not by fitting a mining ship to be ungankable... you just have to fit a little better than the other guy. Gankers... and i have done this in the past myself (not miner ships but afk auto pilot to jita with mass loot in them). will go for the guy that offers them the most bling for their cost. always has been. but even with the upcoming changes... we will still see people fit T2 exhumers for max yield instead of tanking them. ganking will still be profitable (maybe not quite as profitable) because CCP cant change the bot/afk miners thought process.
this is in my opinion not going to kill the gankers off... instead its gonna give them many many new targets. balance will still be there. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1475
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 15:17:00 -
[1322] - Quote
Togg Bott wrote: As a part time miner... i am sadened by the massive numbers of mining ship fail fit kills. it is now very easy to survive being ganked not by fitting a mining ship to be ungankable... you just have to fit a little better than the other guy. Gankers... and i have done this in the past myself (not miner ships but afk auto pilot to jita with mass loot in them). will go for the guy that offers them the most bling for their cost. always has been. but even with the upcoming changes... we will still see people fit T2 exhumers for max yield instead of tanking them. ganking will still be profitable (maybe not quite as profitable) because CCP cant change the bot/afk miners thought process.
this is in my opinion not going to kill the gankers off... instead its gonna give them many many new targets. balance will still be there.
this guy gets it EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Mallak Azaria
399
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 15:22:00 -
[1323] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Togg Bott wrote: As a part time miner... i am sadened by the massive numbers of mining ship fail fit kills. it is now very easy to survive being ganked not by fitting a mining ship to be ungankable... you just have to fit a little better than the other guy. Gankers... and i have done this in the past myself (not miner ships but afk auto pilot to jita with mass loot in them). will go for the guy that offers them the most bling for their cost. always has been. but even with the upcoming changes... we will still see people fit T2 exhumers for max yield instead of tanking them. ganking will still be profitable (maybe not quite as profitable) because CCP cant change the bot/afk miners thought process.
this is in my opinion not going to kill the gankers off... instead its gonna give them many many new targets. balance will still be there. this guy gets it
He will unfortunately suffer the most in the end though. He has put in effort to survive & will be one of the few that don't deserve the inevitable hit to their wallets when veld goes back to 1 isk PU. Mining Barge buff: CCP-áhas acknowledged that miners in general-áare too stupid to make the correct fitting choices to make ganking them unprofitable. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
280
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 15:26:00 -
[1324] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Togg Bott wrote: As a part time miner... i am sadened by the massive numbers of mining ship fail fit kills. it is now very easy to survive being ganked not by fitting a mining ship to be ungankable... you just have to fit a little better than the other guy. Gankers... and i have done this in the past myself (not miner ships but afk auto pilot to jita with mass loot in them). will go for the guy that offers them the most bling for their cost. always has been. but even with the upcoming changes... we will still see people fit T2 exhumers for max yield instead of tanking them. ganking will still be profitable (maybe not quite as profitable) because CCP cant change the bot/afk miners thought process.
this is in my opinion not going to kill the gankers off... instead its gonna give them many many new targets. balance will still be there. this guy gets it He will unfortunately suffer the most in the end though. He has put in effort to survive & will be one of the few that don't deserve the inevitable hit to their wallets when veld goes back to 1 isk PU.
who cares if trit is 1isk/unit? that means ships will be pocket change, you'll mine for the same amount of time to buy the same amount of stuff. in real terms nothing has changed. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Pipa Porto
533
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 15:30:00 -
[1325] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:who cares if trit is 1isk/unit? that means ships will be pocket change, you'll mine for the same amount of time to buy the same amount of stuff. in real terms nothing has changed.
Only if you never buy T2, Meta, or Faction gear. Or anything requiring PI. Or anything manufactured (amortized Blueprint cost). EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Mallak Azaria
399
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 15:30:00 -
[1326] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Togg Bott wrote: As a part time miner... i am sadened by the massive numbers of mining ship fail fit kills. it is now very easy to survive being ganked not by fitting a mining ship to be ungankable... you just have to fit a little better than the other guy. Gankers... and i have done this in the past myself (not miner ships but afk auto pilot to jita with mass loot in them). will go for the guy that offers them the most bling for their cost. always has been. but even with the upcoming changes... we will still see people fit T2 exhumers for max yield instead of tanking them. ganking will still be profitable (maybe not quite as profitable) because CCP cant change the bot/afk miners thought process.
this is in my opinion not going to kill the gankers off... instead its gonna give them many many new targets. balance will still be there. this guy gets it He will unfortunately suffer the most in the end though. He has put in effort to survive & will be one of the few that don't deserve the inevitable hit to their wallets when veld goes back to 1 isk PU. who cares if trit is 1isk/unit? that means ships will be pocket change, you'll mine for the same amount of time to buy the same amount of stuff. in real terms nothing has changed.
Except exhumers still use mostly moon goo for production & won't be overly affected by the cost of trit. In fact anything that is T2, faction/DS/Officer... Mining Barge buff: CCP-áhas acknowledged that miners in general-áare too stupid to make the correct fitting choices to make ganking them unprofitable. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
281
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 15:39:00 -
[1327] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Dave stark wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Togg Bott wrote: As a part time miner... i am sadened by the massive numbers of mining ship fail fit kills. it is now very easy to survive being ganked not by fitting a mining ship to be ungankable... you just have to fit a little better than the other guy. Gankers... and i have done this in the past myself (not miner ships but afk auto pilot to jita with mass loot in them). will go for the guy that offers them the most bling for their cost. always has been. but even with the upcoming changes... we will still see people fit T2 exhumers for max yield instead of tanking them. ganking will still be profitable (maybe not quite as profitable) because CCP cant change the bot/afk miners thought process.
this is in my opinion not going to kill the gankers off... instead its gonna give them many many new targets. balance will still be there. this guy gets it He will unfortunately suffer the most in the end though. He has put in effort to survive & will be one of the few that don't deserve the inevitable hit to their wallets when veld goes back to 1 isk PU. who cares if trit is 1isk/unit? that means ships will be pocket change, you'll mine for the same amount of time to buy the same amount of stuff. in real terms nothing has changed. Except exhumers still use mostly moon goo for production & won't be overly affected by the cost of trit. In fact anything that is T2, faction/DS/Officer...
tech is being nerfed too so prices will still come down. i have no idea how long the tech cartel has around, but a year ago trit was half of what it is now, so were hulk prices, they've both gone up at similar rates.
don't forget if people don't have isk to spend, demand goes down, as do prices. people can't spend what they don't have. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Mallak Azaria
399
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 15:50:00 -
[1328] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:tech is being nerfed too so prices will still come down. i have no idea how long the tech cartel has around, but a year ago trit was half of what it is now, so were hulk prices, they've both gone up at similar rates.
don't forget if people don't have isk to spend, demand goes down, as do prices. people can't spend what they don't have.
A year ago, Hulks were worth 195m. 195 is not half of 300. I was also buying trit at 1.59isk PU on average a year ago. If you really believe that miners not having much isk will make the price of everything go down, then I don't know what to say. Tech isn't the only valuable moon material that is mined.
Mining Barge buff: CCP-áhas acknowledged that miners in general-áare too stupid to make the correct fitting choices to make ganking them unprofitable. |
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
149
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 15:51:00 -
[1329] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:but a year ago trit was half of what it is now, so were hulk prices, they've both gone up at similar rates.
I really hope you aren't suggesting that mineral prices have any real impact on T2 production. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
281
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 15:54:00 -
[1330] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Dave stark wrote:tech is being nerfed too so prices will still come down. i have no idea how long the tech cartel has around, but a year ago trit was half of what it is now, so were hulk prices, they've both gone up at similar rates.
don't forget if people don't have isk to spend, demand goes down, as do prices. people can't spend what they don't have. A year ago, Hulks were worth 195m. 195 is not half of 300. I was also buying trit at 1.59isk PU on average a year ago. If you really believe that miners not having much isk will make the price of everything go down, then I don't know what to say. Tech isn't the only valuable moon material that is mined.
i paid 130 for my first and only hulk, that same hulk is now worth some where between 250 and 300m. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
|
True Sight
Deep Freeze Industries
50
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 15:54:00 -
[1331] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:But the risk-free parking your exhumer in a belt and sucking up all the rocks or ice you can will be there. This is a situation that I do not like, and I dislike it more than I dislike the ability for a 12M ISK blaster catalyst to blow up at 300M ISK hulk before CONCORD can intervene. At least the miner has the option of fitting a tank. When it comes to mining in perfect safety, the options are "mine heaps" or "mine even more heaps" there is no control of this system except the individual's perceived value of time.
Someone running a Bot will continue to do so while the value of running that Bot is greater than zero. Thus humans competing with Bots will end up in the situation of mining for marginally more than 0ISK/hr. The humans will be better off running stealth bomber alts in Minmatar militia.
So while you are celebrating cheaper ships, just be aware that you are supporting bots.
You make a few valid points, but I think you're missing part of the flip-side too, as its not as if the gankers are there are exclusively ganking the bots, they are quite happy to take out normal players too since their local-tears are far more tasty than the silent bot that sits patiently waiting to be podded afterwards.
Remember that with these changes, the Mackinaw doesn't become a god-immune ship, it just means its going to cost more than a 3M ISK Blaster Catalyst to blow it up, maybe a Blaster Thorax? or Talos?, I think thats fair. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
281
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 15:55:00 -
[1332] - Quote
Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:Dave stark wrote:but a year ago trit was half of what it is now, so were hulk prices, they've both gone up at similar rates. I really hope you aren't suggesting that mineral prices have any real impact on T2 production.
no. i'm merely justifying that the amount of time i had to mine trit at 3.4isk/unit to buy a ship then, is the same amount of time i have to mine trit at nearly 7 isk/unit to buy the same ship now. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
281
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 15:57:00 -
[1333] - Quote
also hulk resists have been lowered, looks like ganker's tears work as well as miner's tears. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Tomcio FromFarAway
Singularity's Edge
149
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 15:58:00 -
[1334] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:Dave stark wrote:but a year ago trit was half of what it is now, so were hulk prices, they've both gone up at similar rates. I really hope you aren't suggesting that mineral prices have any real impact on T2 production. no. i'm merely justifying that the amount of time i had to mine trit at 3.4isk/unit to buy a ship then, is the same amount of time i have to mine trit at nearly 7 isk/unit to buy the same ship now.
So you are suggesting that Hulk price will drop to ~130 as a result of trit dropping back to 3isk? |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
446
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 16:01:00 -
[1335] - Quote
True Sight wrote:
Remember that with these changes, the Mackinaw doesn't become a god-immune ship, it just means its going to cost more than a 3M ISK Blaster Catalyst to blow it up, maybe a Blaster Thorax? or Talos?, I think thats fair.
If you claim that all it will take to bust one of the 'new' Mackinaws is a 'Thorax or a Talos', you are either lying or deluded.
|
Alexzandvar Douglass
NUTS AND BOLTS MANUFACTURING En Garde
61
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 16:01:00 -
[1336] - Quote
Oh yes I should spend hundreds of millions on 1 ship just so 1 guy in a 3 million isk ship can gank me in several hits.
CCP is just making it so the cost equates with the ships usefulness, not to mention the Mackinaw needed love anyways. Ice miners rejoice! |
Werst Dendenahzees
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
96
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 16:05:00 -
[1337] - Quote
Alexzandvar Douglass wrote:Oh yes I should spend hundreds of millions on 1 ship just so 1 guy in a 3 million isk ship can gank me in several hits.
CCP is just making it so the cost equates with the ships usefulness, not to mention the Mackinaw needed love anyways. Ice miners rejoice!
A 1 billion isk Vindicator can't gank the new barges either. |
Death2all Supercaps
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
56
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 16:05:00 -
[1338] - Quote
OH MY GOD TITAN PRICES ARE GOING DOWN!
MORE TITANS FOR ME TO SHOOT!
:fap: :fap: :fap:
Bring it on. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1719
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 16:06:00 -
[1339] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Togg Bott wrote: As a part time miner... i am sadened by the massive numbers of mining ship fail fit kills. it is now very easy to survive being ganked not by fitting a mining ship to be ungankable... you just have to fit a little better than the other guy. Gankers... and i have done this in the past myself (not miner ships but afk auto pilot to jita with mass loot in them). will go for the guy that offers them the most bling for their cost. always has been. but even with the upcoming changes... we will still see people fit T2 exhumers for max yield instead of tanking them. ganking will still be profitable (maybe not quite as profitable) because CCP cant change the bot/afk miners thought process.
this is in my opinion not going to kill the gankers off... instead its gonna give them many many new targets. balance will still be there. this guy gets it He will unfortunately suffer the most in the end though. He has put in effort to survive & will be one of the few that don't deserve the inevitable hit to their wallets when veld goes back to 1 isk PU.
Official bet: I will give you 1 billion if within 6 months from the patch trit goes to 1 ISK pu (Jita IV price).
If it does not, you will give me 1 billion instead.
Chribba or Grendell will be used to hold my and your billion in the mean time.
Deal? Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
447
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 16:07:00 -
[1340] - Quote
Alexzandvar Douglass wrote:Oh yes I should spend hundreds of millions on 1 ship just so 1 guy in a 3 million isk ship can gank me in several hits.
CCP is just making it so the cost equates with the ships usefulness, not to mention the Mackinaw needed love anyways. Ice miners rejoice!
Its a shame that after investing 'hundreds of millions' on a new ship, you didn't spend a few more on
A) MSE II B) Thermal/Kinetic Hardeners/ShieldAmps C) DC II D) 5x ECM drones.
Any combination of the above list gives you the ability to survive '1 guy in a 3 million ISK ship', if not more. 68 pages, and there are still people posting that still can't grasp this simple concept. |
|
Pipa Porto
533
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 16:07:00 -
[1341] - Quote
True Sight wrote: You make a few valid points, but I think you're missing part of the flip-side too, as its not as if the gankers are there are exclusively ganking the bots, they are quite happy to take out normal players too since their local-tears are far more tasty than the silent bot that sits patiently waiting to be podded afterwards.
Remember that with these changes, the Mackinaw doesn't become a god-immune ship, it just means its going to cost more than a 3M ISK Blaster Catalyst to blow it up, maybe a Blaster Thorax? or Talos?, I think thats fair.
An Cargo Hulk (weaker tank than unfit) requires a T2 Fit Catalyst to Solo, costing 15m ISK.
The new Mack is going to have a 60k EHP tank. That will take 5 T2 fit Catalysts at a cost of 75m ISK. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
281
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 16:09:00 -
[1342] - Quote
Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:Dave stark wrote:Tomcio FromFarAway wrote:Dave stark wrote:but a year ago trit was half of what it is now, so were hulk prices, they've both gone up at similar rates. I really hope you aren't suggesting that mineral prices have any real impact on T2 production. no. i'm merely justifying that the amount of time i had to mine trit at 3.4isk/unit to buy a ship then, is the same amount of time i have to mine trit at nearly 7 isk/unit to buy the same ship now. So you are suggesting that Hulk price will drop to ~130 as a result of trit dropping back to 3isk?
no. it's unclear if the components list for a hulk will change, it also depends on the price of other minerals, the demand for hulks etc. however generally the time it takes to buy some thing as a miner now shouldn't be too far from what it will cost in the future if what has happened in the past continues.
i won't pretend i understand economy and pricing and stuff. i'm just saying what has happened, and what should happen if that continues. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Sarik Olecar
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
7
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 16:09:00 -
[1343] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:who cares if trit is 1isk/unit? that means ships will be pocket change, you'll mine for the same amount of time to buy the same amount of stuff. in real terms nothing has changed.
Just a friendly reminder to all my mining friends that ganking and hulkageddon has almost no impact on the prices of minerals. That amounts mined everyday would require 10's of thousands of hulks to be ganked everyday, and even that is assuming the miner doesn't immediately reship and get back at it.
The recent increase in minerals is infact to due changes with old loot mechanics, that allowed the vast majority of minerals to come from mission runners and gun miners. Now that this has been rectified, the decreased supply has caused prices to jump, and prices are likely to remain very high for the near future.
I know Helicity and the goonies like to pretend that they're responsible for these changes, but this 'crusade' against 'bots' really has no effect other then making funny whine threads on the forums. A bot will not unsub because he was ganked. A player might but that's still unlikely. He will just reship into a genuine OTEC Hulk and get right back atter'.
Miners aren't some rodent that needs to be 'culled' to keep prices in check. This is just part of the hate propaganda designed to make ganking seem more appealing to your average miner. But don't be fooled, they're not ganking for your benefit, but for they're own.
These buffs are a necessary reaction to the 'emergent gameplay' everyone speaks so highly about. A miner is the only ship that has to give up every free slot if it wants to tank 'effectively' and even then alot of gankers will see a tank as challenge rather than a deterrent. The changes allows for more flexibility in fitting, gives a purpose to the other 5 mining ships, and I can almost guarantee is the first step towards an entire overhaul of industry/harvesting.
There will still be dumb miners, and now you can confidently tell them to HTFU or GTFO with a straight face - instead of the garbage that's spewed now (Why didn't you use every slot to tank and have and Orca with links and RR and have a webbing alt so you could stay aligned???) |
Werst Dendenahzees
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
96
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 16:10:00 -
[1344] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Togg Bott wrote: As a part time miner... i am sadened by the massive numbers of mining ship fail fit kills. it is now very easy to survive being ganked not by fitting a mining ship to be ungankable... you just have to fit a little better than the other guy. Gankers... and i have done this in the past myself (not miner ships but afk auto pilot to jita with mass loot in them). will go for the guy that offers them the most bling for their cost. always has been. but even with the upcoming changes... we will still see people fit T2 exhumers for max yield instead of tanking them. ganking will still be profitable (maybe not quite as profitable) because CCP cant change the bot/afk miners thought process.
this is in my opinion not going to kill the gankers off... instead its gonna give them many many new targets. balance will still be there. this guy gets it He will unfortunately suffer the most in the end though. He has put in effort to survive & will be one of the few that don't deserve the inevitable hit to their wallets when veld goes back to 1 isk PU. Official bet: I will give you 1 billion if within 6 months from the patch trit goes to 1 ISK pu (Jita IV price). If it does not, you will give me 1 billion instead. Chribba or Grendell will be used to hold my and your billion in the mean time. Deal?
I won't reach 1 isk, but certainly 3 isk. Isotopes will likewise reach 300-500 isk. This will nuke the incomes of highsec miners by half. |
Rain King
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
22
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 16:10:00 -
[1345] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Rain King wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Marconus Orion wrote:Oh he mad. But is he wrong? Nope. Fitted properly, a Hulk cannot be profitably ganked. Yeah, he mad and wrong. Game got harder, and predictably, those wanting easy kills and grief now have to actually put more effort into their game. The coin has flipped. No extra effort, just extra money. The problem is that without the changes, the only reason Hulks were profitable to gank was the bad choices of the miners. CCP is rewarding the stupid choices of miners. They're giving the Hulk a buff that it does not need.
Excerpt from the dev blog.
GÇóNew ORE frig: we want this ship to replace current mining frigates as low barrier of entry vessel, but also fulfill high-end gameplay expectations by providing a very mobile platform for mining in hostile space. Lowest mining output, decent ore bay, little to no resilience.
GÇóProcurer/Skiff: primarily made for self-defense. Better mining rate than the ORE frig, good ore bay, but capable of having battleship-like EHP.
GÇóRetriever/Mackinaw: made for self-reliance. Has the largest ore bay, similear to the size of a jet can, second best mining output but less EHP than the procurer mining barge.
GÇóCovetor/Hulk: ore bay is identical to its current cargo hold, little to average EHP, but best mining output. Basically made for group operations when players have industrials and protection to back them up.
Can you please show me where the Hulk is being buffed? |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
281
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 16:11:00 -
[1346] - Quote
Rain King wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Rain King wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Marconus Orion wrote:Oh he mad. But is he wrong? Nope. Fitted properly, a Hulk cannot be profitably ganked. Yeah, he mad and wrong. Game got harder, and predictably, those wanting easy kills and grief now have to actually put more effort into their game. The coin has flipped. No extra effort, just extra money. The problem is that without the changes, the only reason Hulks were profitable to gank was the bad choices of the miners. CCP is rewarding the stupid choices of miners. They're giving the Hulk a buff that it does not need. Excerpt from the dev blog. GÇóNew ORE frig: we want this ship to replace current mining frigates as low barrier of entry vessel, but also fulfill high-end gameplay expectations by providing a very mobile platform for mining in hostile space. Lowest mining output, decent ore bay, little to no resilience. GÇóProcurer/Skiff: primarily made for self-defense. Better mining rate than the ORE frig, good ore bay, but capable of having battleship-like EHP. GÇóRetriever/Mackinaw: made for self-reliance. Has the largest ore bay, similear to the size of a jet can, second best mining output but less EHP than the procurer mining barge. GÇóCovetor/Hulk: ore bay is identical to its current cargo hold, little to average EHP, but best mining output. Basically made for group operations when players have industrials and protection to back them up. Can you please show me where the Hulk is being buffed?
click the forum list, click the sisi feedback forum, big thread there outlining the buff, and following nerf of the hulk's tank. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Alexzandvar Douglass
NUTS AND BOLTS MANUFACTURING En Garde
62
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 16:12:00 -
[1347] - Quote
Doesn't really matter to me anyway, since I'm a null sec Ice miner. All this means is less docking and more mining. Not to mention quicker ice cycles! |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1719
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 16:13:00 -
[1348] - Quote
Sarik Olecar wrote: There will still be dumb miners, and now you can confidently tell them to HTFU or GTFO with a straight face - instead of the garbage that's spewed now (Why didn't you use every slot to tank and have and Orca with links and RR and have a webbing alt so you could stay aligned???)
You forgot the obvious Tengu off grid booster too. Could not believe my eyes when I have seen it put in EFT to engross displayed EHP. This along with min maxing against kin / therm, while my gank ship sales tell EMP is still used too. Ship pre-scanning happens! Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
281
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 16:14:00 -
[1349] - Quote
Alexzandvar Douglass wrote:Doesn't really matter to me anyway, since I'm a null sec Ice miner. All this means is less docking and more mining. Not to mention quicker ice cycles!
not entirely true since your mack will be mining less ice, even with the new ice rig. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1719
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 16:15:00 -
[1350] - Quote
Werst Dendenahzees wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Togg Bott wrote: As a part time miner... i am sadened by the massive numbers of mining ship fail fit kills. it is now very easy to survive being ganked not by fitting a mining ship to be ungankable... you just have to fit a little better than the other guy. Gankers... and i have done this in the past myself (not miner ships but afk auto pilot to jita with mass loot in them). will go for the guy that offers them the most bling for their cost. always has been. but even with the upcoming changes... we will still see people fit T2 exhumers for max yield instead of tanking them. ganking will still be profitable (maybe not quite as profitable) because CCP cant change the bot/afk miners thought process.
this is in my opinion not going to kill the gankers off... instead its gonna give them many many new targets. balance will still be there. this guy gets it He will unfortunately suffer the most in the end though. He has put in effort to survive & will be one of the few that don't deserve the inevitable hit to their wallets when veld goes back to 1 isk PU. Official bet: I will give you 1 billion if within 6 months from the patch trit goes to 1 ISK pu (Jita IV price). If it does not, you will give me 1 billion instead. Chribba or Grendell will be used to hold my and your billion in the mean time. Deal? I won't reach 1 isk, but certainly 3 isk.
Ah, I thought I read 1 ISK PU in the quoted text. Has to be bad sight of mine.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
|
Garonor
Oblivion Unlimited
2
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 16:16:00 -
[1351] - Quote
Do these upcoming changes mean that suicide ganking will be impossible? I suppose not, since you just need a big enough ship, or just a lot of them. Does it it mean it becomes less profitable (measured in tears, since real profit would be more loot than loss)? Yes it does.
So what should are the possible consequences?
a) Give up suicide ganking miners and look for other targets. b) Rethink your approach and form ganking bands with lots of cheap ships. c) Start a career in highsec-mining, since, according to some people, it's absolutely safe now. d) Go on the forums and complain, then do a), b), or c)
The fact is that gankers do the exact same thing the miners have been doing since the first Hulkageddon: They complain because propably won't be able to do things they way they are used to do them. They need to adapt, the way the miners should have adapted to the ganking. So why not be a good example, swallow the pill and find a new way to pass your time in New Eden? |
Horace Nancyball
The Whiskers of Kurvi-Tasch
8
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 16:35:00 -
[1352] - Quote
dexington wrote:Horace Nancyball wrote:Almost 60 pages on a topic done to death every month for the last seven years... Why are you then surprised it's happening again this month?
Fair comment. |
Werst Dendenahzees
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
96
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 16:48:00 -
[1353] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Werst Dendenahzees wrote:
I won't reach 1 isk, but certainly 3 isk.
Ah, I thought I read 1 ISK PU in the quoted text. Has to be bad sight of mine.
Am I forced to agree with the bad predictions of a random dude on the EVE-o forums? |
Mallak Azaria
399
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 16:58:00 -
[1354] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Togg Bott wrote: As a part time miner... i am sadened by the massive numbers of mining ship fail fit kills. it is now very easy to survive being ganked not by fitting a mining ship to be ungankable... you just have to fit a little better than the other guy. Gankers... and i have done this in the past myself (not miner ships but afk auto pilot to jita with mass loot in them). will go for the guy that offers them the most bling for their cost. always has been. but even with the upcoming changes... we will still see people fit T2 exhumers for max yield instead of tanking them. ganking will still be profitable (maybe not quite as profitable) because CCP cant change the bot/afk miners thought process.
this is in my opinion not going to kill the gankers off... instead its gonna give them many many new targets. balance will still be there. this guy gets it He will unfortunately suffer the most in the end though. He has put in effort to survive & will be one of the few that don't deserve the inevitable hit to their wallets when veld goes back to 1 isk PU. Official bet: I will give you 1 billion if within 6 months from the patch trit goes to 1 ISK pu (Jita IV price). If it does not, you will give me 1 billion instead. Chribba or Grendell will be used to hold my and your billion in the mean time. Deal?
Inevitable =/= 6 months. Nice try. Mining Barge buff: CCP-áhas acknowledged that miners in general-áare too stupid to make the correct fitting choices to make ganking them unprofitable. |
Marconus Orion
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
358
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 17:13:00 -
[1355] - Quote
Just throwing this out there; what if the lower the system sec status the faster the mining laser cycle time? |
Mallak Azaria
399
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 17:16:00 -
[1356] - Quote
Marconus Orion wrote:Just throwing this out there; what if the lower the system sec status the faster the mining laser cycle time?
Highsec miners would still mine in highsec & complain about how nullsec miners can make even more isk per hour than them. Mining Barge buff: CCP-áhas acknowledged that miners in general-áare too stupid to make the correct fitting choices to make ganking them unprofitable. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
448
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 17:16:00 -
[1357] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Sarik Olecar wrote: There will still be dumb miners, and now you can confidently tell them to HTFU or GTFO with a straight face - instead of the garbage that's spewed now (Why didn't you use every slot to tank and have and Orca with links and RR and have a webbing alt so you could stay aligned???)
You forgot the obvious Tengu off grid booster too. Could not believe my eyes when I have seen it put in EFT to engross displayed EHP. This along with min maxing against kin / therm, while my gank ship sales tell EMP is still used too. Ship pre-scanning happens!
How dense are you? If you are really worried about Catalysts, you tank against blasters. All this bleating: "no fair I lose my 300M ISK Hulk to a 1M ISK Catalyst." Catalysts (and Brutixes, and Taloses) ALL SHOOT KIN/THERM, so it makes perfect sense to tank it.
And thats aside from the fact that Thermal is the weakest overall resist on an Exhumer, and is the default damage selection against any Exhumer.
OFC, Tornados can also shoot EMP or Fusion, but now we aren't talking about 3M ISK gank ships anymore.
Why are you dissembling, while trying to point out other people are dissembling?
Besides, you'd have an argument if miners even made an honest attempt at tanking and were getting torched anyway. But we find empty slots. Civilian Shield Boosters? Cap Rechargers? Complete lack of ECM drones. In the VAST majority of cases. And if you can figure out how to tank, great? Why are you complaining - YOU aren't going to be the one exploded - its going to be your neighbor.
Oh wait - I forgot, you always insist on a 'max DPS' Glass-cannon Exhumer fit.
|
Sarik Olecar
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
7
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 17:27:00 -
[1358] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:... All this bleating: "no fair I lose my 300M ISK Hulk to a 1M ISK Catalyst." ...
Funny, all I hear in this thread is "no fair I cant profitably gank a 300M ISK Hulk in a 1M ISK Catalyst."
|
Patrakele
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
67
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 17:28:00 -
[1359] - Quote
Cow says moooo.
What does a chicken say? |
Pipa Porto
535
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 17:29:00 -
[1360] - Quote
Sarik Olecar wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:... All this bleating: "no fair I lose my 300M ISK Hulk to a 1M ISK Catalyst." ...
Funny, all I hear in this thread is "no fair I cant profitably gank a 300M ISK Hulk in a 1M ISK Catalyst."
Good thing you can't do that now. It takes a 15m T2 Catalyst to solo an untanked Hulk. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
|
Dez Affinity
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
134
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 17:32:00 -
[1361] - Quote
Didn't read all of this thread because it's 70 pages but, I suggested a HP buff for hulks over a year ago. You can't argue that it's perfectly fair for 1 or 2 catalysts to gank a 300m isk Hulk who has to sit still in a belt for hours on end.
I don't know much about the other changes but a HP buff was needed.
If you want to kill hulks, use bigger ships. |
Werst Dendenahzees
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
96
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 17:40:00 -
[1362] - Quote
Hulks will be like 100-150m with the tech nerf. |
Werst Dendenahzees
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
96
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 17:40:00 -
[1363] - Quote
And you can't kill a 30k EHP hulk solo in a 0.7 system even with a 1 billion isk vindicator. Isk balancing is dumb balancing. |
Sarik Olecar
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
7
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 17:42:00 -
[1364] - Quote
Dez Affinity wrote:If you want to kill hulks, use bigger ships.
Or - and this is an extraordinarily insane idea that's bound to rocket my lowly forum troll to the top of nulsecs most wanted...
You could wardec them? I mean I'm sure this is part of CCP's reasoning. They spend all this time 'fixing' their wardec system for this expansion, and everyone just ignores it and suiganks. Maybe this buff is CCP's way of telling us that if you want to prey on poor helpless miners you have to expose yourself to risk first?
This reply isn't directed at you Dez, but you had I nice segway for my post...
|
Mallak Azaria
399
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 17:42:00 -
[1365] - Quote
Werst Dendenahzees wrote:Hulks will be like 100-150m with the tech nerf.
If it works as intended. Mining Barge buff: CCP-áhas acknowledged that miners in general-áare too stupid to make the correct fitting choices to make ganking them unprofitable. |
Soundwave Plays Diablo
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
64
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 17:43:00 -
[1366] - Quote
Like 12 pages since my last reply, but I have to ask again;
Does anyone else feel like Soundwave admitting that ganking isn't working right a bit ridiculous. Something that's been broken for at least 3-4 years. I assume it was also broken before then? How could it not be? They even made a gay ass rap video insulting their fanbase, "HTFU".
I got my name from soundwaves interview where he said (paraphrasing) its OK that a lot of people "dont get eve" natural selection blah blah blah.
Do you think just maybe being condescending d-bags should be saved until your **** is working as intended?
|
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
287
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 17:46:00 -
[1367] - Quote
Soundwave Plays Diablo wrote:Like 12 pages since my last reply, but I have to ask again;
Does anyone else feel like Soundwave admitting that ganking isn't working right a bit ridiculous. Something that's been broken for at least 3-4 years. I assume it was also broken before then? How could it not be? They even made a gay ass rap video insulting their fanbase, "HTFU".
I got my name from soundwaves interview where he said (paraphrasing) its OK that a lot of people "dont get eve" natural selection blah blah blah.
Do you think just maybe being condescending d-bags should be saved until your **** is working as intended?
i don't think soundwave was being a bit ridiculous with what he said. however i don't think he really managed to convey what he meant with such a short statement. i feel he's going to have to elaborate on it at some point [hopefully soon]. people seem to be interpreting what they want for it since it's a rather short and unsupported statement. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Soundwave Plays Diablo
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
64
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 17:56:00 -
[1368] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Soundwave Plays Diablo wrote:Like 12 pages since my last reply, but I have to ask again;
Does anyone else feel like Soundwave admitting that ganking isn't working right a bit ridiculous. Something that's been broken for at least 3-4 years. I assume it was also broken before then? How could it not be? They even made a gay ass rap video insulting their fanbase, "HTFU".
I got my name from soundwaves interview where he said (paraphrasing) its OK that a lot of people "dont get eve" natural selection blah blah blah.
Do you think just maybe being condescending d-bags should be saved until your **** is working as intended?
i don't think soundwave was being a bit ridiculous with what he said. however i don't think he really managed to convey what he meant with such a short statement. i feel he's going to have to elaborate on it at some point [hopefully soon]. people seem to be interpreting what they want for it since it's a rather short and unsupported statement.
I would really like to see that too, because while interpretation by the general public is always subject to heavy debacle, he did use the words " the current setup doesn't work".
Since the current setup has been altered in the favor of the defending pilot several times, it leaves only a few possible conclusions. That it has been broken a long time, or that this years douchogheddon has altered the game.
If the former is true, that speaks very badly on CCP's ability to balance.
If the latter is true, it is admitting that that there is in fact in game harassment of players, sponsored by the publisher. While CCP is free to keep their definition of 'grief play', and only handing out punishment for 'grief play' on an 'at will' basis, harassment is illegal in most places. |
Dez Affinity
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
134
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 17:56:00 -
[1369] - Quote
Werst Dendenahzees wrote:And you can't kill a 30k EHP hulk solo in a 0.7 system even with a 1 billion isk vindicator. Isk balancing is dumb balancing.
Try 3 Tornados, that's 36k alpha and not much more than 300m isk. You should have learned a long time ago in EVE that you can't do everything solo, you need friends or alts.
I don't know if they're giving them TOO much EHP, I think someone said the skiff gets a ridonkulous amount of EHP now but I know it should take more than 1 or 2 destroyers to gank a 150M+ isk ship.
Once you're sat in a belt doing the most mind numbing profession in EVE there's not much you can do if someone warps in on you. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
448
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 18:02:00 -
[1370] - Quote
Sarik Olecar wrote:Dez Affinity wrote:If you want to kill hulks, use bigger ships. Or - and this is an extraordinarily insane idea that's bound to rocket my lowly forum troll to the top of nulsecs most wanted... You could wardec them? I mean I'm sure this is part of CCP's reasoning. They spend all this time 'fixing' their wardec system for this expansion, and everyone just ignores it and suiganks. Maybe this buff is CCP's way of telling us that if you want to prey on poor helpless miners you have to expose yourself to risk first? This reply isn't directed at you Dez, but you had I nice segway for my post...
Let me spell it out:
Suppose I want to attack miners in an NPC corp? How do I wardec them, hmmm? And even if the miners are in a player corp, lets go step by step, right?
-So, I'm scouting an icebelt and I find a group of miners that I want to attack.
I spend 160M-500M ISK for a wardec. Next day, I'm in a war with multiple alliances. (And thats perfectly OK - gankers aren't afraid of a fight, provided we aren't expected to do it while being attacked by Fed Navy)
Are the miners docked up/logged off? Fine. Are the miners in combat ships? Fine.
But what REALLY happens? I find the miners have dropped corp and are still mining as if the war never was declared. This is not fine.
Wardecs are useless, and probably always will be. Ninja tactics have been are will be further nerfed. Canflipping will be dead. Suicide ganking is the ONLY way left to wage direct industrial warfare on mining assets of an alliance.
|
|
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
288
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 18:05:00 -
[1371] - Quote
Soundwave Plays Diablo wrote:Dave stark wrote:Soundwave Plays Diablo wrote:Like 12 pages since my last reply, but I have to ask again;
Does anyone else feel like Soundwave admitting that ganking isn't working right a bit ridiculous. Something that's been broken for at least 3-4 years. I assume it was also broken before then? How could it not be? They even made a gay ass rap video insulting their fanbase, "HTFU".
I got my name from soundwaves interview where he said (paraphrasing) its OK that a lot of people "dont get eve" natural selection blah blah blah.
Do you think just maybe being condescending d-bags should be saved until your **** is working as intended?
i don't think soundwave was being a bit ridiculous with what he said. however i don't think he really managed to convey what he meant with such a short statement. i feel he's going to have to elaborate on it at some point [hopefully soon]. people seem to be interpreting what they want for it since it's a rather short and unsupported statement. I would really like to see that too, because while interpretation by the general public is always subject to heavy debacle, he did use the words " the current setup doesn't work". Since the current setup has been altered in the favor of the defending pilot several times, it leaves only a few possible conclusions. That it has been broken a long time, or that this years douchogheddon has altered the game. If the former is true, that speaks very badly on CCP's ability to balance. If the latter is true, it is admitting that that there is in fact in game harassment of players, sponsored by the publisher. While CCP is free to keep their definition of 'grief play', and only handing out punishment for 'grief play' on an 'at will' basis, harassment is illegal in most places.
i'm hoping he means it's broken for the fact that in high sec you're able to ruin some one's day; but it should cost you something. as it stands when a catalyst ganks a hulk they can recover the cost of such a cheap ship from the hulk's wreckage and the ganker hasn't paid a thing to wreck the miner's day.
i think people need to also understand the subtle difference of "i will gain from this gank, no matter what. his wreckage is worth more than my ship" rather than "i will gain from this gank, that moron thinks carrying plex in a shuttle is a good idea". the key difference is the fact that it's only a profitable venture to gank the shuttle because it has a plex, not because it's a shuttle. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Marconus Orion
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
358
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 18:08:00 -
[1372] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Marconus Orion wrote:Just throwing this out there; what if the lower the system sec status the faster the mining laser cycle time? Highsec miners would still mine in highsec & complain about how nullsec miners can make even more isk per hour than them. So.
Would give a bit more meaning to where you mine sec wise, even in high sec. As long as it stated it right on the mining laser so miners would read it, look at their 0.9 system and go, "Aww.... maybe I should look into low/null/unknown space for really good yield.." |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
288
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 18:10:00 -
[1373] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Sarik Olecar wrote:Dez Affinity wrote:If you want to kill hulks, use bigger ships. Or - and this is an extraordinarily insane idea that's bound to rocket my lowly forum troll to the top of nulsecs most wanted... You could wardec them? I mean I'm sure this is part of CCP's reasoning. They spend all this time 'fixing' their wardec system for this expansion, and everyone just ignores it and suiganks. Maybe this buff is CCP's way of telling us that if you want to prey on poor helpless miners you have to expose yourself to risk first? This reply isn't directed at you Dez, but you had I nice segway for my post... Let me spell it out: Suppose I want to attack miners in an NPC corp? How do I wardec them, hmmm? And even if the miners are in a player corp, lets go step by step, right? -So, I'm scouting an icebelt and I find a group of miners that I want to attack. I spend 160M-500M ISK for a wardec. Next day, I'm in a war with multiple alliances. (And thats perfectly OK - gankers aren't afraid of a fight, provided we aren't expected to do it while being attacked by Fed Navy) Are the miners docked up/logged off? Fine. Are the miners in combat ships? Fine. But what REALLY happens? I find the miners have dropped corp and are still mining as if the war never was declared. This is not fine. Wardecs are useless, and probably always will be. Ninja tactics have been are will be further nerfed. Canflipping will be dead. Suicide ganking is the ONLY way left to wage direct industrial warfare on mining assets of an alliance.
spend the money on a bigger ship, not a wadec. exhumers are getting a tank bonus not 100% shield resists. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Andre Jean Sarpantis
University of Caille Gallente Federation
36
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 18:12:00 -
[1374] - Quote
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.
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
124
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 18:14:00 -
[1375] - Quote
Marconus Orion wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:Marconus Orion wrote:Just throwing this out there; what if the lower the system sec status the faster the mining laser cycle time? Highsec miners would still mine in highsec & complain about how nullsec miners can make even more isk per hour than them. So. Would give a bit more meaning to where you mine sec wise, even in high sec. As long as it stated it right on the mining laser so miners would read it, look at their 0.9 system and go, "Aww.... maybe I should look into low/null/unknown space for really good yield.."
Currently Scordite is 3rd most valuable ore in the game. Only Arkonor and Mercoxit are more valuable. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
288
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 18:15:00 -
[1376] - Quote
Andre Jean Sarpantis wrote: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.
stop conveying half a story; gankers complained about the ehp, miners complained about crystal sizes.
BOTH concerns have been addressed. both voices have been listened to. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
289
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 18:16:00 -
[1377] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Marconus Orion wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:Marconus Orion wrote:Just throwing this out there; what if the lower the system sec status the faster the mining laser cycle time? Highsec miners would still mine in highsec & complain about how nullsec miners can make even more isk per hour than them. So. Would give a bit more meaning to where you mine sec wise, even in high sec. As long as it stated it right on the mining laser so miners would read it, look at their 0.9 system and go, "Aww.... maybe I should look into low/null/unknown space for really good yield.." Currently Scordite is 3rd most valuable ore in the game. Only Arkonor and Mercoxit are more valuable. that's per m3, and mercoxit is not mined at the same rate as other ores hence it cannot be directly compared on an m3 basis.
it must also be noted that the gap between arkonor and scordite is far, far larger than the gap between scordite and whatever is directly below scordite. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
448
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 18:17:00 -
[1378] - Quote
Dez Affinity wrote:[quote=Werst Dendenahzees]
Once you're sat in a belt doing the most mind numbing profession in EVE there's not much you can do if someone warps in on you.
Don't martyr yourself. You don't get bonus points for doing a boring task in a stationary manner.
You CHOSE it. And besides...suicide ganking isn't all fun and laughs either. Try scanning empty haulers for 3 hours, and finding nothing worth attacking.
One of the biggest problems with miner attitude: "Mining is boring so I'm entitled to have a ship that allows me to be AFK and mine without paying attention."
No, you aren't.
You should be allowed to AFK mine, but you shouldn't be able to AFK mine without risk.
Nor should gankers be required to spend a fortune to provide that risk. They WON'T spend a fortune, because they aren't stupid. The main risk in highsec mining (the only risk) will simply go away.
Which is what 90% of the miners on here want.....
Not just to AFK mine - but to do it without fear of losing their property, and thats BS. |
Andre Jean Sarpantis
University of Caille Gallente Federation
36
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 18:19:00 -
[1379] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Andre Jean Sarpantis wrote: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.
stop conveying half a story; gankers complained about the ehp, miners complained about crystal sizes. BOTH concerns have been addressed. both voices have been listened to.
Well i see it as antoher slap in the face from the Industrialist PvE fraction in the game, showing CCP's trend showing more love to PvP'ers then to the industrialists.
As usual its working as intended, SLap the weakest in the face and hold hands to those which screaming and whining the loudest. WHich in this case HERE are the Ganker F***tards. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
124
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 18:21:00 -
[1380] - Quote
Andre Jean Sarpantis wrote: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.
I almost got a heart attack. Mack fit I tested earlier had 42k EHP. Now same fit and it has 39k EHP. |
|
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
289
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 18:22:00 -
[1381] - Quote
Andre Jean Sarpantis wrote:Dave stark wrote:Andre Jean Sarpantis wrote: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.
stop conveying half a story; gankers complained about the ehp, miners complained about crystal sizes. BOTH concerns have been addressed. both voices have been listened to. Well i see it as antoher slap in the face from the Industrialist PvE fraction in the game, showing CCP's trend showing more love to PvP'ers then to the industrialists. As usual its working as intended, SLap the weakest in the face and hold hands to those which screaming and whining the loudest. WHich in this case HERE are the Ganker F***tards.
yeah, perhaps they did get a better deal out of it.
the changes aren't final, the hulk got a massive boost before it got a nerf, and people still haven't got around to efting/pyfaing the changes to see if hulks are in a better or worse place after today's changes. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Togg Bott
One Clone Gang
33
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 18:24:00 -
[1382] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Togg Bott wrote: As a part time miner... i am sadened by the massive numbers of mining ship fail fit kills. it is now very easy to survive being ganked not by fitting a mining ship to be ungankable... you just have to fit a little better than the other guy. Gankers... and i have done this in the past myself (not miner ships but afk auto pilot to jita with mass loot in them). will go for the guy that offers them the most bling for their cost. always has been. but even with the upcoming changes... we will still see people fit T2 exhumers for max yield instead of tanking them. ganking will still be profitable (maybe not quite as profitable) because CCP cant change the bot/afk miners thought process.
this is in my opinion not going to kill the gankers off... instead its gonna give them many many new targets. balance will still be there. this guy gets it He will unfortunately suffer the most in the end though. He has put in effort to survive & will be one of the few that don't deserve the inevitable hit to their wallets when veld goes back to 1 isk PU.
Actually, i look for my income to skyrocket. and for a few very logical (in my mind) reasons.
1) Fail fit is still gonna be fail fit.
2) Afk/bot miners are not gonna change their habits. idiots will be idiots no matter what CCP mandates
3) a lot of people are gonna feel that CCP has snubbed them in favor of miners and the backlash is gonna make hulkageddon look like childsplay.
4)????
5) profit |
Patrakele
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
68
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 18:27:00 -
[1383] - Quote
Hm. Is it me or you guys have so much in common with WoW forums posters? It's like the tears taste the same and your manginas are making the thinking process for you.... |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
33
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 18:31:00 -
[1384] - Quote
If the Hulk comes out with higher EHP then before the patch you should be happy. I have read the entire 60+ pages and I am sorry to say that I will never get that part of my life back. Yes they need a little boost with number but now just because you wanted max yeild max tank does not mean CCP should pander to you to have both. There have been many EFT fits posted on here and everyone of them has been shot down with well I don't like it. It proves me wrong. You will need to fit some tank on you ship a DCU and a MLU is a fair balance between yield and tank. The only place I see that that Hulk could use some love is with PG 10 more would be enough to make a great many of the past 60 pages irrelevant. Just my opinion. I also think that a solo Cat should not be able to take a Hulk 2 maybe its team work after all. Flame away |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
290
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 18:32:00 -
[1385] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Dave stark wrote:i'm hoping he means it's broken for the fact that in high sec you're able to ruin some one's day; but it should cost you something. as it stands when a catalyst ganks a hulk they can recover the cost of such a cheap ship from the hulk's wreckage and the ganker hasn't paid a thing to wreck the miner's day.
i think people need to also understand the subtle difference of "i will gain from this gank, no matter what. his wreckage is worth more than my ship" rather than "i will gain from this gank, that moron thinks carrying plex in a shuttle is a good idea". the key difference is the fact that it's only a profitable venture to gank the shuttle because it has a plex, not because it's a shuttle. I will gain from this Gank only if he doesn't bother to fit a tank. I will break even from this gank maybe in a .5 system with a special snowflake fleet of 10 guys. I will lose isk in any other situation. Mine in a 0.7-1.0 system with 2MLUs and a midslot/rig only tank and guess what, anyone who ganks you will lose money. The only reason it's a usually profitable thing is that Hulks don't bother to fit tanks.
and then it's you mine or you tank and the argument goes around in cicrles for 50 pages and.... lets not go there.
i think hulks should have a certain level of anti-gank as standard (enough to with stand a t1 destroyer) and if you want to be gank resistant to bigger things, then you should be giving things up. many will disagree with me but i don't care i'm not preapred to get in to a 50 page circle chase about it.
the advantage combat ships have over mining ships in terms of fitting tank is ships have 3 things; tank, damage, and utility. three things to go in to 2 slots (mids and lows) damage goes in the lows, utility goes in the middle, and your tank goes in either, so you drop 1 for the tank. mining, on the other hand doesn't quite have that option. once you fit "damage" in the lows you *can't* fit tank in the mid, fitting requirements are too tight. you have to have one or the other where as combat ships get to go with "two of the three".
yeah, an apples and oranges comparison but the difference is actually why the comparison works.... i think. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
baltec1
Bat Country
1724
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 18:32:00 -
[1386] - Quote
Andre Jean Sarpantis wrote: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.
What are the new base stats on them? Cant get on SiSi for a while. |
Soundwave Plays Diablo
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
64
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 18:33:00 -
[1387] - Quote
Quote:i'm hoping he means it's broken for the fact that in high sec you're able to ruin some one's day; but it should cost you something. as it stands when a catalyst ganks a hulk they can recover the cost of such a cheap ship from the hulk's wreckage and the ganker hasn't paid a thing to wreck the miner's day.
i think people need to also understand the subtle difference of "i will gain from this gank, no matter what. his wreckage is worth more than my ship" rather than "i will gain from this gank, that moron thinks carrying plex in a shuttle is a good idea". the key difference is the fact that it's only a profitable venture to gank the shuttle because it has a plex, not because it's a shuttle.
In which case it would have been broken for multiple years after multiple changes to the system.
|
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
448
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 18:34:00 -
[1388] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Dave stark wrote:i'm hoping he means it's broken for the fact that in high sec you're able to ruin some one's day; but it should cost you something. as it stands when a catalyst ganks a hulk they can recover the cost of such a cheap ship from the hulk's wreckage and the ganker hasn't paid a thing to wreck the miner's day.
i think people need to also understand the subtle difference of "i will gain from this gank, no matter what. his wreckage is worth more than my ship" rather than "i will gain from this gank, that moron thinks carrying plex in a shuttle is a good idea". the key difference is the fact that it's only a profitable venture to gank the shuttle because it has a plex, not because it's a shuttle. I will gain from this Gank only if he doesn't bother to fit a tank. I will break even from this gank maybe in a .5 system with a special snowflake fleet of 10 guys. I will lose isk in any other situation. Mine in a 0.7-1.0 system with 2MLUs and a midslot/rig only tank and guess what, anyone who ganks you will lose money. The only reason it's a usually profitable thing is that Hulks don't bother to fit tanks.
See, no, you missed the DEV announcement - they are redefining 'profitable' - just for the ganking profession!
For anyone else on the planet, 'profitable' is defined as 'ending up with more ISK than when you started'.
But for gankers, apparently, 'profitable' is now 'losing less than your victim'. And everything must be rebalanced along that principle.
Because we can buy new ships with tears, right?
|
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
290
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 18:34:00 -
[1389] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Andre Jean Sarpantis wrote: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.
What are the new base stats on them? Cant get on SiSi for a while.
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%) Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
baltec1
Bat Country
1724
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 18:39:00 -
[1390] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:
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%)
Now thats interesting, wasn't expecting a resist bonus change. Gonna need to get those hp numbers though to figure out what this means. |
|
Ditra Vorthran
State War Academy Caldari State
93
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 18:40:00 -
[1391] - Quote
Soundwave Plays Diablo wrote: Does anyone else feel like Soundwave admitting that ganking isn't working right a bit ridiculous.
Like Faction Warfare? Like Bounties?
Just because it's in the game doesn't mean it's working as intended, even after a loooooong time. "Miners mine so I don't have to." ~Metal Icarus |
Suqq Madiq
Amarr Empire
220
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 18:44:00 -
[1392] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:See, no, you missed the DEV announcement - they are redefining 'profitable' - just for the ganking profession!
For anyone else on the planet, 'profitable' is defined as 'ending up with more ISK than when you started'.
But for gankers, apparently, 'profitable' is now 'losing less than your victim'. And everything must be rebalanced along that principle.
Because we can buy new ships with tears, right?
You can buy more ships just like everybody else; by putting effort into it. You think your brand of "PVP" should pay for itself and then some. You're wrong. |
Andre Jean Sarpantis
University of Caille Gallente Federation
38
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 18:44:00 -
[1393] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dave stark wrote:
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%)
Now thats interesting, wasn't expecting a resist bonus change. Gonna need to get those hp numbers though to figure out what this means.
It significantly decreases the EHP from all Exhumers again to a somewhat closer EHP amount like on liveserver.....approc 4- 6k EHP less then in the early changes shown on Sisi. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
290
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 18:47:00 -
[1394] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dave stark wrote:
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%)
Now thats interesting, wasn't expecting a resist bonus change. Gonna need to get those hp numbers though to figure out what this means.
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. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Soundwave Plays Diablo
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
64
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 18:49:00 -
[1395] - Quote
Ditra Vorthran wrote:Soundwave Plays Diablo wrote: Does anyone else feel like Soundwave admitting that ganking isn't working right a bit ridiculous.
Like Faction Warfare? Like Bounties? Just because it's in the game doesn't mean it's working as intended, even after a loooooong time.
Right. That's terrible and drives consumers away. That's my point. A stiff learning curve with Darwinism is acceptable. When you couple that with the apparent problem at hand, and its detrimental to the game.
|
Pipa Porto
536
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 18:55:00 -
[1396] - Quote
Suqq Madiq wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:See, no, you missed the DEV announcement - they are redefining 'profitable' - just for the ganking profession!
For anyone else on the planet, 'profitable' is defined as 'ending up with more ISK than when you started'.
But for gankers, apparently, 'profitable' is now 'losing less than your victim'. And everything must be rebalanced along that principle.
Because we can buy new ships with tears, right?
You can buy more ships just like everybody else; by putting effort into it. You think your brand of "PVP" should pay for itself and then some. You're wrong.
The only reason it can be profitable is that Miners refuse to tank their ships. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
baltec1
Bat Country
1724
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 18:55:00 -
[1397] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:
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.
This might be profitable to gank, I'll need to test this. I assume the CPU and Powergrid havent been changed? |
Mallak Azaria
400
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 18:56:00 -
[1398] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:and then it's you mine or you tank
I find it unsurprising that you're unaware that you can actually mine AND tank just fine the ways things are now. Mining Barge buff: CCP-áhas acknowledged that miners in general-áare too stupid to make the correct fitting choices to make ganking them unprofitable. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1722
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 18:57:00 -
[1399] - Quote
Werst Dendenahzees wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Werst Dendenahzees wrote:
I won't reach 1 isk, but certainly 3 isk.
Ah, I thought I read 1 ISK PU in the quoted text. Has to be bad sight of mine. Am I forced to agree with the bad predictions of a random dude on the EVE-o forums?
Feel free to link *1* post with a bad prediction.
Mallak Azaria wrote:Quote: He will unfortunately suffer the most in the end though. He has put in effort to survive & will be one of the few that don't deserve the inevitable hit to their wallets when veld goes back to 1 isk PU.
Inevitable =/= 6 months. Nice try.
Bolded the part your blinds seem to hide. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Suqq Madiq
Amarr Empire
220
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 18:57:00 -
[1400] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:The only reason it can be profitable is that Miners refuse to tank their ships.
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. |
|
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
262
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 18:58:00 -
[1401] - Quote
Mining barge stats appear to be altered again on SISI. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
290
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 18:59:00 -
[1402] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dave stark wrote:
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.
This might be profitable to gank, I'll need to test this. I assume the CPU and Powergrid havent been changed?
sisi cpu/pg 300/35
live cpu/pg 300/35
so yeah, unchanged from live. also that's without skills again so add your electronics and engineering skills etc. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
baltec1
Bat Country
1724
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 19:00:00 -
[1403] - Quote
Suqq Madiq wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:The only reason it can be profitable is that Miners refuse to tank their ships. 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.
No they cant. |
Suqq Madiq
Amarr Empire
220
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 19:01:00 -
[1404] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Suqq Madiq wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:The only reason it can be profitable is that Miners refuse to tank their ships. 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. No they cant.
Yes, they can. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1722
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 19:01:00 -
[1405] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote: The only reason it's a usually profitable thing is that Hulks don't bother to fit tanks.
Well you gank ships for their cargo or their mods.
If the ship has 2M worth of cargo and T1 mods it's your fault for picking it instead of the one with a deadspace small shield booster. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
290
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 19:01:00 -
[1406] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Dave stark wrote:and then it's you mine or you tank I find it unsurprising that you're unaware that you can actually mine AND tank just fine the ways things are now.
and this is where we go around in circles but i'll answer it; the point is you HAVE to give up your mining bonuses to fit a tank on your mining ship. your combat ships don't have to give up their damage mods; they can give up the utility mods instead. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
448
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 19:03:00 -
[1407] - Quote
Suqq Madiq wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:See, no, you missed the DEV announcement - they are redefining 'profitable' - just for the ganking profession!
For anyone else on the planet, 'profitable' is defined as 'ending up with more ISK than when you started'.
But for gankers, apparently, 'profitable' is now 'losing less than your victim'. And everything must be rebalanced along that principle.
Because we can buy new ships with tears, right?
You can buy more ships just like everybody else; by putting effort into it. You think your brand of "PVP" should pay for itself and then some. You're wrong.
I'm perfectly content with 'losing less than the victim', to a point.
How much less (or even potential for actual profitability) should be as it is now: determined by the Exhumer's choice of fit. CCP is largely taking those choices out of miner's hands - because they always take the risky choice, and cry when that risk goes badly for them.
A 'ganker must lose more than the victim' standard of balancing is utterly stupid. Do people typically use 15 Tornados to pop random empty Freighters or Orcas? If not, why not?
"You have to put effort into it now." Nonsense - people just aren't going to do it, and further more - you know it. The risk, therefore is removed, and miners are free to AFK.
Gankers will gank for a profit, and they'll gank for a laugh if they can inflict disproportionate damage on the target. But requiring a group of 3 Tornados to grind up 300M ISK to simply attempt to kill a 180M ISK Mackinaw with a midslot tank?
Its just not going to happen unless someone has a personal score to settle. (Heck, and even then - the victim can point and laugh at the gankers for wasting all that ISK....don't see much tear potential there...) |
baltec1
Bat Country
1724
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 19:03:00 -
[1408] - Quote
Suqq Madiq wrote:
Yes, they can.
We tested this, they cant. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1722
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 19:09:00 -
[1409] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Gankers will gank for a profit, and they'll gank for a laugh if they can inflict disproportionate damage on the target. But requiring a group of 3 Tornados to grind up 300M ISK to simply attempt to kill a 180M ISK Mackinaw with a midslot tank?
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? Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Suqq Madiq
Amarr Empire
220
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 19:10:00 -
[1410] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Gankers will gank for a profit, and they'll gank for a laugh if they can inflict disproportionate damage on the target. But requiring a group of 3 Tornados to grind up 300M ISK to simply attempt to kill a 180M ISK Mackinaw with a midslot tank?
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. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country
1724
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 19:11:00 -
[1411] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
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?
Because at the moment you do make a profit if they dont fit a tank. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
449
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 19:12:00 -
[1412] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Suqq Madiq wrote:
Yes, they can.
We tested this, they cant.
And besides, assembling a large group of gankers imposes an array of costs beyond just ISK.
-not everyone can assemble a group like that on short notice - especially if your 'play time' is in an off peak Time Zone. -Multiple Concord spawns to dispose of. -much higher chance of failure if one person screws up or gets disconnected. -sec status hits are multiplied across the entire group, not just for the 'final blow'
plus, simple lack of variety. So, the only way to gank (without losing your ass) is to pile into Catalysts? (nevermind that blaster ganking effectiveness falls off sharply above 0.7 space....) |
Suqq Madiq
Amarr Empire
220
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 19:13:00 -
[1413] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Suqq Madiq wrote:
Yes, they can.
We tested this, they cant. You break even by the time you hit 3 catalysts
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. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
33
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 19:13:00 -
[1414] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:Dave stark wrote:and then it's you mine or you tank I find it unsurprising that you're unaware that you can actually mine AND tank just fine the ways things are now. and this is where we go around in circles but i'll answer it; the point is you HAVE to give up your mining bonuses to fit a tank on your mining ship. your combat ships don't have to give up their damage mods; they can give up the utility mods instead.
Please tell me how a Gal or Amarr ship doesn't give up Damage Slots for tank? |
baltec1
Bat Country
1724
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 19:14:00 -
[1415] - Quote
Suqq Madiq wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:Gankers will gank for a profit, and they'll gank for a laugh if they can inflict disproportionate damage on the target. But requiring a group of 3 Tornados to grind up 300M ISK to simply attempt to kill a 180M ISK Mackinaw with a midslot tank?
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.
A well fitted hulk will not die to 3 catalysts and does require the firepower of 3-4 tornado to kill it. |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
9019
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 19:15:00 -
[1416] - Quote
Ohanka wrote:Again, you are wrong, as usual. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong all the time? Really? Please pray tell of why this is so.
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
Sarik Olecar
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
9
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 19:18:00 -
[1417] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Because at the moment you do make a profit if they dont fit a tank. I think that's the problem. You wouldn't gank a bare tengu because it the salvage wouldn't pay for it. Why should a hulk give 30mil in intact armor plates if it only costs 3mil to kill it? If the hulk is blinged out with 500mil officers strips or whatever, then it should be a valid target, the same as a bling tengu... Otherwise its disproportional to the rest of the game. |
Suqq Madiq
Amarr Empire
221
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 19:19:00 -
[1418] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Suqq Madiq wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:Gankers will gank for a profit, and they'll gank for a laugh if they can inflict disproportionate damage on the target. But requiring a group of 3 Tornados to grind up 300M ISK to simply attempt to kill a 180M ISK Mackinaw with a midslot tank?
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. A well fitted hulk will not die to 3 catalysts and does require the firepower of 3-4 tornado to kill it.
More bullshit. Your definition of "well fitted hulk" involves the Hulk sacrificing every bit of yield for tank. This is unrealistic. No other ship in the game is expected to sacrifice every one of it's tools and slots in order to maximize it's tank just to exist. The average Hulk with a decently sized tank and only a Survey Scanner to assist it's yield can still easily be ganked by 3 T1 Catalysts. |
Pipa Porto
537
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 19:20:00 -
[1419] - Quote
Suqq Madiq wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:Gankers will gank for a profit, and they'll gank for a laugh if they can inflict disproportionate damage on the target. But requiring a group of 3 Tornados to grind up 300M ISK to simply attempt to kill a 180M ISK Mackinaw with a midslot tank?
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.
Only if you don't bother to tank the Hulk. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
baltec1
Bat Country
1724
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 19:20:00 -
[1420] - Quote
Suqq Madiq wrote:baltec1 wrote:Suqq Madiq wrote:
Yes, they can.
We tested this, they cant. You break even by the time you hit 3 catalysts 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.
50% of mods will be blown up on a good kill, then the salvage will not always produce the best results. Over the long term you will lose isk by ganking ships that require 4-10 catalysts. In order to make a good profit you need to use one or two ships per gank.
Goons waged war on high sec miners and lost isk on the ship ganks themselves. My corp turned that into a profit making war on ship hulls when we did our own interdiction and invented the gank destroyers you see today. However if you wish to prove that we are wrong then by all means do what we did and use 10 catalysts per gank and then come back to us with your results. I garentee you that you will make a loss. |
|
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
290
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 19:20:00 -
[1421] - Quote
MIrple wrote:Dave stark wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:Dave stark wrote:and then it's you mine or you tank I find it unsurprising that you're unaware that you can actually mine AND tank just fine the ways things are now. and this is where we go around in circles but i'll answer it; the point is you HAVE to give up your mining bonuses to fit a tank on your mining ship. your combat ships don't have to give up their damage mods; they can give up the utility mods instead. Please tell me how a Gal or Amarr ship doesn't give up Damage Slots for tank?
because you can fit a shield tank. no you don't get bonuses for it; but that's beyond the point. pretty sure with the introduction of the drone damage mods a fair few gal ships went for shield tanks in order to make the most of their drone bonuses?
again with a combat ship you can choose which slots to put the tank in and what you want to give up; in an exhumer you can't pick which you give up. an exhumer doesn't have the cpu to fill the mid slots with shield tank and also fit mlus. conversely if you fit hull or armour tank in the lows then you just have mid slots hanging around as an exhumer doesn't have utility mods. [maybe survey scanner but you know what i mean] you either fill it with tank, or you put yield mods on. trying to fit shield mods and dropping 1 of the two mlus is probably the best compromise but you've effectively just lost yield for half a tank that means you're still going to get ganked so... why fit the tank to star with unless you're going to fit the whole one? Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Pipa Porto
537
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 19:21:00 -
[1422] - Quote
Suqq Madiq wrote:baltec1 wrote:Suqq Madiq wrote:
Yes, they can.
We tested this, they cant. You break even by the time you hit 3 catalysts 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.
Only if the Hulk doesn't bother to fit any tank.
If the Hulk fits a Tank, the gankers can, at best, in a 10 man, special snowflake situation, break even. But the tanked Hulk in a .7 or higher and it's game over for gankers and anything near breakeven. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Suqq Madiq
Amarr Empire
221
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 19:21:00 -
[1423] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Suqq Madiq wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:Gankers will gank for a profit, and they'll gank for a laugh if they can inflict disproportionate damage on the target. But requiring a group of 3 Tornados to grind up 300M ISK to simply attempt to kill a 180M ISK Mackinaw with a midslot tank?
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. Only if you don't bother to tank the Hulk.
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. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1722
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 19:22:00 -
[1424] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
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?
Because at the moment you do make a profit if they dont fit a tank.
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. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
baltec1
Bat Country
1724
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 19:25:00 -
[1425] - Quote
Suqq Madiq wrote:
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.
Show me the fitting of the 3 destroyer that allows you to burn though 23k of hp in 7 seconds. |
Pipa Porto
537
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 19:25:00 -
[1426] - Quote
Suqq Madiq wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Suqq Madiq wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:Gankers will gank for a profit, and they'll gank for a laugh if they can inflict disproportionate damage on the target. But requiring a group of 3 Tornados to grind up 300M ISK to simply attempt to kill a 180M ISK Mackinaw with a midslot tank?
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. Only if you don't bother to tank the Hulk. 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.
Only in .5 space. Besides that, a 0 MLU Hulk still mines more than any other ship in the GAME. No other ship is better at its role with no role enhancing modules than every other ship no matter how they're fit.
Fly to .8-1.0 space (still has the most profitable HS ore), and you can't be ganked profitably if you go midslot and rig only tank.
Miners who are ATK can also fit no tank and survive every single gank attempt, profitable or not. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
baltec1
Bat Country
1724
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 19:26:00 -
[1427] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
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.
You dont make isk on a well tanked hulk even with a MLU fitted. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
124
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 19:27:00 -
[1428] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Because at the moment you do make a profit if they dont fit a tank.
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. |
Shameless Avenger
322
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 19:28:00 -
[1429] - Quote
OMG the whinage... it's like Warp 2 Zero all over again. "This is the Ninja. He will scan you down; he will salvage your wrecks and there shall be no aggro" ~ The Story of the Ninja |
baltec1
Bat Country
1724
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 19:29:00 -
[1430] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:baltec1 wrote:Because at the moment you do make a profit if they dont fit a tank. 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.
They hulk on sisi gets a better tank than on live and I have a hulk fit for 33k. Less lies please. |
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
124
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 19:34:00 -
[1431] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:baltec1 wrote:Because at the moment you do make a profit if they dont fit a tank. 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. They hulk on sisi gets a better tank than on live and I have a hulk fit for 33k. Less lies please.
This fit on SiSi has 22k EHP
[Hulk, Hulk, tank]
Micro Auxiliary Power Core II Damage Control II
Medium F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Limited Adaptive Invulnerability Field I
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 Ancillary Current Router I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
|
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
291
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 19:34:00 -
[1432] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:baltec1 wrote:Because at the moment you do make a profit if they dont fit a tank. 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.
actually the mack just gets a flat 25% bonus, it's 5% per mining barge level not exhumer level and mining barge V is a pre-req so it's basically default for every mack to have the 25% bonus.
all mining ships have 350m3 cargo, except the covetor which has 500. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1722
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 19:36:00 -
[1433] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
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.
You dont make isk on a well tanked hulk even with a MLU fitted.
I don't care about hulks but about macks. Prove me you can have 1 MLU mack that can survive the equivalent in catalysts of an average of 1 plate drop (16.5M) + half its mods and drones. It's about 4 catalysts worth of value. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
124
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 19:37:00 -
[1434] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:actually the mack just gets a flat 25% bonus, it's 5% per mining barge level not exhumer level and mining barge V is a pre-req so it's basically default for every mack to have the 25% bonus.
It had 50% bonus (10%/level). |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
33
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 19:37:00 -
[1435] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:baltec1 wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:baltec1 wrote:Because at the moment you do make a profit if they dont fit a tank. 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. They hulk on sisi gets a better tank than on live and I have a hulk fit for 33k. Less lies please. This fit on SiSi has 22k EHP [Hulk, Hulk, tank] Micro Auxiliary Power Core II Damage Control II Medium F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Limited Adaptive Invulnerability Field I 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 Ancillary Current Router I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Put a meta EM Hardener on there and see what it changes to? |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
291
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 19:39:00 -
[1436] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Dave stark wrote:actually the mack just gets a flat 25% bonus, it's 5% per mining barge level not exhumer level and mining barge V is a pre-req so it's basically default for every mack to have the 25% bonus. It had 50% bonus (10%/level).
indeed it did. currently the mackinaw's ore bay is less than 1 cycle of mining larger than it's t1 counterpart's. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Suqq Madiq
Amarr Empire
222
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 19:39:00 -
[1437] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
This fit on SiSi has 22k EHP
[Hulk, Hulk, tank]
Micro Auxiliary Power Core II Damage Control II
Medium F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Limited Adaptive Invulnerability Field I
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 Ancillary Current Router I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
[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. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
124
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 19:44:00 -
[1438] - Quote
MIrple wrote:Put a meta EM Hardener on there and see what it changes to?
23,7k |
Wuxi Wuxilla
The Tuskers
41
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 19:50:00 -
[1439] - Quote
Quote: [Hulk, Cheap Highsec Tank] Micro Auxiliary Power Core II Internal Force Field Array I
Medium Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II EM Ward Amplifier II
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 Ancillary Current Router I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
32.981 EHP heated and really cheap
Quote: [Hulk, expensive highsec tank] Damage Control II Micro Auxiliary Power Core II
Medium Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II EM Ward Amplifier II
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 I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Hornet EC-300 x5 Mining Drone II x5
Needs Genolutions + PG5, so about 60mil more expensive than your t2 rig fit, but 37129 ehp heated. You also don't lose your implants when your Hulk gets blown up (unless you are afk), so actually cheaper in the long run.
Quote: [Hulk, MLUII + Tank] Damage Control II Mining Laser Upgrade II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Small Azeotropic Ward Salubrity I Rock-Scanning Sensor Array I
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 I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
26.318 ehp heated
/edit: All TQ stats |
baltec1
Bat Country
1724
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 19:51:00 -
[1440] - Quote
Suqq Madiq wrote:
[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.
You only need to survive 3. After that 99% of people will leave you alone so a hulk can fit a MLU and be rather secure. |
|
Suqq Madiq
Amarr Empire
222
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 19:52:00 -
[1441] - Quote
The last fit is realistic and yet can be easily busted by 3 T1 Catalysts worth less than a combined 10mil ISK. |
baltec1
Bat Country
1724
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 19:54:00 -
[1442] - Quote
Suqq Madiq wrote:The last fit is realistic and yet can be easily busted by 3 T1 Catalysts worth less than a combined 10mil ISK.
No it wont. Again we have tested this hence why we did not go after these supertank hulks in our interdiction. |
Suqq Madiq
Amarr Empire
222
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 19:55:00 -
[1443] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Suqq Madiq wrote:The last fit is realistic and yet can be easily busted by 3 T1 Catalysts worth less than a combined 10mil ISK. No it wont. Again we have tested this hence why we did not go after these supertank hulks in our interdiction.
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. |
Wuxi Wuxilla
The Tuskers
41
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 19:58:00 -
[1444] - Quote
Quote: [Catalyst, Suicide t1] Gauss Field Balancer I Gauss Field Balancer I Gauss Field Balancer I
Initiated Harmonic Warp Scrambler I [empty med slot]
Limited Light Neutron Blaster I, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S Limited Light Neutron Blaster I, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S Limited Light Neutron Blaster I, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S Limited Light Neutron Blaster I, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S Limited Light Neutron Blaster I, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S Limited Light Neutron Blaster I, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S Limited Light Neutron Blaster I, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S Limited Light Neutron Blaster I, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S
Small Hybrid Burst Aerator I Small Hybrid Collision Accelerator I [empty rig slot]
Hobgoblin I x1
511 dps heated, so ~8k before concord blows you to hell, so 24k for 3 Catalysts. Not enough to kill any of the Hulks |
Dez Affinity
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
134
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 19:59:00 -
[1445] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Dez Affinity wrote:[quote=Werst Dendenahzees]
Once you're sat in a belt doing the most mind numbing profession in EVE there's not much you can do if someone warps in on you. Don't martyr yourself. You don't get bonus points for doing a boring task in a stationary manner. You CHOSE it. And besides...suicide ganking isn't all fun and laughs either. Try scanning empty haulers for 3 hours, and finding nothing worth attacking. One of the biggest problems with miner attitude: "Mining is boring so I'm entitled to have a ship that allows me to be AFK and mine without paying attention." No, you aren't. You should be allowed to AFK mine, but you shouldn't be able to AFK mine without risk.
Nor should gankers be required to spend a fortune to provide that risk. They WON'T spend a fortune, because they aren't stupid. The main risk in highsec mining (the only risk) will simply go away. Which is what 90% of the miners on here want..... Not just to AFK mine - but to do it without fear of losing their property, and thats BS.
Hey, I've never mined as a profession. The only time I've ever mined was to sell my bait.
I've done far more ganking of miners, including using 1 catalyst to solo a hulk in .5s It's horribly unfair, the guy can do nothing about it, I land right on top of him and he's dead before he can get past 10m/s. If I really want I can bump him with an alt for one mwd cycle and then he's really boned.
My point about mining is to actually be effective at mining in terms of isk gain, you have to sit there for a large amount of time, in the belt, 0m/s. You can buff your tank, but it doesn't help, you don't have the EHP.
Right now the risk/reward is not ok. Pirates in catalyst risk NOTHING. They are already outlaw, no sec to lose, negligible amount of isk spent per ship, which is recouped by looting your own wrecks, the hulks wreck and salvaging the hulks wreck.
Don't even try to argue it isn't too easy to kill a hulk mining in high sec. It is, really really easy. |
baltec1
Bat Country
1724
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 19:59:00 -
[1446] - Quote
Faurent (0.5)
Not the same fit as was posted. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
293
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 19:59:00 -
[1447] - Quote
Quote:Covetor/hulk: ore bay is identical to its current cargo hold, little to average EHP, but best mining output. Basically made for group operations when players have industrials and protection to back them up.
why are you tanking hulks? you should have your friends in combat ships to shoot the gankers before they shoot you. i mean, concord won't shoot your friend's drake for shooting unagressed gankers will they since that's what ccp wants? infact, surely protection would be concord itself.
hang on, does that means ccp wants hulks to be suicide gank immune in high sec?
[yeah, i'm bored] Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Dez Affinity
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
134
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 19:59:00 -
[1448] - Quote
Wuxi Wuxilla wrote:Quote: [Catalyst, Suicide t1] Gauss Field Balancer I Gauss Field Balancer I Gauss Field Balancer I
Initiated Harmonic Warp Scrambler I [empty med slot]
Limited Light Neutron Blaster I, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S Limited Light Neutron Blaster I, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S Limited Light Neutron Blaster I, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S Limited Light Neutron Blaster I, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S Limited Light Neutron Blaster I, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S Limited Light Neutron Blaster I, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S Limited Light Neutron Blaster I, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S Limited Light Neutron Blaster I, Caldari Navy Antimatter Charge S
Small Hybrid Burst Aerator I Small Hybrid Collision Accelerator I [empty rig slot]
Hobgoblin I x1
511 dps heated, so ~8k before concord blows you to hell, so 24k for 3 Catalysts. Not enough to kill any of the Hulks
Use 3 vexors, break the bank a little!
|
Pipa Porto
537
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 20:00:00 -
[1449] - Quote
Suqq Madiq wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:
This fit on SiSi has 22k EHP
[Hulk, Hulk, tank]
Micro Auxiliary Power Core II Damage Control II
Medium F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Limited Adaptive Invulnerability Field I
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 Ancillary Current Router I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
[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.
If that's with TQ stats, a Hulk can do better with T1 rigs.
[Hulk, Tank Fit]
Micro Auxiliary Power Core II Internal Force Field Array I
Medium F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
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 I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
39k EHP vs Void. 3 CPU, .1 Grid available. Requires a 4% grid rig or downsize to T1 strips.
Anyway, nobody is forced to fit any tank to avoid ganks. They only have to fit a brick tank to avoid ALL profitable ganks in .5 sec space while totally AFK. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
450
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 20:06:00 -
[1450] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:baltec1 wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:baltec1 wrote:Because at the moment you do make a profit if they dont fit a tank. 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. They hulk on sisi gets a better tank than on live and I have a hulk fit for 33k. Less lies please. This fit on SiSi has 22k EHP [Hulk, Hulk, tank] Micro Auxiliary Power Core II Damage Control II Medium F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Limited Adaptive Invulnerability Field I 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 Ancillary Current Router I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Just because you don't know how to tank a Hulk properly, doesn't mean the Hulk needs a buff. |
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
124
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 20:09:00 -
[1451] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Anyway, nobody is forced to fit any tank to avoid ganks. They only have to fit a brick tank to avoid ALL profitable ganks in .5 sec space while totally AFK.
Get to SiSi and see yourself. Brick tank = 22k EHP before fleet boost.
Oh nevermind, you don't have skills... |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
439
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 20:09:00 -
[1452] - Quote
CCP SOUNDWAVE PLS HOLD MY HAND I'M PARALYZED IN FEAR OF THE BIG BAD GANKERS AND AM TOO STUPID TO DEFEND MYSELF. PLS REMOVE NONCONSENSUAL PVP FROM HISEC, CONCORD ALL GOONS ON SIGHT, BAN SCAMMING AND CAN FLIPPING, AND LET US SHOOT NINJA SALVAGERS. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE PURPOSE OF THIS GAME AND WANT A SAFE CORNER OF IT FOR MYSELF. EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
124
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 20:10:00 -
[1453] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Just because you don't know how to tank a Hulk properly, doesn't mean the Hulk needs a buff.
When I undocked in untanked exhumer? API verified killmail? |
Suqq Madiq
Amarr Empire
222
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 20:10:00 -
[1454] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:CCP SOUNDWAVE PLS HOLD MY HAND I'M PARALYZED IN FEAR OF THE BIG BAD GANKERS AND AM TOO STUPID TO DEFEND MYSELF. PLS REMOVE NONCONSENSUAL PVP FROM HISEC, CONCORD ALL GOONS ON SIGHT, BAN SCAMMING AND CAN FLIPPING, AND LET US SHOOT NINJA SALVAGERS. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE PURPOSE OF THIS GAME AND WANT A SAFE CORNER OF IT FOR MYSELF.
Cool rhetoric, bro.
Except you're wrong on every point. But that hasn't stopped you or your compadres from posting before, so why stop now? |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
33
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 20:12:00 -
[1455] - Quote
[Hulk, Tank]
Mining Laser Upgrade II Damage Control II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Domination EM Ward Amplifier Survey Scanner II
Modulated Strip Miner II Modulated Strip Miner II Modulated Strip Miner II
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
this is on normal sever one mod is a 40 mill but on a 300 mill ship it justify it. You also need a CA-2 implant 23.8k EHP 26.1k heated
I would think after the patch it will be better with the HP buff
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
439
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 20:14:00 -
[1456] - Quote
Suqq Madiq wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:CCP SOUNDWAVE PLS HOLD MY HAND I'M PARALYZED IN FEAR OF THE BIG BAD GANKERS AND AM TOO STUPID TO DEFEND MYSELF. PLS REMOVE NONCONSENSUAL PVP FROM HISEC, CONCORD ALL GOONS ON SIGHT, BAN SCAMMING AND CAN FLIPPING, AND LET US SHOOT NINJA SALVAGERS. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE PURPOSE OF THIS GAME AND WANT A SAFE CORNER OF IT FOR MYSELF. Cool rhetoric, bro. Except you're wrong on every point. But that hasn't stopped you or your compadres from posting before, so why stop now? Just saying "lol ur rong" is insufficient, I'm sorry to say. EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
450
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 20:15:00 -
[1457] - Quote
Dez Affinity wrote:
I've done far more ganking of miners, including using 1 catalyst to solo a hulk in .5s It's horribly unfair, the guy can do nothing about it, I land right on top of him and he's dead before he can get past 10m/s. If I really want I can bump him with an alt for one mwd cycle and then he's really boned.
You ganked a Hulk in 0.5 space with a Catalyst.
"Its horribly unfair" - that suggests that there is nothing he can do about it.
"The guy can do nothing about it" Why do you promote misinformation???
FALSE: He can tank. One DCUII in the lows, and he survives that gank. One flight of ECM drones, he can stops two Catalysts. A few other mods, he can survive three .
FALSE: He can mine in a safer place than 0.5.. FALSE: He can stay aligned and warp off before you land. and on and on...I'm not going to list all the ways.
If you are going to make an argument, at least try not to back it up with discredited bullcrap.
|
Pipa Porto
537
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 20:15:00 -
[1458] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Anyway, nobody is forced to fit any tank to avoid ganks. They only have to fit a brick tank to avoid ALL profitable ganks in .5 sec space while totally AFK. Get to SiSi and see yourself. Brick tank = 22k EHP before fleet boost. Oh nevermind, you don't have skills...
I do. Exhumers 4. I just have a terrible computer and don't have the space for SISI.
In that case, we're talking about post 1.2 where the way to tank your ship is to USE. A. SKIFF.
And a Hulk being fragile is fine because it's the ship you use when you have friends to help defend you. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Arkon Olacar
Imperial Guardians Tribal Band
102
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 20:15:00 -
[1459] - Quote
How the hell did this thread get to 1500 posts after less than two days? Don't you people have jobs? "The rest will be in the blog rather than invented at the keyboards of forum posters and bloggers." -á-á-á-á-á-á-á - CCP Sreegs, 23/06/2012
Umad forum warriors? |
Soundwave Plays Diablo
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
64
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 20:16:00 -
[1460] - Quote
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'. |
|
Anvil44
Independent Traders and Builders MPA
103
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 20:16:00 -
[1461] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Suqq Madiq wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:
This fit on SiSi has 22k EHP
[Hulk, Hulk, tank]
Micro Auxiliary Power Core II Damage Control II
Medium F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Limited Adaptive Invulnerability Field I
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 Ancillary Current Router I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
[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. If that's with TQ stats, a Hulk can do better with T1 rigs. [Hulk, Tank Fit] Micro Auxiliary Power Core II Internal Force Field Array I Medium F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II 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 I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I 39k EHP vs Void. 3 CPU, .1 Grid available. Requires a 4% grid rig or downsize to T1 strips. Anyway, nobody is forced to fit any tank to avoid ganks. They only have to fit a brick tank to avoid ALL profitable ganks in .5 sec space while totally AFK.
Plugged this into EFT - unless you are not listing implants best EHP I could find was 32k using the 'All lvl V' pilot and overheating modules. That was against explosive. Thermal is 25k. Not sure what I am missing here.
I may not like you or your point of view but you have a right to voice it. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
439
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 20:17:00 -
[1462] - Quote
Also, why the **** are you omni tanking these Hulks? Protip: gankers use catalysts (i.e. blisters EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
33
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 20:17:00 -
[1463] - Quote
MIrple wrote:[Hulk, Tank]
Mining Laser Upgrade II Damage Control II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Domination EM Ward Amplifier Survey Scanner II
Modulated Strip Miner II Modulated Strip Miner II Modulated Strip Miner II
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
this is on normal sever one mod is a 40 mill but on a 300 mill ship it justify it. You also need a CA-2 implant 23.8k EHP 26.1k heated
I would think after the patch it will be better with the HP buff
[Hulk, Tank]
Mining Laser Upgrade II Damage Control II
Limited Adaptive Invulnerability Field I Adaptive Invulnerability Field II EM Ward Amplifier II Survey Scanner II
Modulated Strip Miner II Modulated Strip Miner II Modulated Strip Miner II
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Genolution Core Augmentation CA-2
EHP 23.1 OH 25.1
how is this not a fair trade off? |
Pipa Porto
537
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 20:19:00 -
[1464] - Quote
Anvil44 wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:
If that's with TQ stats, a Hulk can do better with T1 rigs.
[Hulk, Tank Fit]
Micro Auxiliary Power Core II Internal Force Field Array I
Medium F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
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 I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
39k EHP vs Void. 3 CPU, .1 Grid available. Requires a 4% grid rig or downsize to T1 strips.
Anyway, nobody is forced to fit any tank to avoid ganks. They only have to fit a brick tank to avoid ALL profitable ganks in .5 sec space while totally AFK.
Plugged this into EFT - unless you are not listing implants best EHP I could find was 32k using the 'All lvl V' pilot and overheating modules. That was against explosive. Thermal is 25k. Not sure what I am missing here.
Bolded for you. The numbers should be about the same vs AM. It also has enough tank vs EMP, Quake, Fusion, or PP to survive 2 volleys of a Nado. No Fleet boosts, and only a 4% Grid Inplant.
If they bring 2 Nados, they're spending 140m to kill you. That's shot profit in the face. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
124
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 20:21:00 -
[1465] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:In that case, we're talking about post 1.2 where the way to tank your ship is to USE. A. SKIFF.
And a Hulk being fragile is fine because it's the ship you use when you have friends to help defend you.
- Gankers whine that Hulk can't be ganked after patch - CCP changes stats on test server - Gankers can't get to test server (for some reason) - I go there and fit a brick tank on Hulk and check what EHP is - I post information I got here in this thread - Gankers whine more and say I'm lying |
Anvil44
Independent Traders and Builders MPA
103
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 20:24:00 -
[1466] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:
Bolded for you. The numbers should be about the same vs AM. It also has enough tank vs EMP, Quake, Fusion, or PP to survive 2 volleys of a Nado. No Fleet boosts, and only a 4% Grid Inplant.
If they bring 2 Nados, they're spending 140m to kill you. That's shot profit in the face.
I hadn't realized Void could improve someones EHP. As I said, the best that a lvl V could do against any one damage type was 32k against explosive. The 39k must have been pulled out of that place where the sun doesn't shine...or you are forgetting to list implants. But 32k is still great against explosive. And I have to use the lvl V pilot as I just realized I don't have all my skills to lvl V that would help to improve my tank. Whoops.
I may not like you or your point of view but you have a right to voice it. |
Danny Diamonds
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
24
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 20:25:00 -
[1467] - Quote
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.
|
Dez Affinity
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
136
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 20:26:00 -
[1468] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Dez Affinity wrote:
I've done far more ganking of miners, including using 1 catalyst to solo a hulk in .5s It's horribly unfair, the guy can do nothing about it, I land right on top of him and he's dead before he can get past 10m/s. If I really want I can bump him with an alt for one mwd cycle and then he's really boned.
You ganked a Hulk in 0.5 space with a Catalyst. "Its horribly unfair" - that suggests that there is nothing he can do about it. "The guy can do nothing about it" Why do you promote misinformation??? FALSE: He can tank. One DCUII in the lows, and he survives that gank. One flight of ECM drones, he can stops two Catalysts. A few other mods, he can survive three . FALSE: He can mine in a safer place than 0.5.. FALSE: He can stay aligned and warp off before you land. and on and on...I'm not going to list all the ways. If you are going to make an argument, at least try not to back it up with discredited bullcrap.
The more tank he fits just means I have to bring an extra couple of catalysts, it's no big deal, they cost 1m isk and I'm already outlaw. I'll get that back in salvage easy. Doesn't really help him a whole bunch, most people do it with at least 2 catalyst, I'm just pointing out it's easy to do it with 1.
Sure he can go to a system with worse/less ore, more crowded, not where he keeps his stuff. Doesn't make too much difference but sure it makes you a tad less likely to get ganked.
Stay aligned? You're being silly. He'll go out of range of the asteroid he's mining within 5 minutes of mining, out of range of his Orca/secure container within 1 minute. Sorry, aligning might 'save' him but it kills his profitability to practically zero.
Fact is you're just angry it's going to be harder to kill a poor defenceless miner. I'm sad for u m8. High sec ganking is so hard!
|
baltec1
Bat Country
1724
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 20:27:00 -
[1469] - Quote
Soundwave Plays Diablo wrote: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'.
I can assure you that the stupidity of people is such that in 9 years they indeed never learn a very simply lesson. Fit a damn tank. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
33
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 20:29:00 -
[1470] - Quote
Danny Diamonds wrote: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.
So this fit here doesnt have a MLU in it?
[Hulk, Tank]
Mining Laser Upgrade II Damage Control II
Limited Adaptive Invulnerability Field I Adaptive Invulnerability Field II EM Ward Amplifier II Survey Scanner II
Modulated Strip Miner II Modulated Strip Miner II Modulated Strip Miner II
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Genolution Core Augmentation CA-2
Will survive 3 cats in a .5 system
|
|
Suqq Madiq
Amarr Empire
223
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 20:31:00 -
[1471] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:- Gankers whine
That sums up the thread.
Gankers whining that they have to put effort into finding profitable ganks.
Gankers whining that they have to make friends to gank tanked ships.
Gankers whining that not every ship in EVE is profitable to gank.
Gankers whining.
All ships can be ganked. Some ships can be ganked profitably. Some ships cannot be ganked profitably. Mining ship rebalance changes none of this. |
Dez Affinity
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
136
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 20:31:00 -
[1472] - Quote
Also I've done the whole 'kill the suicide catalyst' things. I would get in a Thrasher with 8 remote sensor boosters on me and tackle the mon their out gate, then they started fitting stabs, I could only catch one anyway and they could just go to a different system.
I also would camp their home system station after a gank with a sensor booster thrasher to pod them and make it expensive for them in implants/clones but that's easy to work around too. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
125
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 20:32:00 -
[1473] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:I can assure you that the stupidity of people is such that in 9 years they indeed never learn a very simply lesson. Fit a damn tank.
Hulk will be for fleet mining ops after the patch. No need to fit a tank because ships protecting those Hulks will be doing the tanking stuff. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
294
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 20:34:00 -
[1474] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:baltec1 wrote:I can assure you that the stupidity of people is such that in 9 years they indeed never learn a very simply lesson. Fit a damn tank. Hulk will be for fleet mining ops after the patch. No need to fit a tank because ships protecting those Hulks will be doing the tanking stuff.
indeed, polite gankers will target your combat ships first. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Arkon Olacar
Imperial Guardians Tribal Band
103
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 20:34:00 -
[1475] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:baltec1 wrote:I can assure you that the stupidity of people is such that in 9 years they indeed never learn a very simply lesson. Fit a damn tank. Hulk will be for fleet mining ops after the patch. No need to fit a tank because ships protecting those Hulks will be doing the tanking stuff. You are implying that your average miner will notice the patch, and change their afk mining habits. We are talking about people who pay for the priviledge of being a bot, not exactly the brightest bulbs in the box here. "The rest will be in the blog rather than invented at the keyboards of forum posters and bloggers." -á-á-á-á-á-á-á - CCP Sreegs, 23/06/2012
Umad forum warriors? |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
294
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 20:36:00 -
[1476] - Quote
Arkon Olacar wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:baltec1 wrote:I can assure you that the stupidity of people is such that in 9 years they indeed never learn a very simply lesson. Fit a damn tank. Hulk will be for fleet mining ops after the patch. No need to fit a tank because ships protecting those Hulks will be doing the tanking stuff. You are implying that your average miner will notice the patch, and change their afk mining habits. We are talking about people who pay for the priviledge of being a bot, not exactly the brightest bulbs in the box here.
sure they will when they wonder why A) their cargo is now only 350m3, and B) where did their ore go because it's not in the 350m3 cargo hold. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Pipa Porto
539
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 20:37:00 -
[1477] - Quote
Anvil44 wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:
Bolded for you. The numbers should be about the same vs AM. It also has enough tank vs EMP, Quake, Fusion, or PP to survive 2 volleys of a Nado. No Fleet boosts, and only a 4% Grid Inplant.
If they bring 2 Nados, they're spending 140m to kill you. That's shot profit in the face.
I hadn't realized Void could improve someones EHP. As I said, the best that a lvl V could do against any one damage type was 32k against explosive. The 39k must have been pulled out of that place where the sun doesn't shine...or you are forgetting to list implants. But 32k is still great against explosive. And I have to use the lvl V pilot as I just realized I don't have all my skills to lvl V that would help to improve my tank. Whoops.
There is no pure Explosive ammo. Void does 50/50 Kin/Therm. With Heat, this gets 84.5/88.4 Kin/Therm resists on 4k Shields, 44.1/35.5 on 1.27k Armor, and 58/58 on 3.16k Hull.
Pyfa does the math for me and totals it out to 39,193EHP vs Void Ammo. Feel free to check it's work. I've double checked, 1 4% Grid Implant, no Fleet Boosters.
Vs Fusion 45.7k EHP Vs AM 39.9k EHP Vs EMP 33.6k EHP Vs Quake 45.3k EHP Vs PP 36.7k EHP Vs Pure Explosive, 46.1k EHP EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
baltec1
Bat Country
1724
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 20:38:00 -
[1478] - Quote
Danny Diamonds wrote: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.
Well appart from all fleet line ships that use shields. |
Pipa Porto
539
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 20:39:00 -
[1479] - Quote
Dez Affinity wrote:Also I've done the whole 'kill the suicide catalyst' things. I would get in a Thrasher with 8 remote sensor boosters on me and tackle the mon their out gate, then they started fitting stabs, I could only catch one anyway and they could just go to a different system.
I also would camp their home system station after a gank with a sensor booster thrasher to pod them and make it expensive for them in implants/clones but that's easy to work around too.
Sit 5k off the Hulks in a Seboed, tracking 650 Nado. You'll 2 Volley Catalysts once they go GCC. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Pipa Porto
539
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 20:39:00 -
[1480] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:baltec1 wrote:I can assure you that the stupidity of people is such that in 9 years they indeed never learn a very simply lesson. Fit a damn tank. Hulk will be for fleet mining ops after the patch. No need to fit a tank because ships protecting those Hulks will be doing the tanking stuff. indeed, polite gankers will target your combat ships first.
Your Combat ships can kill the gank in progress before the Hulks die. Or Jam them. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
|
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1127
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 20:40:00 -
[1481] - Quote
Dez Affinity wrote:Stay aligned? You're being silly. He'll go out of range of the asteroid he's mining within 5 minutes of mining, out of range of his Orca/secure container within 1 minute. Sorry, aligning might 'save' him but it kills his profitability to practically zero.
Staying aligned is the easiest way to stay alive and make plenty of profit.
Works best in fleet ops, since the Orca can tractor jettisoned stuff. Ok solo as long as you don't mind warping to station when full.
You make a bunch of BMs off grid in a ring around the belt. You then fly to each one in such a way that you can mine continuously for hours, being aligned almost every second. The only way for someone to get you when using this method is to scan down your BMs (bumping is impractical because anything that could bump the miner off course enough would have to be uncloaked, and they could warp long before the bump occurred).
Mining is already nearly 100% safe if the morons would put some effort in. Instead, they want to be safe while away from the computer. They deserve to get blown up.
If you haven't guessed, I hate those miners (or any group for that matter) that demand changes to something that would work fine if they bothered to do things themselves. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
439
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 20:41:00 -
[1482] - Quote
MIrple wrote: Will survive 3 cats in a .5 system
I should add that this fit isn't even specialized to tank Catalysts. EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
439
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 20:44:00 -
[1483] - Quote
Not to mention staying aligned is even easier when having a corp frigate double web you. EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1127
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 20:44:00 -
[1484] - Quote
Suqq Madiq wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:- Gankers whine That sums up the thread. Gankers whining that they have to put effort into finding profitable ganks. Gankers whining that they have to make friends to gank tanked ships. Gankers whining that not every ship in EVE is profitable to gank. Gankers whining. Here are some facts. All ships can be ganked. Some ships can be ganked profitably. Some ships cannot be ganked profitably. Mining ship rebalance changes none of this. No its people (hint: not all of us are gankers... mostly) arguing that CCP is taking the changes too far. They are making the tanky miners pointless by making the Hulk and Mack more than tanky enough. No need to make a choice. Just use the Hulk for ore, and mack for ice/afk. |
Nikolai Dostoyevski
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
15
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 20:46:00 -
[1485] - Quote
OP apparently thinks MLUs and cargo expanders shouldn't be in the game at all.
Yawn - same old story. Wanna be griefers are disappointed and the inevitable whining ensues.
Griefer tears are the sweetest tears. They love to inflict meaningless pain on others but cry like babies when you take away their toys. |
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
548
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 20:46:00 -
[1486] - Quote
This thread is comedy frikken gold...
Interdict Hi-Sec - it's the only way to be sure... |
Dez Affinity
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
136
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 20:50:00 -
[1487] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Dez Affinity wrote:Also I've done the whole 'kill the suicide catalyst' things. I would get in a Thrasher with 8 remote sensor boosters on me and tackle the mon their out gate, then they started fitting stabs, I could only catch one anyway and they could just go to a different system.
I also would camp their home system station after a gank with a sensor booster thrasher to pod them and make it expensive for them in implants/clones but that's easy to work around too. Sit 5k off the Hulks in a Seboed, tracking 650 Nado. You'll 2 Volley Catalysts once they go GCC.
You don't know what belt they're warping to until they warp to it. Following them in a thrasher works ok, you can sometimes snag a pod or a catalyst but you won't save the hulk.
Corina Jarr wrote: You make a bunch of BMs off grid in a ring around the belt. You then fly to each one in such a way that you can mine continuously for hours, being aligned almost every second. The only way for someone to get you when using this method is to scan down your BMs (bumping is impractical because anything that could bump the miner off course enough would have to be uncloaked, and they could warp long before the bump occurred).
OOh come on you can't be serious, makes off grid book marks in ever belt you want to mine in and remember where each one is and at what apex of your orbit while keeping in range of the asteroids. That's harder than PvP! You could argue that they should be using celestials to do the same thing, that, is much easier.
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
439
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 20:50:00 -
[1488] - Quote
The only tears I see are those of miner babies crying that the rest of us with some common sense are in here pointing out their idiocy. EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
125
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 20:51:00 -
[1489] - Quote
Asuri Kinnes wrote:This thread is comedy frikken gold...
At least a lot of ganker tears in this thread. |
Soundwave Plays Diablo
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
65
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 20:54:00 -
[1490] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Soundwave Plays Diablo wrote: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'. I can assure you that the stupidity of people is such that in 9 years they indeed never learn a very simply lesson. Fit a damn tank.
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.
|
|
Pipa Porto
539
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 20:57:00 -
[1491] - Quote
Dez Affinity wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Dez Affinity wrote:Also I've done the whole 'kill the suicide catalyst' things. I would get in a Thrasher with 8 remote sensor boosters on me and tackle the mon their out gate, then they started fitting stabs, I could only catch one anyway and they could just go to a different system.
I also would camp their home system station after a gank with a sensor booster thrasher to pod them and make it expensive for them in implants/clones but that's easy to work around too. Sit 5k off the Hulks in a Seboed, tracking 650 Nado. You'll 2 Volley Catalysts once they go GCC. You don't know what belt they're warping to until they warp to it. Following them in a thrasher works ok, you can sometimes snag a pod or a catalyst but you won't save the hulk.
I'm saying you camp the Hulks. And you will Blap a Catalyst (probably 2) before their 20s are up. You lock faster than they do, and you kill one every other ~3.5s cycle. That means, unless they bring an extra 1 or 2 Catalysts to the Gank, the Hulk survives.
If you're trying to hit them before they gank, go with an 1200 Arty Nado on the gate and blap them as they try to warp. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
125
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 21:03:00 -
[1492] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:I'm saying you camp the Hulks. And you will Blap a Catalyst (probably 2) before their 20s are up. You lock faster than they do, and you kill one every other ~3.5s cycle. That means, unless they bring an extra 1 or 2 Catalysts to the Gank, the Hulk survives.
Could work. Thrasher only has 550 scan resolution vs Catalyst's 500. I don't think that makes a big difference. |
baltec1
Bat Country
1724
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 21:04:00 -
[1493] - Quote
Soundwave Plays Diablo wrote: 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.
Miners have yet to go out of profit. Indeed, right now they are having the biggest boom in EVE history, all while under the gankers "opression".
Also you will have to explain to us why fitting a tank which will stop you from getting killed is irrelevant. Given that being killed is what you are whining about. |
Nikolai Dostoyevski
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
15
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 21:09:00 -
[1494] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:The only tears I see are those of miner babies crying that the rest of us with some common sense are in here pointing out their idiocy.
Oh this is getting even better. My bucket isn't big enough! |
Pipa Porto
539
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 21:11:00 -
[1495] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:I'm saying you camp the Hulks. And you will Blap a Catalyst (probably 2) before their 20s are up. You lock faster than they do, and you kill one every other ~3.5s cycle. That means, unless they bring an extra 1 or 2 Catalysts to the Gank, the Hulk survives. Could work. Thrasher only has 550 scan resolution vs Catalyst's 500. I don't think that makes a big difference.
Nado. TOR-NA-DO.
Buncha Sebos, Buncha 425s (650s also work, but 425s can 2 shot them and tracking helps you make sure you connect strong).
Catalysts have ~4k EHP vs Fusion
This does 2246 per shot and cycles every 2.79s. Locks in 1.2s to a Cats 2.1s Lock on a Hulk. So every 6s you're killing a Catalyst, and you get to start as soon as they GCC.
[Tornado, Protect Ze Miners]
Tracking Enhancer II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II
Sensor Booster II, Scan Resolution Script Sensor Booster II, Scan Resolution Script Sensor Booster II, Scan Resolution Script Tracking Computer II, Tracking Speed Script Tracking Computer II, Tracking Speed Script
Dual 425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet Fusion L Dual 425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet Fusion L Dual 425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet Fusion L Dual 425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet Fusion L Dual 425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet Fusion L Dual 425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet Fusion L Dual 425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet Fusion L Dual 425mm AutoCannon II, Republic Fleet Fusion L
Medium Projectile Collision Accelerator I Medium Targeting System Subcontroller I [Empty Rig slot]
EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
126
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 21:11:00 -
[1496] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Also you will have to explain to us why fitting a tank which will stop you from getting killed is irrelevant. Given that being killed is what you are whining about.
After the patch: Tank Skiff Tank Mack Put few invuls on Hulk (tanking will be done by Scimi/Basi pilot who can tank over 5000) |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
295
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 21:22:00 -
[1497] - Quote
hang on... what's the biggest tank you can fit while still maxing yield (t2 strips, 2x mlu IIs) on a hulk with the new stats? Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
baltec1
Bat Country
1724
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 21:25:00 -
[1498] - Quote
Nikolai Dostoyevski wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:The only tears I see are those of miner babies crying that the rest of us with some common sense are in here pointing out their idiocy. Oh this is getting even better. My bucket isn't big enough!
So this is someone who has seen an EVE meme and not understood it correctly and then used it in the wrong way and made a terrible post. Don't be this guy |
Sentamon
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
76
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 21:29:00 -
[1499] - Quote
I dare someone to read this whole thread. ~ Professional Forum Alt -á~ |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
295
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 21:30:00 -
[1500] - Quote
Sentamon wrote:I dare someone to read this whole thread.
people have done; i get a random like, then about 15 mins later i'll get another one about 20 pages on etc... people are reading it but by the time they get this far they've fallen asleep, clawed their eyes out, or jumped out of the window. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
|
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
546
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 21:31:00 -
[1501] - Quote
Or, maybe all you whiny little whining whine-guys could, post-patch...
Fly a Procurer in hisec?
They've changed the stats/slot layout now, although I don't know if it's final, but this:
Procurer -- "HMCS Bring it, Punk!"
HI Strip Miner I or II
MID 1 x Medium Shield Extender II 1 x Kinetic Hardener II 2 x Invuln Field II
LO 1 x Damage Control II 1 x Mining Laser Upgrade I or II
RIG 2 x EM Resist rig I 1 x Thermal Resist rig I
DRONE (5 x to taste, probably Hob IIs to make quick work of belt-rats)
^^That^^ has approx 45.6k EHP in-game, heating to ca. 54+...We're talking "typical" 1 LSE/2 Invuln/CDFE or resist-rig Drake-level buffer here with 50% less sig-radius...My testing on SiSi has proven conclusively that this cannot be solo-ganked in HiSec, as the group needed would be hopelessly unprofitable (3 very high skill + all T II fit--expensive for a gank-ship Toros, or all T II Torp/Smartbomb Ravens at the minimum).
The manu/indi alt can't fly the T II barges yet, but I imagine the Proc's T II progeny would be even more beastly just looking at its base numbers.
Shut the f up, and enjoy your massive buff, already -- Gods, there's just no pleasing some people vOv...
If you get ganked in this, then it will be 100% your own damned fault, and a clear sign that you really should biomass and un-install. In irae, veritas. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
295
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 21:32:00 -
[1502] - Quote
Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:Fly a Procurer in hisec?
but i'm in a fleet with my orca alt. i'm flying my hulk! Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
439
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 21:34:00 -
[1503] - Quote
If I'm shedding tears it's out of frustration after repeated attempts to explain something you seem completely incapable of comprehending. Not because I'm a ganker, because I'm not one. EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
Pipa Porto
539
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 21:36:00 -
[1504] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:Fly a Procurer in hisec?
but i'm in a fleet with my orca alt. i'm flying my hulk!
Orca fit Webs, Hulk fit Webs, Both mine aligned to a Safe or POS. (you'll be mooving at ~10m/s)
Be atk enough to notice things landing on grid with you, and warp away clean. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam
2
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 21:41:00 -
[1505] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Tippia wrote:Makari Aeron wrote: My reasoning is this: 1. so much whining about getting ganked by CONCORD and not making a profit 2. so much whining about miners having too much tank
Solution: Don't gank in hi-sec for profit.
Problem: highsec is where the profitable targets are. Moving outside of highsec means more risk for less reward. Is there a problem?
the "Risk v's Reward" maxim so frequently posted does of course mean
- You take all the risk
- They get all the reward
|
baltec1
Bat Country
1724
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 21:41:00 -
[1506] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:Fly a Procurer in hisec?
but i'm in a fleet with my orca alt. i'm flying my hulk!
ECM drones everywhere. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
296
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 21:43:00 -
[1507] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dave stark wrote:Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:Fly a Procurer in hisec?
but i'm in a fleet with my orca alt. i'm flying my hulk! ECM drones everywhere.
10 + medium ecm drones!
more jammy than a sticky situation in a jam factory after a jamtastic afternoon. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
baltec1
Bat Country
1724
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 21:49:00 -
[1508] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:baltec1 wrote:Dave stark wrote:Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:Fly a Procurer in hisec?
but i'm in a fleet with my orca alt. i'm flying my hulk! ECM drones everywhere. 10 + medium ecm drones! more jammy than a sticky situation in a jam factory after a jamtastic afternoon.
Jammed |
Soundwave Plays Diablo
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
65
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 21:52:00 -
[1509] - Quote
Quote:Miners have yet to go out of profit. Indeed, right now they are having the biggest boom in EVE history, all while under the gankers "opression".
Also you will have to explain to us why fitting a tank which will stop you from getting killed is irrelevant. Given that being killed is what you are whining about.
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.
ITT people are comparing apples to oranges, as usual. The profitability or net loss of the **gank itself* is completely irrelevant. The ability to make enough profit to overcome any losses incurred while ganking is the only sustainability factor. This is easy to accomplish. My solo l4 mission runner makes more than any 2 miners in eve. My team of 3 mission runners makes as much as a half dozen miners. Incursion running has been nerfed but it still nets 60million ISK an hour + LP. My industry toon makes as much as 1hulk +1 orca easy. running c3's? Forget about it, the miners cant even come close.
Plenty of miners have left Eve because they could not afford to PLEX any longer. Plenty have stated exactly that and are 'conspicuous by their absence' If you want to rationalize [i]why[/] be my guest.
|
Corvus Prime
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 21:53:00 -
[1510] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:CCP saving stupid Pigs from themselves. Why hasn't this thread been locked due to the OP's ad homs yet? Or is it really OK to call a portion of the playerbase "stupid pigs"?
|
|
Pipa Porto
539
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 21:55:00 -
[1511] - Quote
Corvus Prime wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:CCP saving stupid Pigs from themselves. Why hasn't this thread been locked due to the OP's ad homs yet? Or is it really OK to call a portion of the playerbase "stupid pigs"?
Have you seen the amount of vitriol that the miners have been spewing at the gankers (or anyone who at all disagrees with them) in this thread? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
296
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 21:59:00 -
[1512] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dave stark wrote:baltec1 wrote:Dave stark wrote:Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:Fly a Procurer in hisec?
but i'm in a fleet with my orca alt. i'm flying my hulk! ECM drones everywhere. 10 + medium ecm drones! more jammy than a sticky situation in a jam factory after a jamtastic afternoon. Jammed
haha Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Corvus Prime
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 22:00:00 -
[1513] - Quote
Well, what else did you expect when he opens the OP's title by calling the miners "supid pigs"? |
Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
104
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 22:00:00 -
[1514] - Quote
After mining arkonor for an hour and a half yesterday, I remember why I quit mining 2 years ago.
One of the most mind numbing things to do and I think I only made a paltry 36 million despite mining only arkonor and having a
boosted covetor.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
1724
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 22:01:00 -
[1515] - Quote
Soundwave Plays Diablo wrote:
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.
The veldnought can be ganked if you bring enough catalysts. However there comes a point where people will not bother to gank something. Fortunatly for miners hulks can reach this level of tank. |
Suqq Madiq
Amarr Empire
226
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 22:01:00 -
[1516] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Corvus Prime wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:CCP saving stupid Pigs from themselves. Why hasn't this thread been locked due to the OP's ad homs yet? Or is it really OK to call a portion of the playerbase "stupid pigs"? Have you seen the amount of vitriol that the miners have been spewing at the gankers (or anyone who at all disagrees with them) in this thread?
Have you seen the amount of stupidity, rhetoric, lies and falsehoods that so-called "gankers" have been regurgitating all over this thread? |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
296
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 22:04:00 -
[1517] - Quote
Soon Shin wrote:After mining arkonor for an hour and a half yesterday, I remember why I quit mining 2 years ago.
One of the most mind numbing things to do and I think I only made a paltry 36 million despite mining only arkonor and having a
boosted covetor.
i remember why i gave up mission running after spending an hour and a half on 1 mission despite it being a level 4.
it's one of the most annoying things to do and i spent most of my money on ammo despite using a fully t1 fit drake. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1723
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 22:06:00 -
[1518] - Quote
Corvus Prime wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:CCP saving stupid Pigs from themselves. Why hasn't this thread been locked due to the OP's ad homs yet? Or is it really OK to call a portion of the playerbase "stupid pigs"?
Game is dominated by one blueball and forums are dominated by the same 4-5 "kill hi sec, gas miners" proponents and CCP obey them pants down. Any other question? Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1723
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 22:07:00 -
[1519] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Corvus Prime wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:CCP saving stupid Pigs from themselves. Why hasn't this thread been locked due to the OP's ad homs yet? Or is it really OK to call a portion of the playerbase "stupid pigs"? Have you seen the amount of vitriol that the miners have been spewing at the gankers (or anyone who at all disagrees with them) in this thread?
I guess their vitriol is why they can post with their main, while you are circumventing your ban on that alt? Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Suqq Madiq
Amarr Empire
226
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 22:12:00 -
[1520] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Corvus Prime wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:CCP saving stupid Pigs from themselves. Why hasn't this thread been locked due to the OP's ad homs yet? Or is it really OK to call a portion of the playerbase "stupid pigs"? Have you seen the amount of vitriol that the miners have been spewing at the gankers (or anyone who at all disagrees with them) in this thread? I guess their vitriol is why they can post with their main, while you are circumventing your ban on that alt?
To be fair, Ruby is a special snowflake. The filter between his brain and mouth (or fingers in this case) malfunctions often which forces him into constant shitposting and has suffered repeated forum warnings and bans because of it. Most of the pro-ganker crowd is happily posting on their main while the pro-miner crowd is unlikely to do the same in an effort to avoid the targeted ire of the vengeful ganker mobs. |
|
Mallak Azaria
401
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 22:12:00 -
[1521] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Bolded the part your blinds seem to hide.
You forgot to bold the part where I gave a definitive time frame.
Oh that's right, because there's nothing to bold.
Mining Barge buff: CCP-áhas acknowledged that miners in general-áare too stupid to make the correct fitting choices to make ganking them unprofitable. |
Talus Veran
Valis Inc
12
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 22:14:00 -
[1522] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:If these changes go through I'd like to see CCP put bot hunting into overdrive. These changes will make botting all the more easier because you don't need to worry about that mining ship getting ganked.
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 "Zee Goggles, Zey Do Nothing!"
Message me on Twitter-á-á @talus_veran I follow -á #eveonline-á &-á #tweetfleet |
Mallak Azaria
401
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 22:14:00 -
[1523] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Do you gank and empty freighter?
Ganking a freighter effectively empties it, so yes.
Mining Barge buff: CCP-áhas acknowledged that miners in general-áare too stupid to make the correct fitting choices to make ganking them unprofitable. |
Soundwave Plays Diablo
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
65
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 22:15:00 -
[1524] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Soundwave Plays Diablo wrote:
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.
The veldnought can be ganked if you bring enough catalysts. However there comes a point where people will not bother to gank something. Fortunatly for miners hulks can reach this level of tank.
You cannot accurately determine something that is subjective to other people.
Thanks for your input however. |
Pipa Porto
543
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 22:15:00 -
[1525] - Quote
Suqq Madiq wrote:To be fair, Ruby is a special snowflake. The filter between his brain and mouth (or fingers in this case) malfunctions often which forces him into constant shitposting and has suffered repeated forum warnings and bans because of it. Most of the pro-ganker crowd is happily posting on their main while the pro-miner crowd is unlikely to do the same in an effort to avoid the targeted ire of the vengeful ganker mobs.
I have exactly 1 Red mark on Ruby. For a specific set of posts that were intended to call attention to an issue that would not otherwise be discussed. It worked, and we have better moderation because of it.
I have never had a Warning for forum posting. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1723
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 22:15:00 -
[1526] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Bolded the part your blinds seem to hide.
You forgot to bold the part where I gave a definitive time frame. Oh that's right, because there's nothing to bold.
Why, your armagheddon scenario is meant to happen in 20 years, when EvE might be shut down? 6 months is plenty to see if you predicted good or bad. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Mallak Azaria
401
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 22:16:00 -
[1527] - Quote
Suqq Madiq wrote:To be fair, Ruby is a special snowflake. The filter between his brain and mouth (or fingers in this case) malfunctions often which forces him into constant shitposting and has suffered repeated forum warnings and bans because of it. Most of the pro-ganker crowd is happily posting on their main while the pro-miner crowd is unlikely to do the same in an effort to avoid the targeted ire of the vengeful ganker mobs.
I love it when people assume someones main was repeatedly warned then banned for reasons that they make up in their head.
Mining Barge buff: CCP-áhas acknowledged that miners in general-áare too stupid to make the correct fitting choices to make ganking them unprofitable. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1723
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 22:17:00 -
[1528] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Do you gank and empty freighter? Ganking a freighter effectively empties it, so yes.
Oh look, we got someone with fantasy inspirations. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Pipa Porto
543
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 22:17:00 -
[1529] - Quote
Soundwave Plays Diablo wrote:baltec1 wrote:Soundwave Plays Diablo wrote:
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.
The veldnought can be ganked if you bring enough catalysts. However there comes a point where people will not bother to gank something. Fortunatly for miners hulks can reach this level of tank. You cannot accurately determine something that is subjective to other people. Thanks for your input however.
Are you complaining that Hulks can possibly be ganked or that they can be profitably ganked?
Nobody's saying that any ship can't possibly be ganked. Hulks can be fit such that they cannot be profitably ganked. If someone wants to throw away money to hurt you, you might want to consider avoiding making such enemies. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Suqq Madiq
Amarr Empire
226
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 22:18:00 -
[1530] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:I have exactly 1 Red mark on Ruby. For a specific set of posts that were intended to call attention to an issue that would not otherwise be discussed. It worked, and we have better moderation because of it.
I have never had a Warning for forum posting.
The root of the problem has, at last, been discovered. You think your forum whining, childish behavior and shitposting had an effect on forum moderation. It didn't. Because of this you think forum whining, childish behavior and shitposting will have an effect on Mining ship re-balance. It won't.
Glad we could clear that up. |
|
Mallak Azaria
401
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 22:18:00 -
[1531] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Do you gank and empty freighter? Ganking a freighter effectively empties it, so yes. Oh look, we got someone with fantasy inspirations.
You're the one that asked: Do you gank and empty freighter? I'd hardly call answering your question honestly to be a fantasy. You must be getting desperate.
Mining Barge buff: CCP-áhas acknowledged that miners in general-áare too stupid to make the correct fitting choices to make ganking them unprofitable. |
baltec1
Bat Country
1725
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 22:19:00 -
[1532] - Quote
Soundwave Plays Diablo wrote:baltec1 wrote:Soundwave Plays Diablo wrote:
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.
The veldnought can be ganked if you bring enough catalysts. However there comes a point where people will not bother to gank something. Fortunatly for miners hulks can reach this level of tank. You cannot accurately determine something that is subjective to other people. Thanks for your input however.
This isn't subjective. You can tank a hulk to the point where all but the most bitter will pass it by for easyer, more profitable kills. This is why my haulers and hulks have never died to a gank in 6 years of playing. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1723
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 22:20:00 -
[1533] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote: I have never had a Warning for forum posting.
I have exactly 1 Red mark on Ruby. For a specific set of posts that were intended to call attention to an issue that would not otherwise be discussed. It worked, and we have better moderation because of it.
I spotted a coincidence. What's the red mark about? 1 month? Perma?
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Suqq Madiq
Amarr Empire
226
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 22:20:00 -
[1534] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Hulks can be fit such that they cannot be profitably ganked.
Irrelevant.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1723
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 22:21:00 -
[1535] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Do you gank and empty freighter? Ganking a freighter effectively empties it, so yes. Oh look, we got someone with fantasy inspirations. You're the one that asked: Do you gank and empty freighter? I'd hardly call answering your question honestly to be a fantasy. You must be getting desperate.
So you REALLY go to the final straws and pretend everybody else are so stupid not to understand the meaning of my easy 4-5 lines of text? Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Suqq Madiq
Amarr Empire
226
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 22:21:00 -
[1536] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:This isn't subjective. You can tank a hulk to the point where all but the most bitter will pass it by for easyer, more profitable kills. This is why my haulers and hulks have never died to a gank in 6 years of playing.
Profitability is irrelevant. |
Pipa Porto
543
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 22:24:00 -
[1537] - Quote
Suqq Madiq wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Hulks can be fit such that they cannot be profitably ganked. Irrelevant.
Why? How else should ganking be balanced? Survive-ability being based on cost has been shown to be a failed balancing idea (see: Supers and Titans). EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
baltec1
Bat Country
1725
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 22:24:00 -
[1538] - Quote
Suqq Madiq wrote:baltec1 wrote:This isn't subjective. You can tank a hulk to the point where all but the most bitter will pass it by for easyer, more profitable kills. This is why my haulers and hulks have never died to a gank in 6 years of playing. Profitability is irrelevant.
You can say that all you want but its as wrong now as it was the first time you said it. |
Arkon Olacar
Imperial Guardians Tribal Band
103
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 22:24:00 -
[1539] - Quote
Suqq Madiq wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:I have exactly 1 Red mark on Ruby. For a specific set of posts that were intended to call attention to an issue that would not otherwise be discussed. It worked, and we have better moderation because of it.
I have never had a Warning for forum posting. The root of the problem has, at last, been discovered. You think your forum whining, childish behavior and shitposting had an effect on forum moderation. It didn't. Because of this you think forum whining, childish behavior and shitposting will have an effect on Mining ship re-balance. It won't. Glad we could clear that up. Look at you, pretending to be relevant, miscellaneous forum alt #4937. "The rest will be in the blog rather than invented at the keyboards of forum posters and bloggers." -á-á-á-á-á-á-á - CCP Sreegs, 23/06/2012
Umad forum warriors? |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1127
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 22:24:00 -
[1540] - Quote
Suqq Madiq wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:I have exactly 1 Red mark on Ruby. For a specific set of posts that were intended to call attention to an issue that would not otherwise be discussed. It worked, and we have better moderation because of it.
I have never had a Warning for forum posting. The root of the problem has, at last, been discovered. You think your forum whining, childish behavior and shitposting had an effect on forum moderation. It didn't. Because of this you think forum whining, childish behavior and shitposting will have an effect on Mining ship re-balance. It won't. Glad we could clear that up. You been here long?
Whining has always gotten things done.
In fact, since Incarna, whining has been the most effective way of changing the way things are in EVE. For better and (usually) for worse.
And Ruby's (along with others) comments on moderation did lead to a discourse on the ISD, which in turn has provided improved moderation of the forums. The correlation is there. Whether or not there is a direct causation does not matter. |
|
Mallak Azaria
401
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 22:26:00 -
[1541] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:So you REALLY go to the final straws and pretend everybody else are so stupid not to understand the meaning of my easy 4-5 lines of text?
Not at all.
Have a deep & thoughtful think about what you said in the quoted text.
Quote: Do you gank and empty freighter?
The rest of what you said was well structured & added to the present argument.
Mining Barge buff: CCP-áhas acknowledged that miners in general-áare too stupid to make the correct fitting choices to make ganking them unprofitable. |
Soundwave Plays Diablo
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
65
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 22:28:00 -
[1542] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Soundwave Plays Diablo wrote:baltec1 wrote:Soundwave Plays Diablo wrote:
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.
The veldnought can be ganked if you bring enough catalysts. However there comes a point where people will not bother to gank something. Fortunatly for miners hulks can reach this level of tank. You cannot accurately determine something that is subjective to other people. Thanks for your input however. Are you complaining that Hulks can possibly be ganked or that they can be profitably ganked? Nobody's saying that any ship can't possibly be ganked. Hulks can be fit such that they cannot be profitably ganked. If someone wants to throw away money to hurt you, you might want to consider avoiding making such enemies.
1. I am not complaining about anything other than the system is currently broken after several fixes over several years. 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.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
1725
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 22:30:00 -
[1543] - Quote
Soundwave Plays Diablo wrote: 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.
And this can only be done by making a profit on said ganks. |
Pipa Porto
543
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 22:32:00 -
[1544] - Quote
Soundwave Plays Diablo wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Are you complaining that Hulks can possibly be ganked or that they can be profitably ganked?
Nobody's saying that any ship can't possibly be ganked. Hulks can be fit such that they cannot be profitably ganked. If someone wants to throw away money to hurt you, you might want to consider avoiding making such enemies. 1. I am not complaining about anything other than the system is currently broken after several fixes over several years. 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.
1. How, specifically, is it broken? Is it because Gankers can operate at a profit? Because the victim loses more than the ganker? Something in between?
2. Pay for it how? Subsidizing ganking through other activities? In that case, how is that different from saying that you want ganking eliminated, since as long as a ganker " is able to pay for the ships lost to concord they will be able to sustain ganking indefinitely"? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Suqq Madiq
Amarr Empire
228
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 22:36:00 -
[1545] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Suqq Madiq wrote:Profitability is irrelevant. You can say that all you want but its as wrong now as it was the first time you said it. Trying to use it to escape a point you cannot possibly counter only makes you look stupid.
CCP Soundwave wrote: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.
And,
CCP Soundwave wrote:Yeah my point is thatI 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).
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? |
baltec1
Bat Country
1725
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 22:39:00 -
[1546] - Quote
Suqq Madiq wrote:
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?
Because this dev hasn't been massivly wrong in the past. The Door ring any bells?
|
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1127
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 22:41:00 -
[1547] - Quote
Suqq Madiq wrote:baltec1 wrote:Suqq Madiq wrote:Profitability is irrelevant. You can say that all you want but its as wrong now as it was the first time you said it. Trying to use it to escape a point you cannot possibly counter only makes you look stupid. CCP Soundwave wrote: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. And, CCP Soundwave wrote:Yeah my point is thatI 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). 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? And guess what, as it stands right now on TQ, unless you use a bunch of rookie ships, ganking is only profitable if your target is a moron/lazy. |
Soundwave Plays Diablo
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
65
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 22:42:00 -
[1548] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Soundwave Plays Diablo wrote:baltec1 wrote:Soundwave Plays Diablo wrote:
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.
The veldnought can be ganked if you bring enough catalysts. However there comes a point where people will not bother to gank something. Fortunatly for miners hulks can reach this level of tank. You cannot accurately determine something that is subjective to other people. Thanks for your input however. This isn't subjective. You can tank a hulk to the point where all but the most bitter will pass it by for easyer, more profitable kills. This is why my haulers and hulks have never died to a gank in 6 years of playing.
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.
|
Oona Kasenumi
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 22:43:00 -
[1549] - Quote
I agree with what little substance there was in the OP for the most part. Mining barges don't need a buff. Fit your ship correctly and don't mine in busy systems.
That said, this 70+ page thread literally soaked with highsec griefer tears is starting to make me see things differently.
Maybe we should just make barges completely invulnerable (only if they fit mining lazors of course; we wouldn't want to make anything unbalanced now would we?). |
Suqq Madiq
Amarr Empire
228
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 22:44:00 -
[1550] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:And guess what, as it stands right now on TQ, unless you use a bunch of rookie ships, ganking is only profitable if your target is a moron/lazy.
Again, this is irrelevant. Ganking wasn't designed to be profitable. That you can profit from it comes down to your ability to wisely choose your targets. |
|
Soundwave Plays Diablo
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
65
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 22:46:00 -
[1551] - Quote
Quote:When you've been told by a CCP dev that you're wrong and you still belabor the point,
Ah sorry.. |
Pipa Porto
543
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 22:46:00 -
[1552] - Quote
Suqq Madiq wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:And guess what, as it stands right now on TQ, unless you use a bunch of rookie ships, ganking is only profitable if your target is a moron/lazy. Again, this is irrelevant. Ganking wasn't designed to be profitable. That you can profit from it comes down to your ability to wisely choose your targets.
Exactly as it is on TQ right now. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
baltec1
Bat Country
1725
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 22:46:00 -
[1553] - Quote
Soundwave Plays Diablo wrote:
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.
I lived through the M0o camps, you have no idea what a gank pandemic is like. |
Suqq Madiq
Amarr Empire
229
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 22:46:00 -
[1554] - Quote
Oona Kasenumi wrote:I agree with what little substance there was in the OP for the most part. Mining barges don't need a buff. Fit your ship correctly and don't mine in busy systems.
That said, this 70+ page thread literally soaked with highsec griefer tears is starting to make me see things differently.
Maybe we should just make barges completely invulnerable (only if they fit mining lazors of course; we wouldn't want to make anything unbalanced now would we?).
Don't be dumb. The tears in this thread are predominantly from the pro-ganker crowd who feels this necessary re-balance is either unnecessary(wrong) or completely over the top(subjective). Nobody believes or has suggested that any ship in EVE should be invulnerable. At least try to comprehend what you're reading before further regurgitating that garbage again. |
Suqq Madiq
Amarr Empire
229
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 22:47:00 -
[1555] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Suqq Madiq wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:And guess what, as it stands right now on TQ, unless you use a bunch of rookie ships, ganking is only profitable if your target is a moron/lazy. Again, this is irrelevant. Ganking wasn't designed to be profitable. That you can profit from it comes down to your ability to wisely choose your targets. Exactly as it is on TQ right now.
And exactly as it will remain when the re-balance hits TQ. Thank you for acknowledging that there is no problem here. |
Oona Kasenumi
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 22:50:00 -
[1556] - Quote
Suqq Madiq wrote:Oona Kasenumi wrote:I agree with what little substance there was in the OP for the most part. Mining barges don't need a buff. Fit your ship correctly and don't mine in busy systems.
That said, this 70+ page thread literally soaked with highsec griefer tears is starting to make me see things differently.
Maybe we should just make barges completely invulnerable (only if they fit mining lazors of course; we wouldn't want to make anything unbalanced now would we?). Don't be dumb. The tears in this thread are predominantly from the pro-ganker crowd who feels this necessary re-balance is either unnecessary(wrong) or completely over the top(subjective). Nobody believes or has suggested that any ship in EVE should be invulnerable. At least try to comprehend what you're reading before further regurgitating that garbage again.
Read what I wrote again; specifically the second line: "That said, this 70+ page thread literally soaked with highsec griefer tears is starting to make me see things differently."
|
Suqq Madiq
Amarr Empire
229
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 22:53:00 -
[1557] - Quote
Oona Kasenumi wrote:Suqq Madiq wrote:Oona Kasenumi wrote:I agree with what little substance there was in the OP for the most part. Mining barges don't need a buff. Fit your ship correctly and don't mine in busy systems.
That said, this 70+ page thread literally soaked with highsec griefer tears is starting to make me see things differently.
Maybe we should just make barges completely invulnerable (only if they fit mining lazors of course; we wouldn't want to make anything unbalanced now would we?). Don't be dumb. The tears in this thread are predominantly from the pro-ganker crowd who feels this necessary re-balance is either unnecessary(wrong) or completely over the top(subjective). Nobody believes or has suggested that any ship in EVE should be invulnerable. At least try to comprehend what you're reading before further regurgitating that garbage again. Read what I wrote again; specifically the second line: "That said, this 70+ page thread literally soaked with highsec griefer tears is starting to make me see things differently."
Duly noted and my apologies. But your line about invulnerable ships raises all kinds of red flags. Unless there is some level of sarcasm in it that I didn't detect which I am willing to guess, after nearly 80 pages of this crap, is a definite possibility. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1723
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 22:57:00 -
[1558] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:So you REALLY go to the final straws and pretend everybody else are so stupid not to understand the meaning of my easy 4-5 lines of text? Not at all. Have a deep & thoughtful think about what you said in the quoted text. Quote: Do you gank and empty freighter? The rest of what you said was well structured & added to the present argument.
Ah, so you are hooking on an obvious typo ("and" instead of "an") off someone who is not English spoken. Got it. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Soundwave Plays Diablo
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
66
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 22:58:00 -
[1559] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Soundwave Plays Diablo wrote: 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.
And this can only be done by making a profit on said ganks.
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? |
baltec1
Bat Country
1725
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 23:05:00 -
[1560] - Quote
Soundwave Plays Diablo wrote:
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?
In order to run missions you have to stop ganking. Make a profit on ganking and you can just keep on ganking.
Not even the goons could keep up ganking miners forever at a loss, the funds run out. The burn Jita weekend was great fun but again, that kind of level of killing cannot be sustained at a loss. Go ahead and look at the KBs, you will find just about every single gank victim who died was worth more than the ship that killed him.
This is the very simple fact of ganking, 99% of the time it is done for profit. |
|
Pipa Porto
544
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 23:06:00 -
[1561] - Quote
Suqq Madiq wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Suqq Madiq wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:And guess what, as it stands right now on TQ, unless you use a bunch of rookie ships, ganking is only profitable if your target is a moron/lazy. Again, this is irrelevant. Ganking wasn't designed to be profitable. That you can profit from it comes down to your ability to wisely choose your targets. Exactly as it is on TQ right now. And exactly as it will remain when the re-balance hits TQ. Thank you for acknowledging that there is no problem here.
Not with the original SISI stats. A Midslot tanked Hulk would be able to fit 2 MLUs and enough tank to be unprofitable.
A Retriever and Skiff would be off the charts.
The new set's fine for the Hulk (the Mack doesn't need to be taking so much of the Skiff's tanky limelite). The Hulk is going to be fragile. D-Scan will be the tool to determine profitability, instead of a ship scan. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
555
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 23:13:00 -
[1562] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Soundwave Plays Diablo wrote: 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.
And this can only be done by making a profit on said ganks.
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? brb |
baltec1
Bat Country
1725
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 23:16:00 -
[1563] - Quote
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:baltec1 wrote:Soundwave Plays Diablo wrote: 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.
And this can only be done by making a profit on said ganks. 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?
It wouldnt be profitable if the miners fitted a tank. I bet we would make a profit from ganking any ship with no tank. |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
555
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 23:17:00 -
[1564] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Suqq Madiq wrote:
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?
Because this dev hasn't been massivly wrong in the past. The Door ring any bells? Plus the fact they they are listening to us and changing the stats back to something less overpowered would say they are listening to people like me more than you.
And if they do that's just a horrible day for Eve, because if you just go away you represent less than 5% of the ganked population, therefore irrelevant for the game, you can move on no one will miss you.
And another flash news: the game will not die because 5% cry babies move on to some other game for a couple months, actually no one gives a crap including majority of null sec players. brb |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
555
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 23:19:00 -
[1565] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:baltec1 wrote:Soundwave Plays Diablo wrote: 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.
And this can only be done by making a profit on said ganks. 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? It wouldnt be profitable if the miners fitted a tank. I bet we would make a profit from ganking any ship with no tank.
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.
brb |
baltec1
Bat Country
1725
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 23:25:00 -
[1566] - Quote
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
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.
So why did CCP alter the stats again so that they were not stupidly overtanked?
See unlike you I am looking at more than "lol gankers cant make money anymore" and pointed out some rather big flaws in the plan. The irony of all of this is I still thing the procurer and retriver need more tank. |
Soundwave Plays Diablo
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
66
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 23:25:00 -
[1567] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Soundwave Plays Diablo wrote:
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?
In order to run missions you have to stop ganking. Make a profit on ganking and you can just keep on ganking. Not even the goons could keep up ganking miners forever at a loss, the funds run out. The burn Jita weekend was great fun but again, that kind of level of killing cannot be sustained at a loss. Go ahead and look at the KBs, you will find just about every single gank victim who died was worth more in loot than the ship that killed him. This is the very simple fact of ganking, 99% of the time it is done for profit. If I just want to kill for the fun of killing why would I go for a supertank hulk when I can kill 10 untanked hulks?
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. |
baltec1
Bat Country
1725
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 23:27:00 -
[1568] - Quote
Soundwave Plays Diablo wrote:
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.
Now gank a supertank hulk in 0.7 space with 3 tornados. How many ganks till you run out of isk a day? |
Tesal
32
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 23:29:00 -
[1569] - Quote
79 pages of ganker tears. I posted back before the gank nerf was announced that this would happen. Any time an activity gets out of control CCP nerfs it. There is a long history of this. No one should be surprised that after 9000 exhumers dead CCP decided to do something. |
Soundwave Plays Diablo
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
66
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 23:29:00 -
[1570] - Quote
Quote: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.
That point has already been acknowledged, and is completely irrelevant to current situation on the server, and the situation post fix.
You just don't understand the mechanics of the game well enough to argue about it. |
|
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
555
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 23:29:00 -
[1571] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
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.
So why did CCP alter the stats again so that they were not stupidly overtanked? See unlike you I am looking at more than "lol gankers cant make money anymore" and pointed out some rather big flaws in the plan. The irony of all of this is I still think the procurer and retriver need more tank.
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 fool no one else around but yourself.
Sry, but this is a fact. brb |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
555
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 23:31:00 -
[1572] - Quote
Soundwave Plays Diablo wrote:Quote: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. That point has already been acknowledged, and is completely irrelevant to current situation on the server, and the situation post fix. You just don't understand the mechanics of the game well enough to argue about it.
Of course, I don't that's why I post here like all of you.
/butt kiss brb |
baltec1
Bat Country
1725
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 23:33:00 -
[1573] - Quote
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
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.
What is a fact is that before the recent changes the skiff was redered useless. Now that CCP have reduced the buff to HP the skiff has a roll to fill.
There are other issues but the biggest has now been solved. If you want to all but garentee survivability buy a skiff. |
Soundwave Plays Diablo
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
66
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 23:34:00 -
[1574] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Soundwave Plays Diablo wrote:
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.
Now gank a supertank hulk in 0.7 space with 3 tornados. How many ganks till you run out of isk a day?
None, because I'm not a ******* halfwit. I would just use destroyers and friends/corpies. I would then have enough ISK to do it approximately 6 times.
|
Pipa Porto
544
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 23:41:00 -
[1575] - Quote
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:baltec1 wrote:Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
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.
So why did CCP alter the stats again so that they were not stupidly overtanked? See unlike you I am looking at more than "lol gankers cant make money anymore" and pointed out some rather big flaws in the plan. The irony of all of this is I still think the procurer and retriver need more tank. 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 fool no one else around but yourself. Sry, but this is a fact.
I'm fine with the current Hulk stats on Sisi. Brick tanked, it's ~22k EHP. This means that, if you're not willing to take active measures to protect yourself, you are better off in a Mackinaw.
Now, I think the Mackinaw's tank should be nerfed a bit so that the Skiff has a role. If that happens, it will be best to AFK in a Skiff because of its 17k Ore Hold. Which should be nerfed a bit so the Mack has a role.
I don't care how big a tank the Skiff can fit, it's job is to fit a big tank while mining. I'm fine with 200k EHP, so long as it's got a ~Hulk Sized Ore bay and the current SISI yield.
I don't care how big an Ore Hold the Mack has, it's job is to fit a ton of Ore while mining. I'm fine with 37-40-50k m3, so long as it's relatively flimsy (brick to ~30k EHP), and the current SISI yield.
The new Build Hulk looks fine to me. Flimsy, small Cargo, but great yield if you can protect it and haul for it.
This way, none of the 3 Exhumers step on each other's new roles and there is a real choice between them. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Werst Dendenahzees
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
96
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 23:42:00 -
[1576] - Quote
Soundwave Plays Diablo wrote:baltec1 wrote:Soundwave Plays Diablo wrote:
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.
Now gank a supertank hulk in 0.7 space with 3 tornados. How many ganks till you run out of isk a day? None, because I'm not a ******* halfwit. I would just use destroyers and friends/corpies. Counterpoint: you use the term corpie ans thus are a halfwit. |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
555
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 23:44:00 -
[1577] - Quote
Soundwave Plays Diablo wrote:baltec1 wrote:Soundwave Plays Diablo wrote:
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.
Now gank a supertank hulk in 0.7 space with 3 tornados. How many ganks till you run out of isk a day? None, because I'm not a ******* halfwit. I would just use destroyers and friends/corpies. I would then have enough ISK to do it approximately 6 times.
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 brb |
Arkon Olacar
Imperial Guardians Tribal Band
103
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 23:45:00 -
[1578] - Quote
Tesal wrote:79 pages of ganker tears. I posted back before the gank nerf was announced that this would happen. Any time an activity gets out of control CCP nerfs it. There is a long history of this. No one should be surprised that after 9000 exhumers dead CCP decided to do something.
Tesal wrote:79 pages of ganker tears.
Wut "The rest will be in the blog rather than invented at the keyboards of forum posters and bloggers." -á-á-á-á-á-á-á - CCP Sreegs, 23/06/2012
Umad forum warriors? |
Suqq Madiq
Amarr Empire
230
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 23:46:00 -
[1579] - Quote
Werst Dendenahzees wrote:Counterpoint: you use the term corpie ans thus are a halfwit.
Counterpoint to your counterpoint: You misspelled "and" as "ans" thus you are an idiot. |
baltec1
Bat Country
1725
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 23:47:00 -
[1580] - Quote
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:Soundwave Plays Diablo wrote:baltec1 wrote:Soundwave Plays Diablo wrote:
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.
Now gank a supertank hulk in 0.7 space with 3 tornados. How many ganks till you run out of isk a day? None, because I'm not a ******* halfwit. I would just use destroyers and friends/corpies. I would then have enough ISK to do it approximately 6 times. 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
Nice to see you have read nothing of what I have been putting down. lurk more post less. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country
1725
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 23:48:00 -
[1581] - Quote
Werst Dendenahzees wrote:Soundwave Plays Diablo wrote:baltec1 wrote:Soundwave Plays Diablo wrote:
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.
Now gank a supertank hulk in 0.7 space with 3 tornados. How many ganks till you run out of isk a day? None, because I'm not a ******* halfwit. I would just use destroyers and friends/corpies. Counterpoint: you use the term corpie ans thus are a halfwit.
You just earned 1 day as DBRBs cyno ship for miss spelling "and" in a post about halfwits |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
555
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 23:51:00 -
[1582] - Quote
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. brb |
Soundwave Plays Diablo
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
66
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 23:57:00 -
[1583] - Quote
Quote:This thread and arguments is going beyond any possible reason and it's exactly what makes Eve so sad
Right, broken mechanics half a decade or older aren't sad, they will be fixed soonGäó. People 'whining' and 'crying' about them with 'irrational arguments' are whats 'sad'. |
baltec1
Bat Country
1725
|
Posted - 2012.07.27 23:59:00 -
[1584] - Quote
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote: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.
You say this while the "evil gankers" are saying we are happy about the skiff getting a new roll as a brick tank that gankers will avoid attacking. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1723
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 00:00:00 -
[1585] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:
Now, I think the Mackinaw's tank should be nerfed a bit so that the Skiff has a role. If that happens, it will be best to AFK in a Skiff because of its 17k Ore Hold. Which should be nerfed a bit so the Mack has a role.
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.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Smohq Anmirorz
State War Academy Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 00:04:00 -
[1586] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: This is the very simple fact of ganking, 99% of the time it is done for profit.
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. |
Pipa Porto
544
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 00:09:00 -
[1587] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:
Now, I think the Mackinaw's tank should be nerfed a bit so that the Skiff has a role. If that happens, it will be best to AFK in a Skiff because of its 17k Ore Hold. Which should be nerfed a bit so the Mack has a role.
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.
They're ALL getting buffed, and RADICALLY so. The question is how to buff them so that they're ALL viable options.
With the changes as currently PROPOSED, the Skiff is entirely worthless, because the Mackinaw is not reasonably gankable (not being reasonably gankable is the Skiff's job). The only way to fix that is to reduce the Mack's PROPOSED tank. Then the Mack becomes worthless because of the Skiff's Ore Hold (having an enormous Ore Hold is the Mack's job). The only way to fix that is to reduce the Skiff's PROPOSED ore hold.
It's not a Nerf if the result is better than the current TQ, unless you've already decided that you're entitled to the SISI stats. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
555
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 00:09:00 -
[1588] - Quote
Smohq Anmirorz wrote:baltec1 wrote: This is the very simple fact of ganking, 99% of the time it is done for profit.
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.
I've also seen very often Leviathans and Erebus trying to dock at Geneva airport, believe me because I just said it, it's funny.
brb |
baltec1
Bat Country
1725
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 00:12:00 -
[1589] - Quote
Smohq Anmirorz wrote:baltec1 wrote: This is the very simple fact of ganking, 99% of the time it is done for profit.
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.
Not since the days of M0o. You found one example, my corp has over 700 examples of us looting everything including the wreck. |
baltec1
Bat Country
1725
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 00:15:00 -
[1590] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:
Now, I think the Mackinaw's tank should be nerfed a bit so that the Skiff has a role. If that happens, it will be best to AFK in a Skiff because of its 17k Ore Hold. Which should be nerfed a bit so the Mack has a role.
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.
The irony here being that all of these ships are going to be better than what we currently have. |
|
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
555
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 00:15:00 -
[1591] - Quote
[quote=Soundwave Plays Diablo]Quote:This thread and arguments is going beyond any possible reason and it's exactly what makes Eve so sad
Right, broken mechanics half a decade or older aren't sad, they will be fixed soonGäó. Quote:
I'm ok with that, not because I mine (I don't) not because I gank (I actually don't because I don't like it) but because balance is needed and I see no valid reason to keep the nonsense that is actual mining/ganking stupid game, Eve in general has nothing to win with because for a so called "Sand Box" this behavious was nothing else than a mindless mongoloid FPS has absolutely no chance by game design provided the ganker had some brains (and this is the hard part, that's why so many love it so much)
[quote]People 'whining' and 'crying' about them with 'irrational arguments' are whats 'sad'.
If you start reading this thread from the beginning you're going to have good laughs.
brb |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
581
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 00:29:00 -
[1592] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:
Now, I think the Mackinaw's tank should be nerfed a bit so that the Skiff has a role. If that happens, it will be best to AFK in a Skiff because of its 17k Ore Hold. Which should be nerfed a bit so the Mack has a role.
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. They're ALL getting buffed, and RADICALLY so. The question is how to buff them so that they're ALL viable options. With the changes as currently PROPOSED, the Skiff is entirely worthless, because the Mackinaw is not reasonably gankable (not being reasonably gankable is the Skiff's job). The only way to fix that is to reduce the Mack's PROPOSED tank. Then the Mack becomes worthless because of the Skiff's Ore Hold (having an enormous Ore Hold is the Mack's job). The only way to fix that is to reduce the Skiff's PROPOSED ore hold. It's not a Nerf if the result is better than the current TQ, unless you've already decided that you're entitled to the SISI stats.
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. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
baltec1
Bat Country
1725
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 00:33:00 -
[1593] - Quote
rodyas wrote:
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.
Buy a skiff if you want the best survivability. |
Werst Dendenahzees
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
96
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 00:37:00 -
[1594] - Quote
Suqq Madiq wrote:Werst Dendenahzees wrote:Counterpoint: you use the term corpie ans thus are a halfwit. Counterpoint to your counterpoint: You misspelled "and" as "ans" thus you are an idiot.
Tomorrow when I am sober, I will no longer spell and as ans. You, however, will still use the term corpie. |
Pipa Porto
544
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 00:40:00 -
[1595] - Quote
Werst Dendenahzees wrote:Suqq Madiq wrote:Werst Dendenahzees wrote:Counterpoint: you use the term corpie ans thus are a halfwit. Counterpoint to your counterpoint: You misspelled "and" as "ans" thus you are an idiot. Tomorrow when I am sober, I will no longer spell and as ans. You, however, will still use the term corpie.
Good Evening, Mr Churchill. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
87
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 00:49:00 -
[1596] - Quote
Talus Veran wrote:La Nariz wrote:If these changes go through I'd like to see CCP put bot hunting into overdrive. These changes will make botting all the more easier because you don't need to worry about that mining ship getting ganked. You may have missed this. http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=28628CCP Screegs' team ramped up bot Hunting in March 2012
That's all well in good but we haven't had an update on the botting safari in a while. It'd be nice to have some numbers from CCP about the amount banned and what the bots were doing. As well as the amount of characters that are no longer eligible for character transfers because of botting offenses. The proposed changes would be a huge buff to botting/afk mining which is a poke in the eye with a sharp stick to those at the keyboard/nonbotting miners who are trying to get a decent return on their chosen profession.
I don't think they should buff the hull/armor/shield HP at all and should instead mess with the PG/CPU on all of the ships. |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
555
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 00:53:00 -
[1597] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:Talus Veran wrote:La Nariz wrote:If these changes go through I'd like to see CCP put bot hunting into overdrive. These changes will make botting all the more easier because you don't need to worry about that mining ship getting ganked. You may have missed this. http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=28628CCP Screegs' team ramped up bot Hunting in March 2012 That's all well in good but we haven't had an update on the botting safari in a while. It'd be nice to have some numbers from CCP about the amount banned and what the bots were doing. As well as the amount of characters that are no longer eligible for character transfers because of botting offenses. The proposed changes would be a huge buff to botting/afk mining which is a poke in the eye with a sharp stick to those at the keyboard/nonbotting miners who are trying to get a decent return on their chosen profession. I don't think they should buff the hull/armor/shield HP at all and should instead mess with the PG/CPU on all of the ships.
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. brb |
Tesal
33
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 01:01:00 -
[1598] - Quote
Werst Dendenahzees wrote:Suqq Madiq wrote:Werst Dendenahzees wrote:Counterpoint: you use the term corpie ans thus are a halfwit. Counterpoint to your counterpoint: You misspelled "and" as "ans" thus you are an idiot. Tomorrow when I am sober, I will no longer spell and as ans. You, however, will still use the term corpie.
So you're a drunk AND you can't spell.
|
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
87
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 01:02:00 -
[1599] - Quote
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:La Nariz wrote:Talus Veran wrote:La Nariz wrote:If these changes go through I'd like to see CCP put bot hunting into overdrive. These changes will make botting all the more easier because you don't need to worry about that mining ship getting ganked. You may have missed this. http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=28628CCP Screegs' team ramped up bot Hunting in March 2012 That's all well in good but we haven't had an update on the botting safari in a while. It'd be nice to have some numbers from CCP about the amount banned and what the bots were doing. As well as the amount of characters that are no longer eligible for character transfers because of botting offenses. The proposed changes would be a huge buff to botting/afk mining which is a poke in the eye with a sharp stick to those at the keyboard/nonbotting miners who are trying to get a decent return on their chosen profession. I don't think they should buff the hull/armor/shield HP at all and should instead mess with the PG/CPU on all of the ships. 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.
Why don't you explain how the bot argument is a bad argument to us all then :allears:. Surely as someone who is an internet security expert you can educate us all in the intricacy of bot enabling buffs.
Goonwaffe is now recruiting feel free to message me in game for information about joining! |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
555
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 01:10:00 -
[1600] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:La Nariz wrote:Talus Veran wrote:La Nariz wrote:If these changes go through I'd like to see CCP put bot hunting into overdrive. These changes will make botting all the more easier because you don't need to worry about that mining ship getting ganked. You may have missed this. http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=28628CCP Screegs' team ramped up bot Hunting in March 2012 That's all well in good but we haven't had an update on the botting safari in a while. It'd be nice to have some numbers from CCP about the amount banned and what the bots were doing. As well as the amount of characters that are no longer eligible for character transfers because of botting offenses. The proposed changes would be a huge buff to botting/afk mining which is a poke in the eye with a sharp stick to those at the keyboard/nonbotting miners who are trying to get a decent return on their chosen profession. I don't think they should buff the hull/armor/shield HP at all and should instead mess with the PG/CPU on all of the ships. 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. Why don't you explain how the bot argument is a bad argument to us all then :allears:. Surely as someone who is an internet security expert you can educate us all in the intricacy of bot enabling buffs.
No need to be an expert to realise a simple buff to some "pixels" will 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 a hairy pubbie arse. brb |
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
439
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 01:14:00 -
[1601] - Quote
I guess our arguments against this change aren't "easy mode" enough for the hordes of hisec miners who feel entitled to handed out protection without working one iota for it. EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
555
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 01:17:00 -
[1602] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:I guess our arguments against this change aren't "easy mode" enough for the hordes of hisec miners who feel entitled to handed out protection without working one iota for it.
If you have a problem with that just gank them, they'll not be invincible. And since cost is not a balance argument... brb |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
439
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 01:19:00 -
[1603] - Quote
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:pubbie You're not allowed to use that word. EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
Matius Toskavich
State War Academy Caldari State
13
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 01:22:00 -
[1604] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:I guess our arguments against this change aren't "easy mode" enough for the hordes of hisec miners who feel entitled to handed out protection without working one iota for it.
Sounds like someone can't adapt to having their "easy mode" ganking made "hard mode".. |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
555
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 01:24:00 -
[1605] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:pubbie You're not allowed to use that word.
Gn ladies, gents and pubbies
brb |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
439
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 01:29:00 -
[1606] - Quote
Matius Toskavich wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:I guess our arguments against this change aren't "easy mode" enough for the hordes of hisec miners who feel entitled to handed out protection without working one iota for it. Sounds like someone can't adapt to having their "easy mode" ganking made "hard mode".. That's made even funnier by the fact that I don't gank. Seriously, check eve-kill. EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
Smohq Anmirorz
State War Academy Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 01:30:00 -
[1607] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Smohq Anmirorz wrote:baltec1 wrote: This is the very simple fact of ganking, 99% of the time it is done for profit.
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. Not since the days of M0o. You found one example, my corp has over 700 examples of us looting everything including the wreck.
I found several examples, and I wasn't really connected with any of them so it is far more of a random sample than taking the stats from just your corp. As I said, I've seen a number of ganks, the wrecks usually sit there untouched. 99% is nowhere near an accurate number. |
Matius Toskavich
State War Academy Caldari State
13
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 01:37:00 -
[1608] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Matius Toskavich wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:I guess our arguments against this change aren't "easy mode" enough for the hordes of hisec miners who feel entitled to handed out protection without working one iota for it. Sounds like someone can't adapt to having their "easy mode" ganking made "hard mode".. That's made even funnier by the fact that I don't gank. Seriously, check eve-kill.
Ahh you must be a miner then, otherwise you wouldn't care about this thread and the changes so much? |
Blastcaps Madullier
Celestial Horizon Corp. Ethereal Dawn
71
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 01:59:00 -
[1609] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Well played, CCP. Your DEVs/balancing team apparently have the reasoning ability of small children so I'll put this in terms they will understand. ********** "Once upon a time there were three little miners. They ventured into the big wide world to earn their fortunes. The First Little Miner went to Jita and fit his Hulk with Cargo Expanders.This way, he could AFK mine with a minimum of effort and fuss. It left the miner plenty of freetime to daydream, jerk off, and watch Japanese Anime while earning ISK. ....Then along came the Big Bad Ganker in a Catalyst, saying "Little miner, little miner, I'm going to ******* do you in." The first miner, predictably, was tabbed out and said nothing. So the Ganker loaded and overheated and blew the Hulk in, and splattered the pod, too. The Second Little Miner went to Jita, bought MLU's and a hauler.This way, he could mine faster than anyone else - and become quite wealthy in no time. It was a bit more work, of course, but he kept himself entertained chatting in local with his neighbors. ...Then along came the Big Bad Ganker, in a Tornado, saying "Little miner, little miner, I'm going to ******* do you in." The second miner, said "Not by the hair of my chinny, chin chin," aligns, and turned on his Small Booster II. So the Ganker loaded and overheated and blew the Hulk in. The frightened miner flees in his pod, broke, but alive. The Third Little Miner went to Jita and fit his Hulk with a DCII, MSE, Invulnerability Fields, and Shield Extender Rigs. Wisely, he sets his Hulk to orbit a nearby asteroid, and always kept an wary eye on his surroundings. ...Then along came the Big Bad Ganker, in a T2 Talos, saying "Little miner, little miner, I'm going to ******* do you in." The Third miner chuckles to himself, overheats his Invulnerability Fields and aligns to the nearest station. So the Ganker loaded, and overheated, and simply CANNOT blow the Hulk in.Defeated, the ganker slinks off in his pod, and the smart little Miner scoops the Talos wreckage and sells it for a tidy profit." THE END********** Cargo Hulk, Yield Hulk, Tank Hulk, those were the choices - all with drawbacks. Cargo - for a Hybrid Exhumer/Hauler, with a risky AFK 'cruise control' option. Yield - to maximize returns with friends providing transport. Tank - 30-40K EHP to discourage/thwart gankers. (and really, one could still put up a reasonable tank on either Cargo or Yield fit Hulks, if they used the mid-slots.... ) But choices are dangerous things. Given the choice, miners will take cargo/yield every time - and then throw a tantrum when they are ganked. The rare, clever miner who tanked his Hulk; well, he weathered the storm - and reaped the benefits as mineral prices rose. But throw that out the window, just give the whining miners all three. Notice how CCP put quite a bit of care into saving miners from their own bad choices. This is more than a buff - this is CCP acknowledging that miners, as a group, are too stupid to make the correct fitting choices.Step 1: Idiot miners don't even use the slots they have - so slap stupid amounts of EHP directly to the hull, rather than give them additional slots/PG or CPU. Frigate-size Skiff, Orca EHP. Really? Step 2: Idiot miners keep sacking their EHP with Cargo Expanders - so make Cargo Expanders pointless with the Ore Bay. (And I doubt the DEVs will get around to fixing the 'special cargo bays don't drop loot' bug, either - simply because fixing THAT bug would benefit the wrong kinds of players, I suppose.....) So, good game, CCP. Good to know we are still steaming, full speed ahead! - towards Hello-Kitty highsec, a paradise for bots and stupidass gameplay. Hard to hear myself say it, but I'm now officially nostalgic for the days of Incarna and WiS development. At least back then, the DEVs were merely wasting their own time.
And your missing completely the WHOLE POINT of the changes suggest that you go back and REREAD the dev blog, atm T1 mining barges cant tank for s**t, the covetor is frequently skipped along with the procurer, skiffs are ONLY useful for meckoxit mining and macks which also cant tank for s**t are only useful for ICE MINING, leaving lets see, hulk for ice and ore mining, tanked hulk to survive gankers, and well hulk, hulk, hulk, hulk.... THE whole point of the ship rebalance is give ALL barges and exhumers a reason and purpose and to do away with the current tier system, also read the part about "ONGOING SHIP REBALANCES FOR ALL SHIPS" then start QQing, end of period ALL ships are being reworked. now kindly go pick your pacifier off the floor and stick it back it.
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
440
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 02:42:00 -
[1610] - Quote
Exhumers HAD a role... Skiff was for mercoxit, Mackinaw for ice, and Hulk for general purpose mining. The Hulk can also be tanked sufficiently to discourage ganking as is on Tranquility. They can also do any number of other things to mitigate their risk.
With this change these techniques are pointless and miners are simply safe by default. How you people manage to believe this isn't dumbing down the game I will never understand. This change also doesn't make anything more difficult for gankers (merely more expensive) but significantly easier for miners. EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
|
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
581
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 02:54:00 -
[1611] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Exhumers HAD a role... Skiff was for mercoxit, Mackinaw for ice, and Hulk for general purpose mining. The Hulk can also be tanked sufficiently to discourage ganking as is on Tranquility. They can also do any number of other things to mitigate their risk.
With this change these techniques are pointless and miners are simply safe by default. How you people manage to believe this isn't dumbing down the game I will never understand. This change also doesn't make anything more difficult for gankers (merely more expensive) but significantly easier for miners.
you mention miners are becoming dumber since its easier now. But then you say its easy to gank other ships, and they will stay easy. So you as a ganker are dumb then? and as well as staying dumb? It will just cost more money, to support your dumbness? I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
440
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 02:55:00 -
[1612] - Quote
Matius Toskavich wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Matius Toskavich wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:I guess our arguments against this change aren't "easy mode" enough for the hordes of hisec miners who feel entitled to handed out protection without working one iota for it. Sounds like someone can't adapt to having their "easy mode" ganking made "hard mode".. That's made even funnier by the fact that I don't gank. Seriously, check eve-kill. Ahh you must be a miner then, otherwise you wouldn't care about this thread and the changes so much? I care about this game and the implications going forward of CCP's intentions. However, Mara Rinn is a miner who has expressed misgivings about this patch for the same reasons as me. EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
440
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 02:56:00 -
[1613] - Quote
rodyas wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Exhumers HAD a role... Skiff was for mercoxit, Mackinaw for ice, and Hulk for general purpose mining. The Hulk can also be tanked sufficiently to discourage ganking as is on Tranquility. They can also do any number of other things to mitigate their risk.
With this change these techniques are pointless and miners are simply safe by default. How you people manage to believe this isn't dumbing down the game I will never understand. This change also doesn't make anything more difficult for gankers (merely more expensive) but significantly easier for miners. you mention miners are becoming dumber since its easier now. But then you say its easy to gank other ships, and they will stay easy. So you as a ganker are dumb then? and as well as staying dumb? It will just cost more money, to support your dumbness? Your opinion on who is dumb is irrelevant since you clearly can't read. EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
581
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 03:00:00 -
[1614] - Quote
^ Sorry to hurt your feelings, I mostly experienced you as annoying, and wanted to troll you, my apologies. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
257
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 03:02:00 -
[1615] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Exhumers HAD a role... Skiff was for mercoxit, Mackinaw for ice, and Hulk for general purpose mining. The Hulk can also be tanked sufficiently to discourage ganking as is on Tranquility. They can also do any number of other things to mitigate their risk.
With this change these techniques are pointless and miners are simply safe by default. How you people manage to believe this isn't dumbing down the game I will never understand. This change also doesn't make anything more difficult for gankers (merely more expensive) but significantly easier for miners. Barges didn't, but it should be clear that CCP wasn't happy with the idea of 2 of 3 ships dedicated only to limited cases. And considering the primary difficulty of mining is securing your ship from being destroyed, by active piloting or profit prohibitive EHP, if it isn't any harder for gankers, it isn't any easier for miners. |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
87
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 03:12:00 -
[1616] - Quote
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote: 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.
Since you're such a smart hairy assed pubbie does buffing the most easily botted profession make botting easier or harder? You haven't explained why the bot argument is a bad one yet either internet security expert who graduated from MIT magna *** laude.
Goonwaffe is now recruiting feel free to message me in game for information about joining! |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1128
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 03:15:00 -
[1617] - Quote
The problem is with the current Sisi stats, the Proc/Skiff will still be useless because the Mack and Hulk (and T1 equivalents) will tank more than enough to discourage the for profit gankers while still getting decent yields.
And the only reason to use a Mack will be for afk ice mining.
So the new ship usage will be- Mack: afk or solo Ice miner Hulk: general ore and active group ice miner Everything else: I'm too poor/lacking skills to afford the other two.
This is not how it should be. There should be a reason to fly the other miners. But with this change, nothing will change except less Hulk deaths. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
258
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 03:16:00 -
[1618] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:Lin-Young Borovskova wrote: 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.
Since you're such a smart hairy assed pubbie does buffing the most easily botted profession make botting easier or harder? You haven't explained why the bot argument is a bad one yet either internet security expert who graduated from MIT magna *** laude. Penalizing bots should not be prioritized over giving non-botting players (AFK or otherwise) wider and more relevant choices. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
442
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 03:16:00 -
[1619] - Quote
Then CCP clearly doesn't follow their own stated intent as exhumers are T2 ships and are therefore supposed to be specialized. I agree insofar as T1 barges are concerned.
The ganker places an unwritten value on what they're willing to spend, regardless of if they gank for the profit or for the lulz. This is the trade off and it's different for each person. The fact remains that the higher total cost of a gank, the less gankers there will be. Miners could do this themselves, but they've whined and cried and now CCP is caving and has decided to coddle the hisec carebear masses. EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
Boxless
Secure Space Test Alliance Please Ignore
15
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 03:17:00 -
[1620] - Quote
http://i.imgur.com/x7d0o.jpg
77k+ EHP Cyno Procurer. These values are insane. -áFREE Iamien !!!!! |
|
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
581
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 03:20:00 -
[1621] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:Lin-Young Borovskova wrote: 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.
Since you're such a smart hairy assed pubbie does buffing the most easily botted profession make botting easier or harder? You haven't explained why the bot argument is a bad one yet either internet security expert who graduated from MIT magna *** laude.
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 will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Shizuken
Venerated Stars
77
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 03:20:00 -
[1622] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Marconus Orion wrote:Oh he mad. But is he wrong? Nope. Fitted properly, a Hulk cannot be profitably ganked.
This is great, dont take any responsibility for your own actions. NO ONE FORCES YOU TO GANK MINERS. You CHOOSE to gank miners and then justify it by repeating the same BS (risk v reward, dont undock if you cant afford it, eve was made for pvp... etc...). Just because you can be a **** on the playground does not mean you have to.
This is getting to be rediculous with you people. You are constutuionally incapable of admitting you are dicks, despite all of the evidence. You can keep ganking, by all means. EvE was designed to allow many forms of gameplay. But, if you highsec gank you MUST admit that you are an antisocial, you take pleasure in causing frustration to others, and only YOU are responsible for YOUR actions. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
581
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 03:23:00 -
[1623] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Then CCP clearly doesn't follow their own stated intent as exhumers are T2 ships and are therefore supposed to be specialized. I agree insofar as T1 barges are concerned.
The ganker places an unwritten value on what they're willing to spend, regardless of if they gank for the profit or for the lulz. This is the trade off and it's different for each person. The fact remains that the higher total cost of a gank, the less gankers there will be. Miners could do this themselves, but they've whined and cried and now CCP is caving and has decided to coddle the hisec carebear masses.
I kind of think you are asking too much. This is mostly a band aid, or one of their paper cuts. Not a full drawn out rebalance. CCP is currently doing a full out rebalancing. But they are starting with frigs and moving to BS, then starting on the T2 line. With exhumers being T2 they are far back in line, for a rebalance. You are just gonna have to wait with Black ops and other ships for more specialization and worthyness. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Unit757
North Point Cannabis Legionis
14
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 03:26:00 -
[1624] - Quote
Shizuken wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Marconus Orion wrote:Oh he mad. But is he wrong? Nope. Fitted properly, a Hulk cannot be profitably ganked. This is great, dont take any responsibility for your own actions. NO ONE FORCES YOU TO GANK MINERS. You CHOOSE to gank miners and then justify it by repeating the same BS (risk v reward, dont undock if you cant afford it, eve was made for pvp... etc...). Just because you can be a **** on the playground does not mean you have to. This is getting to be rediculous with you people. You are constutuionally incapable of admitting you are dicks, despite all of the evidence. You can keep ganking, by all means. EvE was designed to allow many forms of gameplay. But, if you highsec gank you MUST admit that you are an antisocial, you take pleasure in causing frustration to others, and only YOU are responsible for YOUR actions.
Fit a tank on a hulk, suddenly, you get ganked less??! Imagine that. I don't think its that gankers are "dicks", its that miners don't learn and think they should not have to worry about being attacked in their ships, which, btw most of them have less tank then a shuttle. This kind of mentality doesn't belong in EvE, which is why you have individuals, such as James 315, who speak out against it so much. And, I don't blame them. |
Boxless
Secure Space Test Alliance Please Ignore
15
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 03:27:00 -
[1625] - Quote
http://i.imgur.com/x7d0o.jpg Just look at that tank. for the tier 1 mining barge. -áFREE Iamien !!!!! |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
258
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 03:28:00 -
[1626] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Then CCP clearly doesn't follow their own stated intent as exhumers are T2 ships and are therefore supposed to be specialized. I agree insofar as T1 barges are concerned.
The ganker places an unwritten value on what they're willing to spend, regardless of if they gank for the profit or for the lulz. This is the trade off and it's different for each person. The fact remains that the higher total cost of a gank, the less gankers there will be. Miners could do this themselves, but they've whined and cried and now CCP is caving and has decided to coddle the hisec carebear masses. This is probably not so much about specialization (beyond tank, self sustainability and yield being specializations of a type) as it is about addressing a lack of utilization for certain hulls, something they have been advocating since fanfest. The issue also lies in that the exhumers, as specialized evolution of T1 barges, would be expected to retain whatever differentiation the T1 variants have.
Basically if the T1 barges need it to be comparatively relevant, the T2's get it by default. |
Werst Dendenahzees
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
98
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 03:30:00 -
[1627] - Quote
Boxless wrote:http://i.imgur.com/x7d0o.jpg Just look at that tank. for the tier 1 mining barge.
Excuse me while I theorycraft an hilarious doctrine. |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
87
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 03:53:00 -
[1628] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:La Nariz wrote:Lin-Young Borovskova wrote: 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.
Since you're such a smart hairy assed pubbie does buffing the most easily botted profession make botting easier or harder? You haven't explained why the bot argument is a bad one yet either internet security expert who graduated from MIT magna *** laude. Penalizing bots should not be prioritized over giving non-botting players (AFK or otherwise) wider and more relevant choices.
How exactly does homogenizing mining ships give non-botting players wider more relevant choices? Its like saying you can pick door 1, 2, 3, or n but the same thing is behind each one. Goonwaffe is now recruiting feel free to message me in game for information about joining! |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
258
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 03:56:00 -
[1629] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:La Nariz wrote:Lin-Young Borovskova wrote: 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.
Since you're such a smart hairy assed pubbie does buffing the most easily botted profession make botting easier or harder? You haven't explained why the bot argument is a bad one yet either internet security expert who graduated from MIT magna *** laude. Penalizing bots should not be prioritized over giving non-botting players (AFK or otherwise) wider and more relevant choices. How exactly does homogenizing mining ships give non-botting players wider more relevant choices? Its like saying you can pick door 1, 2, 3, or n but the same thing is behind each one. I wasn't aware that considerable differences in tank yield and hold were the same thing behind each one. |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
87
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 03:57:00 -
[1630] - Quote
rodyas wrote:La Nariz wrote:Lin-Young Borovskova wrote: 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.
Since you're such a smart hairy assed pubbie does buffing the most easily botted profession make botting easier or harder? You haven't explained why the bot argument is a bad one yet either internet security expert who graduated from MIT magna *** laude. 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.
You are incredibly stupid, bots make the game worse for everyone. Goonwaffe is now recruiting feel free to message me in game for information about joining! |
|
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
87
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 04:00:00 -
[1631] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:La Nariz wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:La Nariz wrote:Lin-Young Borovskova wrote: 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.
Since you're such a smart hairy assed pubbie does buffing the most easily botted profession make botting easier or harder? You haven't explained why the bot argument is a bad one yet either internet security expert who graduated from MIT magna *** laude. Penalizing bots should not be prioritized over giving non-botting players (AFK or otherwise) wider and more relevant choices. How exactly does homogenizing mining ships give non-botting players wider more relevant choices? Its like saying you can pick door 1, 2, 3, or n but the same thing is behind each one. I wasn't aware that considerable differences in tank yield and hold were the same thing behind each one.
Except for there isn't considerable differences in any of those. The mac/hulk/proc/skiff have it all already, look at the first 5 or so pages of the thread for the math on it.
E: I'm feeling generous so here's the math shamelessly stolen from the S&I forum.
Ship - Strips * modifiers = effective # of strip mining modules
Hulk (no MLUs) - 3 strips * 1.15 (barge V) * 1.15 (exhumers V) = 3.9675 Hulk (1x MLUs) - 3 strips * 1.15 (barge V) * 1.15 (exhumers V) * 1.09 = 4.3245 Hulk (2x MLUs) - 3 strips * 1.15 (barge V) * 1.15 (exhumers V) * 1.09 * 1.09 = 4.7137
Mackinaw (No MLUs) - 2 strips * 1.50 (role bonus) * 1.05 (exhumers V) = 3.15 Mackinaw (1x MLUs) - 2 strips * 1.50 (role bonus) * 1.05 (exhumers V) * 1.09 = 3.4335 Mackinaw (2x MLUs) - 2 strips * 1.50 (role bonus) * 1.05 (exhumers V) * 1.09 * 1.09 = 3.7425 Mackinaw (3x MLUs) - 2 strips * 1.50 (role bonus) * 1.05 (exhumers V) * 1.09 * 1.09 = 4.0793
Skiff (No MLUs) - 1 strips * 3 (role bonus) * 1.05 = 3.15 Skiff (1x MLUs) - 1 strips * 3 (role bonus) * 1.05 * 1.09 = 3.4335 Skiff (2x MLUs) - 1 strips * 3 (role bonus) * 1.05 * 1.09 * 1.09 = 3.7425
Covetor - 3 strips * 1.2 (barge V) = 3.6 Retriever - 2 strips * 1.5 (role bonus) = 3 strips Procurer - 1 strips * 3 (role bonus) = 3 strips
Very similar yields, similar tanks with the skiff/proc being tankiest, and similar holds with the mack having the biggest. Goonwaffe is now recruiting feel free to message me in game for information about joining! |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
581
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 04:24:00 -
[1632] - Quote
^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. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
87
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 04:26:00 -
[1633] - Quote
rodyas wrote:^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.
Post the numbers then prove your point. Goonwaffe is now recruiting feel free to message me in game for information about joining! |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
581
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 04:30:00 -
[1634] - Quote
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.
I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
87
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 04:31:00 -
[1635] - Quote
rodyas wrote: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.
Post the numbers then prove your point. Goonwaffe is now recruiting feel free to message me in game for information about joining! |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
581
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 04:33:00 -
[1636] - Quote
Not gonna, don't have a bot to do that with. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
87
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 04:34:00 -
[1637] - Quote
rodyas wrote:Not gonna, don't have a bot to do that with.
Post the numbers then prove your point. Goonwaffe is now recruiting feel free to message me in game for information about joining! |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
581
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 04:36:00 -
[1638] - Quote
Fine, the numbers are, ............1.........2..........3..........4..........and 5. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Delen Ormand
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
89
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 04:37:00 -
[1639] - Quote
Oh, just what we needed, another miner crying about... WAIT, WHAT THE **** IS THIS??? |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
581
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 04:42:00 -
[1640] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:rodyas wrote:Not gonna, don't have a bot to do that with. Post the numbers then prove your point.
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. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
|
nomlet
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
18
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 04:43:00 -
[1641] - Quote
Maybe it would be easier to swallow if the ships themselves had a battleship hull instead of being a cruiser class hull. |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
87
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 04:45:00 -
[1642] - Quote
rodyas wrote:La Nariz wrote:rodyas wrote:Not gonna, don't have a bot to do that with. Post the numbers then prove your point. 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.
You know I ask for you to provide some simple data so that you can prove that they are significantly different and you can't seem to do that. I even went to the trouble to post a set of data that shows in yield that they are not significantly different. I'm just not going to bother anymore.
Before: http://imgur.com/xOKRp After: http://imgur.com/lqp8t Goonwaffe is now recruiting feel free to message me in game for information about joining! |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
581
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 04:50:00 -
[1643] - Quote
^I have always agreed with the numbers you posted. But there are just more numbers then yeild.
I mostly brought it up, since you said all barges were the same, since they mine the same amount. Which I disagreed with. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
581
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 04:54:00 -
[1644] - Quote
nomlet wrote:Maybe it would be easier to swallow if the ships themselves had a battleship hull instead of being a cruiser class hull.
EDIT: Then leave the tankability to fitting. Those miners who didnt tank before still wont tank. As a miner, the ore hold is stupid. I think letting darwin allow people to sacrifice tank for a higher yield was just.
You must only mine in fleets then, or perhaps mulit-accounts. The ore hold is nothing to sneeze at so easily. You sound more like a tank then a miner. Since apperently Darwin says it is normal for miners not to mine. That is what nature indended here. Also normal for police, not to police. Normal for writers not to write. O Darwin what a genius. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
258
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 05:15:00 -
[1645] - Quote
Going from initial stats:
HP: Shield/Armor/Hull
Hulk: 2500/2300/2700 < Between cruiser and BC lvl shield w/ 4 mid slots Mackinaw: 4000/3700/4300 < Ferox level shield w/ 4 mids Skiff: 6500/5500/6000 < Shield values similar to a Scorpion w/ 5 mids
Similar fitting constraints, but the higher base HP of the smaller ships ensures that the benefits are proportionally greater from skills and resist mods, widening the gap. Also add to that the fact of not needing additional miners to count against fitting costs for the smaller ships.
Cargo/Ore bay Hulk: 500/7500 Mackinaw: 350/25000 (+10% ore hold per mining barge skill level, so an automatic 37.5k by the tome you can board the ship) Skiff: 350 / 17500
The skiff can hold more than twice that of a hulk, and the mack 5 times as much as a hulk including bonuses necessary to train the ship. These are significant differences rivaling those of many T1 hauler line upgrades proportionally.
Edit: All that said I think we're being rather premature as these numbers reek of unbalanced, non-final seed values, though they give a good indication of the intended direction and quite possibly proportional benefits of each hulls feature attribute. |
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
1664
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 05:19:00 -
[1646] - Quote
A great way to balance things would be to make Concord response time depending on the security status of the victim.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1723
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 05:32:00 -
[1647] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:With the changes as currently PROPOSED, the Skiff is entirely worthless, because the Mackinaw is not reasonably gankable (not being reasonably gankable is the Skiff's job). The only way to fix that is to reduce the Mack's PROPOSED tank. Then the Mack becomes worthless because of the Skiff's Ore Hold (having an enormous Ore Hold is the Mack's job). The only way to fix that is to reduce the Skiff's PROPOSED ore hold.
It's not a Nerf if the result is better than the current TQ, unless you've already decided that you're entitled to the SISI stats.
Let me guess, the Mack is the official AFK ship yet you want it to pop as easy as possible. That's though design eh? Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1723
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 05:34:00 -
[1648] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:
Now, I think the Mackinaw's tank should be nerfed a bit so that the Skiff has a role. If that happens, it will be best to AFK in a Skiff because of its 17k Ore Hold. Which should be nerfed a bit so the Mack has a role.
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. The irony here being that all of these ships are going to be better than what we currently have.
The irony is that I prefer the current ships with a simple PG / CPU update over the new ones, figures. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
546
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 06:08:00 -
[1649] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:A great way to balance things would be to make Concord response time depending on the security status of the victim.
As well as instituting the possibility -- vanishingly small, but none the less real, at least theoretically -- to escape CONCORD's retribution 100% legally.
All these bleating unthinking sheep keep drawing comparisons to RL crime/law enforcement as justification for hilariously sandbox-breaking nerfs to non-consensual PvP in hisec, if not removing it entirely. (24+ hours in "jail?" Skill-point loss? Really? Really?)
Well:
In RL, the Mountie doesn't always get his man, now does he.
E:
Ref.: post #196 in this thread for some first-hand testing experience regarding the "solo-gankability" of the new T I barges, as well as some existential-but-germane musings/ranting.
WARNING: Walloftext(TM), inbound! In irae, veritas. |
Anya Ohaya
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
144
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 06:21:00 -
[1650] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:A great way to balance things would be to make Concord response time depending on the security status of the victim.
I disagree. I have sec status 5, and I've been playing long enough to know what risks I'm taking.
If anything concord response time should be buffed for newer players. |
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1724
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 06:47:00 -
[1651] - Quote
Boxless wrote:http://i.imgur.com/x7d0o.jpg Just look at that tank. for the tier 1 mining barge.
You can brick tank a damnation too. Nerf it? Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1724
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 06:58:00 -
[1652] - Quote
Never thought some stupid mining ships were so pivotal to the very future of EvE.
I expect BCE's president Mario Draghi lowering EURIBOR just to deal with the worldwide nuclear fallout coming out of adding 3k EHP to a ship or something. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
302
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 07:06:00 -
[1653] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Never thought some stupid mining ships were so pivotal to the very future of EvE.
I expect BCE's president Mario Draghi lowering EURIBOR just to deal with the worldwide nuclear fallout coming out of adding 3k EHP to a ship or something.
people are upset because their efficiency ratios won't be as good when they have to fly 'nados to gank a hulk.
killboard stats are serious business. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Chokichi Ozuwara
Royal One Piece Corporation Deadly Unknown
392
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 07:25:00 -
[1654] - Quote
Real men fly Retrievers. Tears will be shed and pants will need to be changed all round. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
126
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 07:49:00 -
[1655] - Quote
Boxless wrote:http://i.imgur.com/x7d0o.jpg Just look at that tank. for the tier 1 mining barge.
So?
Tanky mining ship is Skiff's and Procurer's new role. |
Beekeeper Bob
Beekeepers Anonymous
202
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 08:17:00 -
[1656] - Quote
A miner with tanking skills....
So from OP's post, he apparently thinks newer players shouldn't be allowed to mine at all?
It's embarrassing to think that you probably consider yourself a skilled player, and can't figure this out for yourself....
Newer players don't have the skills to tank anything, much less "Overheat"....
Did you honestly think you would have "easymode" forever?
"CCP, is a cutting edge developer, they have found a way to sell lag to their customers, and make them believe it's a feature." |
Pipa Porto
547
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 08:22:00 -
[1657] - Quote
Shizuken wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Marconus Orion wrote:Oh he mad. But is he wrong? Nope. Fitted properly, a Hulk cannot be profitably ganked. This is great, dont take any responsibility for your own actions. NO ONE FORCES YOU TO GANK MINERS. You CHOOSE to gank miners and then justify it by repeating the same BS (risk v reward, dont undock if you cant afford it, eve was made for pvp... etc...). Just because you can be a **** on the playground does not mean you have to. This is getting to be rediculous with you people. You are constutuionally incapable of admitting you are dicks, despite all of the evidence. You can keep ganking, by all means. EvE was designed to allow many forms of gameplay. But, if you highsec gank you MUST admit that you are an antisocial, you take pleasure in causing frustration to others, and only YOU are responsible for YOUR actions.
Fit a Tank on your current Hulk or, post 1.2, fly a Skiff and you probably won't be ganked because it's going to be very expensive to do so. (Current tanked Hulk can only have a breakeven for the gankers in very limited, special snowflake conditions, and it can't be profitable).
EVE was designed to allow many forms of gameplay. Nobody's telling you that you're not allowed to mine; we're just trying to blow you up. Why are you telling us we're not allowed to do something we like?
This isn't WOW. "It Hurts the Vicitims Feel" isn't a valid reason to ban something or effectively ban something (the original SISI stats would have made it impossible to gank for profit no matter which ship the miners flew). EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Pipa Porto
547
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 08:26:00 -
[1658] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:With the changes as currently PROPOSED, the Skiff is entirely worthless, because the Mackinaw is not reasonably gankable (not being reasonably gankable is the Skiff's job). The only way to fix that is to reduce the Mack's PROPOSED tank. Then the Mack becomes worthless because of the Skiff's Ore Hold (having an enormous Ore Hold is the Mack's job). The only way to fix that is to reduce the Skiff's PROPOSED ore hold.
It's not a Nerf if the result is better than the current TQ, unless you've already decided that you're entitled to the SISI stats. Let me guess, the Mack is the official AFK ship yet you want it to pop as easy as possible. That's though design eh?
The Mack is the official "not supported by a Hauler ship." Why should CCP design a ship specifically to cater to AFK people?
The Official AFK ship is the same ship as always. The Itty V. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1724
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 08:31:00 -
[1659] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Shizuken wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Marconus Orion wrote:Oh he mad. But is he wrong? Nope. Fitted properly, a Hulk cannot be profitably ganked. This is great, dont take any responsibility for your own actions. NO ONE FORCES YOU TO GANK MINERS. You CHOOSE to gank miners and then justify it by repeating the same BS (risk v reward, dont undock if you cant afford it, eve was made for pvp... etc...). Just because you can be a **** on the playground does not mean you have to. This is getting to be rediculous with you people. You are constutuionally incapable of admitting you are dicks, despite all of the evidence. You can keep ganking, by all means. EvE was designed to allow many forms of gameplay. But, if you highsec gank you MUST admit that you are an antisocial, you take pleasure in causing frustration to others, and only YOU are responsible for YOUR actions. Fit a Tank on your current Hulk or, post 1.2, fly a Skiff and you probably won't be ganked because it's going to be very expensive to do so. (Current tanked Hulk can only have a breakeven for the gankers in very limited, special snowflake conditions, and it can't be profitable). EVE was designed to allow many forms of gameplay. Nobody's telling you that you're not allowed to mine; we're just trying to blow you up. Why are you telling us we're not allowed to do something we like? This isn't WOW. "It Hurts the Vicitims Feel" isn't a valid reason to ban something or effectively ban something (the original SISI stats would have made it impossible to gank for profit no matter which ship the miners flew).
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.
Also, it's cute how you arrogate the established right to kill whoever in humongous masses and then say this is not WoW.
In WoW and other games the designers are not idiots, when they see spawn camping and mass farming they implement spawn defenses, barriers, cannons etc.
We got something similar to mass spawn camping in EvE and guess what, CCP are implementing defenses and so on. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
dexington
91
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 08:31:00 -
[1660] - Quote
CCPSoundwave just said on twitter, that if this thread reaches an awesome of OVER 9000!!! posts all T2 barges are getting 500 shield/armor and one extra mid slot.
Keep the thread alive, tears are fuel for the new barges. GÇ£The best way to keep something bad from happening is to see it ahead of time, and you can't see it if you refuse to face the possibility.GÇ¥-á |
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1724
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 08:33:00 -
[1661] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:
The Mack is the official "not supported by a Hauler ship." Why should CCP design a ship specifically to cater to AFK people?
Because there's demand for it?
Why shoud Dodge build pickups? Or why Harley Davidson builds noisy chromed motorbikes?
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Pipa Porto
547
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 08:44:00 -
[1662] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Fit a Tank on your current Hulk or, post 1.2, fly a Skiff and you probably won't be ganked because it's going to be very expensive to do so. (Current tanked Hulk can only have a breakeven for the gankers in very limited, special snowflake conditions, and it can't be profitable).
EVE was designed to allow many forms of gameplay. Nobody's telling you that you're not allowed to mine; we're just trying to blow you up. Why are you telling us we're not allowed to do something we like?
This isn't WOW. "It Hurts the Vicitims Feel" isn't a valid reason to ban something or effectively ban something (the original SISI stats would have made it impossible to gank for profit no matter which ship the miners flew). 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. Also, it's cute how you arrogate the established right to kill whoever in humongous masses and then say this is not WoW. In WoW and other games the designers are not idiots, when they see spawn camping and mass farming they implement spawn defenses, barriers, cannons etc. We got something similar to mass spawn camping in EvE and guess what, CCP are implementing defenses and so on.
Did you bother reading my Post? Let me bold some things for you. The Skiff's tank is great. I love that Miners can choose to fly a ship with enough tank that nobody's going to bother them. The problem is that the Mack takes that cool role away from the Skiff by fitting enough tank to do exactly the same thing with a much larger cargo bay and the exact same (actually, a little better yield). (I'm ignoring, for now, the fact that they already had a ship that can tank enough, but now the Mackinaw has a role).
Again. The Mackinaw's large enough tank removes any value that the Skiff's even larger tank has for miners, so as it stands now, the Skiff has no role whatsoever. You get it? I want all 3 Exhumers to have a role. With the current stats, only 2 of them do.
This is EVE. We do have the right to kill anyone we want. If we didn't, F1 wouldn't work in HS.
In EVE, you "spawn" at a Station. That station has Sentry guns. In HS, you have CONCORD. That kills anyone who ganks. What more do you want? Players are responsible for their own safety. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Pipa Porto
547
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 08:47:00 -
[1663] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:
The Mack is the official "not supported by a Hauler ship." Why should CCP design a ship specifically to cater to AFK people?
Because there's demand for it? Why shoud Dodge build pickups? Or why Harley Davidson builds noisy chromed motorbikes?
There's demand for a HS Dread. It comes up in the EffandEye forums all the time. CCP's not making those at the moment.
Why should CCP design a ship specifically to cater to AFK people? Game design reason, please.
The Mack is meant to be used when you don't have hauling support. That doesn't mean that it's meant for going AFK in dangerous areas. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
126
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 08:52:00 -
[1664] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Again. The Mackinaw's large enough tank removes any value that the Skiff's even larger tank has for miners, so as it stands now, the Skiff has no role whatsoever. You get it? I want all 3 Exhumers to have a role. With the current stats, only 2 of them do.
People are already fitting cynos and brick tanks on SiSi and you whine about "Skiff can't be ganked in hisec"... |
Pipa Porto
547
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 08:55:00 -
[1665] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Again. The Mackinaw's large enough tank removes any value that the Skiff's even larger tank has for miners, so as it stands now, the Skiff has no role whatsoever. You get it? I want all 3 Exhumers to have a role. With the current stats, only 2 of them do. People are already fitting cynos and brick tanks on SiSi and you whine about "Skiff can't be ganked in hisec"...
That is, in fact, nothing like what I said. Try reading it again.
I said that the Mackinaw's Tank renders the Skiff's tank moot for miners. I don't think Ultra Heavy Tackle was the Role CCP intended for the Skiff. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
baltec1
Bat Country
1725
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 09:00:00 -
[1666] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
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.
Nobody is against the skiff getting this job and being good at it. Hence why we dont want the other barges to take that roll away from it. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
126
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 09:08:00 -
[1667] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Nobody is against the skiff and procurer getting this job and being good at it. Hence why we dont want the other barges to take that roll away from it.
After the patch Hulk with two MLU's will have ~9500 EHP. You can't gank that? |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1724
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 09:08:00 -
[1668] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Did you bother reading my Post? Let me bold some things for you. The Skiff's tank is great. I love that Miners can choose to fly a ship with enough tank that nobody's going to bother them. The problem is that the Mack takes that cool role away from the Skiff by fitting enough tank to do exactly the same thing with a much larger cargo bay and the exact same (actually, a little better yield). (I'm ignoring, for now, the fact that they already had a ship that can tank enough, but now the Mackinaw has a role).
Again. The Mackinaw's large enough tank removes any value that the Skiff's even larger tank has for miners, so as it stands now, the Skiff has no role whatsoever. You get it? I want all 3 Exhumers to have a role. With the current stats, only 2 of them do.
You can't have an AFK friendly ship that melts like a "new role fleet only" Hulk. I don't know what they can do to give an unique identiy to Skiff but it's certainly not by making the other ship a large floating soap bubble.
Pipa Porto wrote:This is EVE. We do have the right to kill anyone we want. If we didn't, F1 wouldn't work in HS.
You have that VERY identical right whether the target is a freighter, a frigate, a Tengu or a mining ship.
For some illogical reason, for years, ganking empty freigthers, frigates and Tengus was dumb but ganking an empty mining ship (the cheapest and least challenging task none the less) brought welfare wealth.
The lead designer wants to put a stop to welfare wealth happening when blowing this kind of ship and put it in line with the others. How sad, eh?
Pipa Porto wrote: In EVE, you "spawn" at a Station. That station has Sentry guns. In HS, you have CONCORD. That kills anyone who ganks. What more do you want? Players are responsible for their own safety.
Players in a MMO are statistically measured. If "natural Darwin law in action" nets an average of 14 dead ships per day for 9 months in one system (the one I know like my pockets) and from a certain date that average turns to 70+, then it's obvious a developer will look into it, exactly like they looked at why an handful of individuals were making zillions by manipulating FW LP or exactly like they do when they notice a character is handing suspicious trillions out left and right. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1671
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 09:10:00 -
[1669] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:First of all CCP posted a Tiericide devblog and the philosophy behind making all hulls worth flying by giving them different flavours.
Then they went and mixed in a large dose of "tanky" with the high cargo variant. The Mack should have a far lower EHP but much higher shield regen. That way it can sit unattended in a hisec belt for a while without blowing up due to three frigates shooting it, but it won't be so tough against the blaster catalyst trio.
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:In WoW and other games the designers are not idiots, when they see spawn camping and mass farming they implement spawn defenses, barriers, cannons etc.
We got something similar to mass spawn camping in EvE and guess what, CCP are implementing defenses and so on.
Yet rogues continue to stun lock.
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1724
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 09:10:00 -
[1670] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:
The Mack is the official "not supported by a Hauler ship." Why should CCP design a ship specifically to cater to AFK people?
Because there's demand for it? Why shoud Dodge build pickups? Or why Harley Davidson builds noisy chromed motorbikes? There's demand for a HS Dread. It comes up in the EffandEye forums all the time. CCP's not making those at the moment. Why should CCP design a ship specifically to cater to AFK people? Game design reason, please.
Because a large portion of playerbase wants it? Is "cash income" a game design reason enough?
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
|
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
303
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 09:13:00 -
[1671] - Quote
very few people will be using a skiff long term in high sec, i'd put isk on it.
when the mack and hulk become unprofitable to gank, nobody will bother ganking them with enough frequency that warrants skiff level of ehp. for short mining sessions the mackinaw will be the king of yield tank and cargo like the hulk is now.
most people in high sec are not mining all day; and if they are they aren't sitting at the computer for 100% of that time
so i'm going to throw out a prediction that the hulk and mack will swap places as the high sec mining ship of choice, the skiff will still be non-existent in high sec, and the situation won't change much except ganking won't be as prevalent because gankers isk is more valuable to them than miner's tears. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
baltec1
Bat Country
1725
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 09:13:00 -
[1672] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:baltec1 wrote:Nobody is against the skiff and procurer getting this job and being good at it. Hence why we dont want the other barges to take that roll away from it. After the patch Hulk with two MLU's will have ~9500 EHP. You can't gank that?
Yep I can and for a profit but only if they dont fit a tank. The skiff will be a challange and I will most likely be mining in that from now and perhaps doing pvp in one too |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1724
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 09:14:00 -
[1673] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:First of all CCP posted a Tiericide devblog and the philosophy behind making all hulls worth flying by giving them different flavours. Then they went and mixed in a large dose of "tanky" with the high cargo variant. The Mack should have a far lower EHP but much higher shield regen. That way it can sit unattended in a hisec belt for a while without blowing up due to three frigates shooting it, but it won't be so tough against the blaster catalyst trio.
If they make Mack a sheet ship (again), then everybody will just use the Skiff + 1 hauler or an Orca. You know, like they did for the last several years already.
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:In WoW and other games the designers are not idiots, when they see spawn camping and mass farming they implement spawn defenses, barriers, cannons etc.
We got something similar to mass spawn camping in EvE and guess what, CCP are implementing defenses and so on.
Yet rogues continue to stun lock. [/quote]
... and take their time. Or they spec for super huge burst and kill without stun lock. So? Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
303
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 09:14:00 -
[1674] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:
Yet rogues continue to stun lock.
that hasn't happened since the hp buffs at the start of tbc nearly half a decade ago.
you simply don't have enough combined stuns and dps to 100 -> 0 some one with the larger hp pools. then came resilience etc... Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1724
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 09:16:00 -
[1675] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:baltec1 wrote:Nobody is against the skiff and procurer getting this job and being good at it. Hence why we dont want the other barges to take that roll away from it. After the patch Hulk with two MLU's will have ~9500 EHP. You can't gank that? Yep I can and for a profit but only if they dont fit a tank.
... 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.
Where's the skill into randomly killing stationary ships with no cargo? All the other suicide gankers have at least to scan, find poor tank vs rich cargo (and calculate that cargo value FAST) and then do the kill. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
126
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 09:16:00 -
[1676] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Yep I can and for a profit but only if they dont fit a tank. The skiff will be a challange and I will most likely be mining in that from now and perhaps doing pvp in one too
Why are you, Pipa and other gankers whining about this?
Yes, that EHP is without any tank and fleet bonuses. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1724
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 09:18:00 -
[1677] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:
Yet rogues continue to stun lock.
that hasn't happened since the hp buffs at the start of tbc nearly half a decade ago. you simply don't have enough combined stuns and dps to 100 -> 0 some one with the larger hp pools. then came resilience etc...
Yes I have VERY vague reminescences about "prep rogues" but that was 2005. Last time I played (Burning Crusade) that spec was basically only good vs outdoor materials harvesting alts who did not enter a battleground once (battlegrounds gave welfare gear with defensive stats called resilience or something). Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
303
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 09:18:00 -
[1678] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:baltec1 wrote:Nobody is against the skiff and procurer getting this job and being good at it. Hence why we dont want the other barges to take that roll away from it. After the patch Hulk with two MLU's will have ~9500 EHP. You can't gank that? Yep I can and for a profit but only if they dont fit a tank. The skiff will be a challange and I will most likely be mining in that from now and perhaps doing pvp in one too
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. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Pipa Porto
548
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 09:18:00 -
[1679] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:baltec1 wrote:Yep I can and for a profit but only if they dont fit a tank. The skiff will be a challange and I will most likely be mining in that from now and perhaps doing pvp in one too Why are you, Pipa and other gankers whining about this? Yes, that EHP is without any tank and fleet bonuses.
We're not. The Hulk changes are now fine. We've been talking about the Mackinaw and Skiff for the last while. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
baltec1
Bat Country
1725
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 09:19:00 -
[1680] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:baltec1 wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:baltec1 wrote:Nobody is against the skiff and procurer getting this job and being good at it. Hence why we dont want the other barges to take that roll away from it. After the patch Hulk with two MLU's will have ~9500 EHP. You can't gank that? Yep I can and for a profit but only if they dont fit a tank. ... 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.
You do if they fill all their slots with t2 mods. |
|
Mallak Azaria
401
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 09:19:00 -
[1681] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:
Yet rogues continue to stun lock.
that hasn't happened since the hp buffs at the start of tbc nearly half a decade ago. you simply don't have enough combined stuns and dps to 100 -> 0 some one with the larger hp pools. then came resilience etc...
This is now a "Talk about [Insert random easy-mode MMO here]" thread. Mining Barge buff: CCP-áhas acknowledged that miners in general-áare too stupid to make the correct fitting choices to make ganking them unprofitable. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
303
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 09:20:00 -
[1682] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Dave stark wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:
Yet rogues continue to stun lock.
that hasn't happened since the hp buffs at the start of tbc nearly half a decade ago. you simply don't have enough combined stuns and dps to 100 -> 0 some one with the larger hp pools. then came resilience etc... Yes I have VERY vague reminescences about "prep rogues" but that was 2005. Last time I played (Burning Crusade) that spec was basically only good vs outdoor materials harvesting alts who did not enter a battleground once (battlegrounds gave welfare gear with defensive stats called resilience or something).
you didn't even need prep itself, you just needed the spec.
i remember grinding for my gm swords when honour points were first introduced. i graveyard camped a poor shaman in wsg, i took him from 100 -> 0 every time he spawned. i felt bad for him.
yep once resilience came in and your chance to get a crit streak dropped to about 0% then you simply didn't have the dps to take some one down during stuns and they'd turn the tables on you pretty quickly. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
303
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 09:22:00 -
[1683] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Dave stark wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:
Yet rogues continue to stun lock.
that hasn't happened since the hp buffs at the start of tbc nearly half a decade ago. you simply don't have enough combined stuns and dps to 100 -> 0 some one with the larger hp pools. then came resilience etc... This is now a "Talk about [Insert random easy-mode MMO here]" thread.
the thread's 80 pages long, we all know as the number of posts in a thread increases it's relevance to the op tends to 0. it also invokes ingram's law and inevitably soon we'll be talking about the 1940s. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1724
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 09:25:00 -
[1684] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:baltec1 wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:baltec1 wrote:Nobody is against the skiff and procurer getting this job and being good at it. Hence why we dont want the other barges to take that roll away from it. After the patch Hulk with two MLU's will have ~9500 EHP. You can't gank that? Yep I can and for a profit but only if they dont fit a tank. ... 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. You do if they fill all their slots with t2 mods.
As of today you profit even if they park a bare hull. In fact most crap tank ships have T1 mids and many (due to low SP) have T1 mining lasers. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
baltec1
Bat Country
1725
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 09:25:00 -
[1685] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:baltec1 wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:baltec1 wrote:Nobody is against the skiff and procurer getting this job and being good at it. Hence why we dont want the other barges to take that roll away from it. After the patch Hulk with two MLU's will have ~9500 EHP. You can't gank that? Yep I can and for a profit but only if they dont fit a tank. The skiff will be a challange and I will most likely be mining in that from now and perhaps doing pvp in one too 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.
I did say the hulk with no tank. You can kill a tanked hulk for a loss but the skiff is another story which is as it should be. I still have some concerns over the survivability of the procurer and retriver. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1724
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 09:26:00 -
[1686] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Dave stark wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:
Yet rogues continue to stun lock.
that hasn't happened since the hp buffs at the start of tbc nearly half a decade ago. you simply don't have enough combined stuns and dps to 100 -> 0 some one with the larger hp pools. then came resilience etc... This is now a "Talk about [Insert random easy-mode MMO here]" thread.
EvE is an easy mode MMO as well.
This whole thread is created by bads who want to keep effortlessy farming other bads who are even worse.
Actually, in WoW if you want to compete for any ladder you must stop keyboard turning and being a clicker, EvE does not even demand that. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Zloco Crendraven
BALKAN EXPRESS
22
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 09:30:00 -
[1687] - Quote
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 |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
303
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 09:33:00 -
[1688] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dave stark wrote:baltec1 wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:baltec1 wrote:Nobody is against the skiff and procurer getting this job and being good at it. Hence why we dont want the other barges to take that roll away from it. After the patch Hulk with two MLU's will have ~9500 EHP. You can't gank that? Yep I can and for a profit but only if they dont fit a tank. The skiff will be a challange and I will most likely be mining in that from now and perhaps doing pvp in one too 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. I did say the hulk with no tank. You can kill a tanked hulk for a loss but the skiff is another story which is as it should be. I still have some concerns over the survivability of the procurer and retriver.
the ret will be gank fodder, but as a t1 barge that's to be expected. it costs pocket change, for that kind of cheapness you're not going to get a gank resistant barge, that's the purpose of exhumers. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Random Celestial
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 09:35:00 -
[1689] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:
the ret will be gank fodder, but as a t1 barge that's to be expected. it costs pocket change, for that kind of cheapness you're not going to get a gank resistant barge, that's the purpose of exhumers.
http://i.imgur.com/x7d0o.jpg
|
baltec1
Bat Country
1725
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 09:36:00 -
[1690] - Quote
Zloco Crendraven wrote: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
It was only easy because the miners made it easy. |
|
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
303
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 09:38:00 -
[1691] - Quote
Random Celestial wrote:Dave stark wrote:
the ret will be gank fodder, but as a t1 barge that's to be expected. it costs pocket change, for that kind of cheapness you're not going to get a gank resistant barge, that's the purpose of exhumers.
http://i.imgur.com/x7d0o.jpg
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. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
baltec1
Bat Country
1725
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 09:41:00 -
[1692] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Random Celestial wrote:Dave stark wrote:
the ret will be gank fodder, but as a t1 barge that's to be expected. it costs pocket change, for that kind of cheapness you're not going to get a gank resistant barge, that's the purpose of exhumers.
http://i.imgur.com/x7d0o.jpg 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.
So long as they can tank a blow from a destroyer when max tank they should be fine. I still would have liked the skiff to keep its +2 warp strenght but it will still be good without it. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
303
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 09:47:00 -
[1693] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dave stark wrote:Random Celestial wrote:Dave stark wrote:
the ret will be gank fodder, but as a t1 barge that's to be expected. it costs pocket change, for that kind of cheapness you're not going to get a gank resistant barge, that's the purpose of exhumers.
http://i.imgur.com/x7d0o.jpg 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. So long as they can tank a blow from a destroyer when max tank they should be fine. I still would have liked the skiff to keep its +2 warp strenght but it will still be good without it. agreed i was disappointed when it vanished, it seemed appropriate for a ship that promotes survivability. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Random Celestial
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 09:52:00 -
[1694] - Quote
And the retriever: http://i.imgur.com/Wz4cR.jpg |
baltec1
Bat Country
1725
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 09:53:00 -
[1695] - Quote
Dave stark wrote: agreed i was disappointed when it vanished, it seemed appropriate for a ship that promotes survivability.
It would have been the top choice for low sec and even provoded another option to avoid a gank in high sec. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
303
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 09:57:00 -
[1696] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dave stark wrote: agreed i was disappointed when it vanished, it seemed appropriate for a ship that promotes survivability.
It would have been the top choice for low sec and even provoded another option to avoid a gank in high sec.
hmm i know the skiff is pretty speedy, but what's it's align time like? then again at least with the core stab bonus you only had to worry about being bumped instead of the "well i'm scrammed may as well open the market tab and buy a new ship" scenario of being scrammed. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
303
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 09:58:00 -
[1697] - Quote
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) Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Random Celestial
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 10:04:00 -
[1698] - Quote
Dave stark wrote: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)
Sorry I thankfully came to my senses in relation to mining right after training for the retriever, and before t2 strips. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
303
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 10:07:00 -
[1699] - Quote
Random Celestial wrote:Dave stark wrote: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) Sorry I thankfully came to my senses in relation to mining right after training for the retriever, and before t2 strips.
check the requirements, check the remaining cpu once the cyno is off and do the maths. i trust you to add up properly. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
baltec1
Bat Country
1725
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 10:08:00 -
[1700] - Quote
Dave stark wrote: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)
It wont get a tank like that but it will still easily tank a destroyer. |
|
Random Celestial
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 10:09:00 -
[1701] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Random Celestial wrote:Dave stark wrote: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) Sorry I thankfully came to my senses in relation to mining right after training for the retriever, and before t2 strips. check the requirements, check the remaining cpu once the cyno is off and do the maths. i trust you to add up properly.
139 CPU spare without the cyno, so yes. |
Pyotr Kamarovi
EVE University Ivy League
7
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 10:18:00 -
[1702] - Quote
There appears to have been a sharp reversal in trends here. Now, with CCP announcing that it is actually going to do something about the mining problem (which makes perfect sense, considering their shift towards minerals coming mainly from mining and not other sources, e.g: gun mining), there are far less threads from miners "whining" about being ganked, and then being trolled and heckled by gankers, and a proportionately larger number of threads from gankers "whining" about not being able to gank, and being trolled and heckled by miners, carebears, and people with sense. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
303
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 10:23:00 -
[1703] - Quote
Random Celestial wrote:Dave stark wrote:Random Celestial wrote:Dave stark wrote: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) Sorry I thankfully came to my senses in relation to mining right after training for the retriever, and before t2 strips. check the requirements, check the remaining cpu once the cyno is off and do the maths. i trust you to add up properly. 139 CPU spare without the cyno, so yes. in that case, colour me impressed. however the loss of 3 mlus will hurt to the point where i'd probably rather just replace the ship for how little it costs. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1724
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 10:27:00 -
[1704] - Quote
Pyotr Kamarovi wrote:There appears to have been a sharp reversal in trends here. Now, with CCP announcing that it is actually going to do something about the mining problem (which makes perfect sense, considering their shift towards minerals coming mainly from mining and not other sources, e.g: gun mining), there are far less threads from miners "whining" about being ganked, and then being trolled and heckled by gankers, and a proportionately larger number of threads from gankers "whining" about not being able to gank, and being trolled and heckled by miners, carebears, and people with sense.
It's called "what goes around, turns around". Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
303
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 10:28:00 -
[1705] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pyotr Kamarovi wrote:There appears to have been a sharp reversal in trends here. Now, with CCP announcing that it is actually going to do something about the mining problem (which makes perfect sense, considering their shift towards minerals coming mainly from mining and not other sources, e.g: gun mining), there are far less threads from miners "whining" about being ganked, and then being trolled and heckled by gankers, and a proportionately larger number of threads from gankers "whining" about not being able to gank, and being trolled and heckled by miners, carebears, and people with sense. It's called "what goes around, turns around".
"what goes around, comes around". Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Mallak Azaria
402
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 10:29:00 -
[1706] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pyotr Kamarovi wrote:There appears to have been a sharp reversal in trends here. Now, with CCP announcing that it is actually going to do something about the mining problem (which makes perfect sense, considering their shift towards minerals coming mainly from mining and not other sources, e.g: gun mining), there are far less threads from miners "whining" about being ganked, and then being trolled and heckled by gankers, and a proportionately larger number of threads from gankers "whining" about not being able to gank, and being trolled and heckled by miners, carebears, and people with sense. It's called "what goes around, comes around".
I fixed this for you because you still speak better English as a second language than most people who grow up with it do. Mining Barge buff: CCP-áhas acknowledged that miners in general-áare too stupid to make the correct fitting choices to make ganking them unprofitable. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1724
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 10:43:00 -
[1707] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:
I fixed this for you because you still speak better English as a second language than most people who grow up with it do.
Heh thank you, I had to learn English by chatting on MUDs chats, as they did not even teach it at school back at the time
Some things like urban dictionary and mottos are expecially hard to translate. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Mc Cormeg
Friends Of Harassment
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 11:46:00 -
[1708] - Quote
So heres my proposal to this whole bunch of miner ganktank stuff:
- Stick to the original roles for Skiffs,Macks and Hulks (Mercoxite,Ice,Ore). - Expand them to their T1 counterparts - Reduce skillrequirements for the T1 barges i.e. mining barge V required for a Covetor is way to much - Provide barges and exhumers with slots,CPU and PGU to fitt a propper buffertank against gankers and 0.0 NPCs
-> Miners will have the choice either to widstand the evil elementary school bully at the cost of insane high mining amounts or otherwise form a fleet and care for his dscan and still will be able to bring his Elaras Mining Laser Upgrade to suck the hell out of the veldspar roids.
Please do so. |
Mallak Azaria
403
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 11:55:00 -
[1709] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:Dave stark wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:
Yet rogues continue to stun lock.
that hasn't happened since the hp buffs at the start of tbc nearly half a decade ago. you simply don't have enough combined stuns and dps to 100 -> 0 some one with the larger hp pools. then came resilience etc... This is now a "Talk about [Insert random easy-mode MMO here]" thread. EvE is an easy mode MMO as well. This whole thread is created by bads who want to keep effortlessy farming other bads who are even worse. Actually, in WoW if you want to compete for any ladder you must stop keyboard turning and being a clicker, EvE does not even demand that.
Is there anything in that game that encourages you to learn how to play better? Is it one of those games where you drop equipment when someone kills you, or do you just respawn after a small amount of time with no real set-back? I ask because there is quite a bit more to EVE PvP than pressing a couple of buttons, blob-warfare being the exception. Mining Barge buff: CCP-áhas acknowledged that miners in general-áare too stupid to make the correct fitting choices to make ganking them unprofitable. |
Docter Daniel Jackson
Hendrix Angels Fabricated Confabulations
31
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 12:02:00 -
[1710] - Quote
All this crying is yummy :D |
|
Mallak Azaria
403
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 12:05:00 -
[1711] - Quote
Docter Daniel Jackson wrote:All this crying is yummy :D
Crying is actually good for you. I try to make sure I cry at least once a week. Mining Barge buff: CCP-áhas acknowledged that miners in general-áare too stupid to make the correct fitting choices to make ganking them unprofitable. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1725
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 12:20:00 -
[1712] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Is there anything in that game that encourages you to learn how to play better? Is it one of those games where you drop equipment when someone kills you, or do you just respawn after a small amount of time with no real set-back? I ask because there is quite a bit more to EVE PvP than pressing a couple of buttons, blob-warfare being the exception.
I don't know how that game changed in the last 5 years. For sure at competitive levels it promoted better situation awareness, use of line of sight, quick response times, deep knowledge of the cooldowns (something EvE got for some mods too). The drive to better weapons etc vs the risk of going down the ladder and not getting them was an incentive to play better but also play more conservatively (i.e. not just "play randomly for fun"). It also let to "class stacking", that is forming FOTM groups. It's similar to EvE's ever changing FOTM fleet doctrines and their counters.
Dropping stuff is not exactly what makes you play better, but what makes you play more conservatively. Fear of loss is also a main source of "carebearism". Some like the "harsh loss" heart pumping feeling, others prefer the "if I win I get better stuff, if I lose I don't".
For an EvE alike experience but with quick reactions gameplay you might check Darkfall Online (sandbox, full loot drop including all the carried money (that is, harsher than EvE), even if that game suffered because of the small developer resources.
For a middle of the road solution, Guild Wars 2 provides skillful gameplay (for most classes) and it tends to counter class stacking. Getting famous and eventually being invited to RL cash sponsored tournaments tends to encourage players to improve more than risking gear loss. But that's very unlike EvE, GW2 is more akin to e-sport, DFO is more like EvE. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Sarah Schneider
PonyWaffe Test Alliance Please Ignore
1431
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 12:23:00 -
[1713] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:Dave stark wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:
Yet rogues continue to stun lock.
that hasn't happened since the hp buffs at the start of tbc nearly half a decade ago. you simply don't have enough combined stuns and dps to 100 -> 0 some one with the larger hp pools. then came resilience etc... This is now a "Talk about [Insert random easy-mode MMO here]" thread. EvE is an easy mode MMO as well. This whole thread is created by bads who want to keep effortlessy farming other bads who are even worse. Actually, in WoW if you want to compete for any ladder you must stop keyboard turning and being a clicker, EvE does not even demand that. I've played WoW for a couple of years prior to Eve and from my experience, once you get passed and gotten used to the keybinds (should took several months if not weeks for different players), it's done, you're all good, the rest is just improving reflexes and better responses and micro managing the cooldowns.
Imo, in Eve, you need to constantly keep up with new strategies, new stuff that pops out in game and what players came up with, there are no boundaries to how dirty you can be to reach your objective, as long as the EULA permits it. You can master WoW to an extent within a few months, but you will never master Eve, no matter how long you've played (heck, even the devs sometimes don't know what's going on or how stuff works in some aspects of the game) and no one and nothing's there to hold your hand. Don't like spaceships sandbox? then this is not the game for you. "I think weGÇÖre just getting closer and closer to a place where the people we lose are people that itGÇÖs okay to lose." -Kristoffer Touborg, Eve lead designer |
Blastcaps Madullier
Celestial Horizon Corp. Ethereal Dawn
74
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 13:30:00 -
[1714] - Quote
La Nariz wrote: buffing the most easily botted profession make botting easier or harder?
your referring to mining bots there, but tbt mission and especially ratting bots are just as easy and bad, genuine players hate bots period cause their smart enough to realize botting in general is detrimental to a game and that secondly the people running them are either usually tied to the RMT trade and/or just simply to bone idle lazy to bother doing it themselves and want everything on a platter, if I have reason to believe someone is a bot or botting I have no qualms in reporting them for it as well as ticketing them to ccp explaining what about their behavior leads me to believe they are a bot.
on the original topic mining ship progression wise before these changes goes live tends to be mining frig - Destroyer - osprey - retriever - hulk (some use macks for ice mining, smarter ones tend to use hulks cause unlike a mack a hulk can actually be tanked) so whats wrong with the above picture and whats missing? procurer no one wants or desires to use it when you can mine as well in a osprey if not better than a procurer, covetor why bother when by the time your able to get into it your at most a couple hours away from being able to jump right into a hulk? (tank and yield being the attractions for miners, add in the fact there's not a great deal of difference or wasn't between a mack and a hulk) and skiffs? they were and are only ever been worth considering when mining Mercoxit and generally only on the yield of it.
End of the day what people are forgetting is CCP is re-balancing ALL ships, and mining ships are only the beginning, interesting is going to be reactions when CCP inevitably get round to re-balancing T3's like tengu's and loki's, never mind when they start tinkering with caps upwards, so for now hold off on the outbursts and wait and see what OTHER changes are planned.
Usually on the forums you see a lot of "carebear tears" about how z miner got ganked by abc ganker in destroyers etc, since the mining ship changes went up on sisi the ganker community hasn't just cried a river, they've cried a ocean instead and missed the WHOLE POINT I'll state again... CCP ARE RE BALANCING ALL SHIPS NOT JUST MINING SHIPS. |
Patrakele
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
70
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 14:18:00 -
[1715] - Quote
Hey, I just met you and this is crazy!
So here's the kitchen so sandwich maybe!
You should stop pretend being pvpers and back in the ******* kitchen. |
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
675
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 14:26:00 -
[1716] - Quote
Herr Wilkus, I'm too lazy to log in all my accounts to give you +likes, but pretend you just got a heap of them. Not only for the OP, replies was made of win as well. shiptoastin' liek a baws |
Mallak Azaria
416
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 14:27:00 -
[1717] - Quote
Patrakele wrote:Hey, I just met you and this is crazy!
So here's the kitchen so sandwich maybe!
Teehehehe Mining Barge buff: CCP-áhas acknowledged that miners in general-áare too stupid to make the correct fitting choices to make ganking them unprofitable. |
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
675
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 14:39:00 -
[1718] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Zagdul wrote:Gone are the days where EVE is a dangerous place. I seem to have missed the part when they made all player ships immune to damage. 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.
No, the problem was two folded, part CCP's and part miners fault. * Miner fault - they used the most expensive ship in the game, untanked, and then got supermad they lost so much pixels in their "safe" space. They could've used a more reasonable alternative, but they refuse to and just flat out only want to use the ship that has the best mining yield. Mentality issue. * CCP's fault - for not having a good step between the Hulk and the low-end mining ships. If the barges had a bit boosted yield, and the step wasn't so far to the Hulk.. this would've been alot less of an issue.
I agree with you that the price difference between a Hulk and a gankers loss was completely off, but that was not the gankers fault. Miners put themselves into this position, and you know what, they will do again in these new ships (go untanked, for max yield). This will not change unless there's a reasonably cheap alternative with very close to the same yield as the top end mining vessel. Irony is, the fact that people use endgame ships (essentially, Hulks is the capital/supercapital of mining, it's The Max yield ship), that are/should be expensive, and then feel it cost too much to lose just show they have wrong mentality to begin with. Imagine if I would ask the same for my supercapitals. Hey, I want to be able to fly them in level fours in highsec, under protection of CONCORD! It is actually what miners were requesting.
The real fix you should've done: > Exhumers should be low- and nullsec only, like capital ships. > Barges should have alot wider range, from a cheap, low-skill and low-yield one, to a top end one that is near Exhumers both skill-, cost and yieldwise. The gap should not be that huge.
The effect of the change you are doing will only be cosmetic, really. Gankers will still gank. Miners will still fail to fit tanks. And the rage will continue. CCP need to educate miners that losses are part of the game, if they use expensive ships: suck it up. They should and could have more tanked versions with lower yield, and then it's simply their choice to use them. And yes, I do realise that your new ships lean towards this, but you still have a "new Hulk" that everyone will be using, and will the range in yield/cost cover a wide margin? It doesn't look like it, at this point.
OP is correct. And while you are right about the cost effiency, that is not a reason to do a hasty change that doesn't cover all bases. You'll still have problems, after these changes you presented. shiptoastin' liek a baws |
Mallak Azaria
417
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 14:51:00 -
[1719] - Quote
In all seriousness, I may get my main back in to a Mackinaw just so I can have it AFK mine while I'm playing Skyrim or something. Mining Barge buff: CCP-áhas acknowledged that miners in general-áare too stupid to make the correct fitting choices to make ganking them unprofitable. |
stoicfaux
1331
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 15:01:00 -
[1720] - Quote
Misanth wrote:Herr Wilkus, I'm too lazy to log in all my accounts to give you +likes, but pretend you just got a heap of them. Not only for the OP, replies was made of win as well. See, that's the problem. People who suicide gank high-sec miners are the laziest PvP'ers. Now that it is no longer so easy to gank high-sec miners, gankers find it easier to whine on the forums instead of actually learning to PvP.
You can tell me what is and isn't Truth when you pry the tinfoil from my cold, lifeless head.
|
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1727
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 15:01:00 -
[1721] - Quote
Sarah Schneider wrote:I've played WoW for a couple of years prior to Eve and from my experience, once you get passed and gotten used to the keybinds (should took several months if not weeks for different players), it's done, you're all good, the rest is just improving reflexes and better responses and micro managing the cooldowns.
Imo, in Eve, you need to constantly keep up with new strategies, new stuff that pops out in game and what players came up with, there are no boundaries to how dirty you can be to reach your objective, as long as the EULA permits it. You can master WoW to an extent within a few months, but you will never master Eve, no matter how long you've played (heck, even the devs sometimes don't know what's going on or how stuff works in some aspects of the game) and no one and nothing's there to hold your hand.
WoW is meant to be a lower skill cap game, those who want to go beyond that rolled Guild Wars or other non MMO competitive PvP games. But don't tell me you quickly got to 2400 rating in "a couple of weeks" on the top competitive server clusters, because 2200+ is where competitive PvP was at (back at the time that is, I don't know now).
Also, it's true that EvE is almost endless but then the amount of effort you have to pour in is staggering. The top accomplishment is to lead your own Empire (solo activities are not the top) and dominate 0.0. Not many manage to become top alliance leaders.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Mallak Azaria
420
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 15:05:00 -
[1722] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Misanth wrote:Herr Wilkus, I'm too lazy to log in all my accounts to give you +likes, but pretend you just got a heap of them. Not only for the OP, replies was made of win as well. See, that's the problem. People who suicide gank high-sec miners are the laziest PvP'ers. Now that it is no longer so easy to gank high-sec miners, gankers find it easier to whine on the forums instead of actually learning to PvP.
How does one learn how to shoot another player besides actually shooting another player?
Mining Barge buff: CCP-áhas acknowledged that miners in general-áare too stupid to make the correct fitting choices to make ganking them unprofitable. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
127
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 15:11:00 -
[1723] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:How does one learn how to shoot another player besides actually shooting another player?
For example Red vs Blue. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1491
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 15:20:00 -
[1724] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Misanth wrote:Herr Wilkus, I'm too lazy to log in all my accounts to give you +likes, but pretend you just got a heap of them. Not only for the OP, replies was made of win as well. See, that's the problem. People who suicide gank high-sec miners are the laziest PvP'ers. Now that it is no longer so easy to gank high-sec miners, gankers find it easier to whine on the forums instead of actually learning to PvP.
people outside of hisec are more tolerant of getting killed by surprise, they do not make that same delightful squeal that miners do when their exhumers are popped
miner ganking is not about profit or killboard padding EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
304
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 15:31:00 -
[1725] - Quote
ISD TYPE40 wrote:I've cleaned up some of the troll posts in this thread, please keep things civil, thank you.
Troll posts removed - ISD Type40.
nobody really cares if you deleted half the thread. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Smohq Anmirorz
State War Academy Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 15:32:00 -
[1726] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:La Nariz wrote:Lin-Young Borovskova wrote: 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.
Since you're such a smart hairy assed pubbie does buffing the most easily botted profession make botting easier or harder? You haven't explained why the bot argument is a bad one yet either internet security expert who graduated from MIT magna *** laude. Penalizing bots should not be prioritized over giving non-botting players (AFK or otherwise) wider and more relevant choices. How exactly does homogenizing mining ships give non-botting players wider more relevant choices? Its like saying you can pick door 1, 2, 3, or n but the same thing is behind each one.
Saying that they are homogenizing mining ships doesn't make it so. They are doing the opposite of what you suggest. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1728
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 15:34:00 -
[1727] - Quote
Misanth wrote:
No, the problem was two folded, part CCP's and part miners fault. * Miner fault - they used the most expensive ship in the game, untanked, and then got supermad they lost so much pixels in their "safe" space. They could've used a more reasonable alternative, but they refuse to and just flat out only want to use the ship that has the best mining yield. Mentality issue. * CCP's fault - for not having a good step between the Hulk and the low-end mining ships. If the barges had a bit boosted yield, and the step wasn't so far to the Hulk.. this would've been alot less of an issue.
I agree with you that the price difference between a Hulk and a gankers loss was completely off, but that was not the gankers fault. Miners put themselves into this position, and you know what, they will do again in these new ships (go untanked, for max yield). This will not change unless there's a reasonably cheap alternative with very close to the same yield as the top end mining vessel. Irony is, the fact that people use endgame ships (essentially, Hulks is the capital/supercapital of mining, it's The Max yield ship), that are/should be expensive, and then feel it cost too much to lose just show they have wrong mentality to begin with. Imagine if I would ask the same for my supercapitals. Hey, I want to be able to fly them in level fours in highsec, under protection of CONCORD! It is actually what miners were requesting.
MMOs reflect the real world in many wicked ways. One of them is the kind of player playing it.
You have the top alpha male on one side, if it was for him, all would be hard core and a matter of domination and proof of his masculine hormones overabundance. They are relatively rare. They often are extremely accomplished people in RL as well, maybe retired already and can dedicate tons of time to the game. They also achieve ten time more per unit of time than others.
Then there's a plethora of "more calm water" players with various degrees of committment, endurance, ability to form their own objectives (something quite needed for a sandbox game). They are still quite rare, they are the free minds, often in alliance or harsh conflict with the above. Some of them entertrain into more or less wicked manipulations both of the markets and of the other people listed below. Some of them are cheaters, awoxers etc.
Then there's the "populace", who "just want to live and let leave", who "just want to do their honest job", "just work hard and feed the family". They need their hands driven by somebody else, they are easily used and manipulated, they are the honest tax payers. Not because they are inherently good, but because they were manipulated into being honest and into believing in "the State", in "the Good Values" and other similar mass sociology brain washing. This is where the tens of millions subscribers are, they are the sheep, the material to be used and abused by those in command. Many of them are very mediocre players (which does not mean they are necessarily "casual") but they form "zergs" and generally meatshield to sacrifice (I am trespassing into Machiavelli now).
At the base of the above are the subsidized, the welfare people. They will indeed think they have to buy the best expensive product (Hulk) and an iPad, because "you are cool and elite with them". They just cannot be self sufficient, the (European) State provide them with the basic life needed things in exchange for their life and sweat. We have whole subsidized categories in RL, I won't mention any because the last time I got flamed to the ground for speaking the cold truths. They are predictable and go after blind guides adoption (see the 0.0 Halada's miners guide deadspace fitting used in hi sec Hulks!). You simply cannot demand those guys will smarten up, they just can't. They may be amiable persons, good workers, friends but they just won't walk the extra mile, they are the anti-emergent player.
MMO companies for their own survival rely on all sorts of players with varying degrees of composition.
EvE relied on the first two kinds for some years and this made EvE of a niche MMO. But then, 5000 players were not enough to grant the game continued expansion and improvement.
So, CCP opened the doors for the other kind of players.
So, you have to sort of deal with it. The latter players are simply not able to walk the extra mile some in this thread demand them to. This is why CCP are creating "canned content" for them. The only ways to keep those players is to WoW-ify the game a little in order to tangibly scale up the subs numbers. Or to educate them, but this is extremely hard, it's a process that takes years and is extremely, harshly and sometimes punished with RL death, because strong RL powers WANT to have unwashed masses to control, drive and feed onto.
Imagine what would happen if suddenly, the honest tax payers, the family fathers woke up and started thinking. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Smohq Anmirorz
State War Academy Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 15:46:00 -
[1728] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:
The Mack is the official "not supported by a Hauler ship." Why should CCP design a ship specifically to cater to AFK people?
Because there's demand for it? Why shoud Dodge build pickups? Or why Harley Davidson builds noisy chromed motorbikes? There's demand for a HS Dread. It comes up in the EffandEye forums all the time. CCP's not making those at the moment. Why should CCP design a ship specifically to cater to AFK people? Game design reason, please. Because a large portion of playerbase wants it? Is "cash income" a game design reason enough?
No it is not. Game design reason is a reasonable expectation, give it. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
127
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 15:51:00 -
[1729] - Quote
Everyone knows there's only 4 T1 destroyers currently so there's a lot space for new destroyers. How about Miner Killer? Ship that can kill mining ships in hisec without Corcord ruining the fun. That should be fun. |
stoicfaux
1333
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 15:51:00 -
[1730] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote: people outside of hisec are more tolerant of getting killed by surprise, they do not make that same delightful squeal that miners do when their exhumers are popped
miner ganking is not about profit or killboard padding
Then it's just about griefing. And that's why it is so hard to support the pro-miner-ganking-in-highsec viewpoint.
Griefing is a sub-class of PvP. It's normally not a desirable state of PvP from both a fun factor and subscription point of view.
You can tell me what is and isn't Truth when you pry the tinfoil from my cold, lifeless head.
|
|
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
88
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 16:03:00 -
[1731] - Quote
Smohq Anmirorz wrote:
Saying that they are homogenizing mining ships doesn't make it so. They are doing the opposite of what you suggest.
Saying that they are not homogenizing mining ships doesn't make it so. They are doing the opposite of what you suggest. Oh look I can make a blatant statement without proof too. Goonwaffe is now recruiting feel free to message me in game for information about joining! |
Bunnie Hop
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
308
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 16:05:00 -
[1732] - Quote
The OP sure used alot of words to say WAAHHH. Cry on, its lovely. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
127
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 16:09:00 -
[1733] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:Saying that they are not homogenizing mining ships doesn't make it so. They are doing the opposite of what you suggest. Oh look I can make a blatant statement without proof too.
Just wait a month and CCP introduces new Miner Killer destroyers. 20% per level to immunity against Concord. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1492
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 16:09:00 -
[1734] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Misanth wrote:
No, the problem was two folded, part CCP's and part miners fault. * Miner fault - they used the most expensive ship in the game, untanked, and then got supermad they lost so much pixels in their "safe" space. They could've used a more reasonable alternative, but they refuse to and just flat out only want to use the ship that has the best mining yield. Mentality issue. * CCP's fault - for not having a good step between the Hulk and the low-end mining ships. If the barges had a bit boosted yield, and the step wasn't so far to the Hulk.. this would've been alot less of an issue.
I agree with you that the price difference between a Hulk and a gankers loss was completely off, but that was not the gankers fault. Miners put themselves into this position, and you know what, they will do again in these new ships (go untanked, for max yield). This will not change unless there's a reasonably cheap alternative with very close to the same yield as the top end mining vessel. Irony is, the fact that people use endgame ships (essentially, Hulks is the capital/supercapital of mining, it's The Max yield ship), that are/should be expensive, and then feel it cost too much to lose just show they have wrong mentality to begin with. Imagine if I would ask the same for my supercapitals. Hey, I want to be able to fly them in level fours in highsec, under protection of CONCORD! It is actually what miners were requesting.
MMOs reflect the real world in many wicked ways. One of them is the kind of player playing it. You have the top alpha male on one side, if it was for him, all would be hard core and a matter of domination and proof of his masculine hormones overabundance. They are relatively rare. They often are extremely accomplished people in RL as well, maybe retired already and can dedicate tons of time to the game. They also achieve ten time more per unit of time than others. Then there's a plethora of "more calm water" players with various degrees of committment, endurance, ability to form their own objectives (something quite needed for a sandbox game). They are still quite rare, they are the free minds, often in alliance or harsh conflict with the above. Some of them entertrain into more or less wicked manipulations both of the markets and of the other people listed below. Some of them are cheaters, awoxers etc. Then there's the "populace", who "just want to live and let leave", who "just want to do their honest job", "just work hard and feed the family". They need their hands driven by somebody else, they are easily used and manipulated, they are the honest tax payers. Not because they are inherently good, but because they were manipulated into being honest and into believing in "the State", in "the Good Values" and other similar mass sociology brain washing. This is where the tens of millions subscribers are, they are the sheep, the material to be used and abused by those in command. Many of them are very mediocre players (which does not mean they are necessarily "casual") but they form "zergs" and generally meatshield to sacrifice (I am trespassing into Machiavelli now). At the base of the above are the subsidized, the welfare people. They will indeed think they have to buy the best expensive product (Hulk) and an iPad, because "you are cool and elite with them". They just cannot be self sufficient, the (European) State provide them with the basic life needed things in exchange for their life and sweat. We have whole subsidized categories in RL, I won't mention any because the last time I got flamed to the ground for speaking the cold truths. They are predictable and go after blind guides adoption (see the 0.0 Halada's miners guide deadspace fitting used in hi sec Hulks!). You simply cannot demand those guys will smarten up, they just can't. They may be amiable persons, good workers, friends but they just won't walk the extra mile, they are the anti-emergent player. MMO companies for their own survival rely on all sorts of players with varying degrees of composition. EvE relied on the first two kinds for some years and this made EvE of a niche MMO. But then, 5000 players were not enough to grant the game continued expansion and improvement. So, CCP opened the doors for the other kind of players. So, you have to sort of deal with it. The latter players are simply not able to walk the extra mile some in this thread demand them to. This is why CCP are creating "canned content" for them. The only ways to keep those players is to WoW-ify the game a little in order to tangibly scale up the subs numbers. Or to educate them, but this is extremely hard, it's a process that takes years and is extremely, harshly and sometimes punished with RL death, because strong RL powers WANT to have unwashed masses to control, drive and feed onto. Imagine what would happen if suddenly, the honest tax payers, the family fathers woke up and started thinking.
a shame that no matter how much they Trammelize hisec, they will never compete with WoW EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1492
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 16:12:00 -
[1735] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Richard Desturned wrote: people outside of hisec are more tolerant of getting killed by surprise, they do not make that same delightful squeal that miners do when their exhumers are popped
miner ganking is not about profit or killboard padding
Then it's just about griefing. And that's why it is so hard to support the pro-miner-ganking-in-highsec viewpoint. Griefing is a sub-class of PvP. It's normally not a desirable state of PvP from both a fun factor and subscription point of view.
those who unsub because they can't stand getting ~griefed~ will unsub for some other reason
this game is not for everyone EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Drone 16
Law Dogz
2
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 16:13:00 -
[1736] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:stoicfaux wrote:Misanth wrote:Herr Wilkus, I'm too lazy to log in all my accounts to give you +likes, but pretend you just got a heap of them. Not only for the OP, replies was made of win as well. See, that's the problem. People who suicide gank high-sec miners are the laziest PvP'ers. Now that it is no longer so easy to gank high-sec miners, gankers find it easier to whine on the forums instead of actually learning to PvP. people outside of hisec are more tolerant of getting killed by surprise, they do not make that same delightful squeal that miners do when their exhumers are popped miner ganking is not about profit or killboard padding
This man speaks truth!
It was never about risk v. reward; that is just a convenient excuse with which to lobby CCP.
It is about generating easy tears, at least R.D. has the integrity to say what all the other pro-gank posters are really thinking.
I tip my shades to you , sir.
|
Smohq Anmirorz
State War Academy Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 16:22:00 -
[1737] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:Smohq Anmirorz wrote:
Saying that they are homogenizing mining ships doesn't make it so. They are doing the opposite of what you suggest.
Saying that they are not homogenizing mining ships doesn't make it so. They are doing the opposite of what you suggest. Oh look I can make a blatant statement without proof too.
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. |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
88
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 16:28:00 -
[1738] - Quote
Smohq Anmirorz wrote:La Nariz wrote:Smohq Anmirorz wrote:
Saying that they are homogenizing mining ships doesn't make it so. They are doing the opposite of what you suggest.
Saying that they are not homogenizing mining ships doesn't make it so. They are doing the opposite of what you suggest. Oh look I can make a blatant statement without proof too. 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.
Saying that they are not homogenizing mining ships doesn't make it so. They are doing the opposite of what you suggest. Oh look I can make a blatant statement without proof too. I'm just going to say the same damn thing until you provide some evidence otherwise. I posted yield numbers either that showed they all have similar yields. Goonwaffe is now recruiting feel free to message me in game for information about joining! |
Smohq Anmirorz
State War Academy Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 16:31:00 -
[1739] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:Smohq Anmirorz wrote:La Nariz wrote:Smohq Anmirorz wrote:
Saying that they are homogenizing mining ships doesn't make it so. They are doing the opposite of what you suggest.
Saying that they are not homogenizing mining ships doesn't make it so. They are doing the opposite of what you suggest. Oh look I can make a blatant statement without proof too. 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. Saying that they are not homogenizing mining ships doesn't make it so. They are doing the opposite of what you suggest. Oh look I can make a blatant statement without proof too. I'm just going to say the same damn thing until you provide some evidence otherwise. I posted yield numbers either that showed they all have similar yields.
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. |
Thronde
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
11
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 16:34:00 -
[1740] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Asuka Solo wrote:baltec1 wrote:Asuka Solo wrote: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.
99% of miners dont go anywhere where there is no CONCORD and will jump corp when wardeced. CCP are about to make mining as risk free as its possible to get in space as well as very bot friendly. I fail to see how that's MY problem. Dec every hi-sec corp. This change means cheaper minerals for me, which = cheaper cap fleets. ~deal with it~ lmao ex-widot
We can't help that retards sometimes slip through the checks. The issue was alleviated quickly in that case however. |
|
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1129
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 16:41:00 -
[1741] - Quote
When/if this change goes through, I expect massive gankings throughout HS (mostly out of spite). Then I expect those miners who expect CCP to fix their problems to come to the forums and whine again.
Then I can say "CCP this would not have happened if you had done a reasonable reballance rather than just add tank (simplification of all that is wrong with the changes)".
|
stoicfaux
1334
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 16:45:00 -
[1742] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote: those who unsub because they can't stand getting ~griefed~ will unsub for some other reason
this game is not for everyone
Right. And when CCP tallies the votes (aka subs,) who do you think has a bigger voice? The high-sec gankers? Or the high-sec miners? I think it's pretty obvious that CCP values the miners' concerns over the high-sec gankers' concerns.
The real question is: will the high-sec gankers unsub over the mining ship changes? Because, you know, this game isn't for everyone.
You can tell me what is and isn't Truth when you pry the tinfoil from my cold, lifeless head.
|
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1129
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 16:46:00 -
[1743] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Richard Desturned wrote: those who unsub because they can't stand getting ~griefed~ will unsub for some other reason
this game is not for everyone
Right. And when CCP tallies the votes (aka subs,) who do you think has a bigger voice? The high-sec gankers? Or the high-sec miners? I think it's pretty obvious that CCP values the miners' concerns over the high-sec gankers' concerns. The real question is: will the high-sec gankers unsub over the mining ship changes? Because, you know, this game isn't for everyone. The HS gankers include a large portion of low sec folks, null sec folks, and HS folks. Remember, a lot of gankers are alts. |
Boober Fraggle
3
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 16:46:00 -
[1744] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Misanth wrote:Herr Wilkus, I'm too lazy to log in all my accounts to give you +likes, but pretend you just got a heap of them. Not only for the OP, replies was made of win as well. See, that's the problem. People who suicide gank high-sec miners are the laziest PvP'ers. Now that it is no longer so easy to gank high-sec miners, gankers find it easier to whine on the forums instead of actually learning to PvP.
A zero and seven PvPer calling me lazy? Fuckin insulting. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
258
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 16:53:00 -
[1745] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:Smohq Anmirorz wrote:
Saying that they are homogenizing mining ships doesn't make it so. They are doing the opposite of what you suggest.
Saying that they are not homogenizing mining ships doesn't make it so. They are doing the opposite of what you suggest. Oh look I can make a blatant statement without proof too. Numbers have already been posted for you refuting you claim of homogenization. |
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
677
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 16:54:00 -
[1746] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Misanth wrote:
No, the problem was two folded, part CCP's and part miners fault. * Miner fault - they used the most expensive ship in the game, untanked, and then got supermad they lost so much pixels in their "safe" space. They could've used a more reasonable alternative, but they refuse to and just flat out only want to use the ship that has the best mining yield. Mentality issue. * CCP's fault - for not having a good step between the Hulk and the low-end mining ships. If the barges had a bit boosted yield, and the step wasn't so far to the Hulk.. this would've been alot less of an issue.
I agree with you that the price difference between a Hulk and a gankers loss was completely off, but that was not the gankers fault. Miners put themselves into this position, and you know what, they will do again in these new ships (go untanked, for max yield). This will not change unless there's a reasonably cheap alternative with very close to the same yield as the top end mining vessel. Irony is, the fact that people use endgame ships (essentially, Hulks is the capital/supercapital of mining, it's The Max yield ship), that are/should be expensive, and then feel it cost too much to lose just show they have wrong mentality to begin with. Imagine if I would ask the same for my supercapitals. Hey, I want to be able to fly them in level fours in highsec, under protection of CONCORD! It is actually what miners were requesting.
MMOs reflect the real world in many wicked ways. One of them is the kind of player playing it. You have the top alpha male on one side, if it was for him, all would be hard core and a matter of domination and proof of his masculine hormones overabundance. They are relatively rare. They often are extremely accomplished people in RL as well, maybe retired already and can dedicate tons of time to the game. They also achieve ten time more per unit of time than others. Then there's a plethora of "more calm water" players with various degrees of committment, endurance, ability to form their own objectives (something quite needed for a sandbox game). They are still quite rare, they are the free minds, often in alliance or harsh conflict with the above. Some of them entertrain into more or less wicked manipulations both of the markets and of the other people listed below. Some of them are cheaters, awoxers etc. Then there's the "populace", who "just want to live and let leave", who "just want to do their honest job", "just work hard and feed the family". They need their hands driven by somebody else, they are easily used and manipulated, they are the honest tax payers. Not because they are inherently good, but because they were manipulated into being honest and into believing in "the State", in "the Good Values" and other similar mass sociology brain washing. This is where the tens of millions subscribers are, they are the sheep, the material to be used and abused by those in command. Many of them are very mediocre players (which does not mean they are necessarily "casual") but they form "zergs" and generally meatshield to sacrifice (I am trespassing into Machiavelli now). At the base of the above are the subsidized, the welfare people. They will indeed think they have to buy the best expensive product (Hulk) and an iPad, because "you are cool and elite with them". They just cannot be self sufficient, the (European) State provide them with the basic life needed things in exchange for their life and sweat. We have whole subsidized categories in RL, I won't mention any because the last time I got flamed to the ground for speaking the cold truths. They are predictable and go after blind guides adoption (see the 0.0 Halada's miners guide deadspace fitting used in hi sec Hulks!). You simply cannot demand those guys will smarten up, they just can't. They may be amiable persons, good workers, friends but they just won't walk the extra mile, they are the anti-emergent player. MMO companies for their own survival rely on all sorts of players with varying degrees of composition. EvE relied on the first two kinds for some years and this made EvE of a niche MMO. But then, 5000 players were not enough to grant the game continued expansion and improvement. So, CCP opened the doors for the other kind of players. So, you have to sort of deal with it. The latter players are simply not able to walk the extra mile some in this thread demand them to. This is why CCP are creating "canned content" for them. The only ways to keep those players is to WoW-ify the game a little in order to tangibly scale up the subs numbers. Or to educate them, but this is extremely hard, it's a process that takes years and is extremely, harshly and sometimes punished with RL death, because strong RL powers WANT to have unwashed masses to control, drive and feed onto. Imagine what would happen if suddenly, the honest tax payers, the family fathers woke up and started thinking.
3/10 shiptoastin' liek a baws |
Mallak Azaria
450
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 16:56:00 -
[1747] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:How does one learn how to shoot another player besides actually shooting another player?
For example Red vs Blue.
What has EVE come to when someone has to actually join a corp to learn how to target another player & press F1? Mining Barge buff: CCP-áhas acknowledged that miners in general-áare too stupid to make the correct fitting choices to make ganking them unprofitable. |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
88
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 16:58:00 -
[1748] - Quote
Smohq Anmirorz wrote:La Nariz wrote:Smohq Anmirorz wrote:La Nariz wrote:Smohq Anmirorz wrote:
Saying that they are homogenizing mining ships doesn't make it so. They are doing the opposite of what you suggest.
Saying that they are not homogenizing mining ships doesn't make it so. They are doing the opposite of what you suggest. Oh look I can make a blatant statement without proof too. 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. Saying that they are not homogenizing mining ships doesn't make it so. They are doing the opposite of what you suggest. Oh look I can make a blatant statement without proof too. I'm just going to say the same damn thing until you provide some evidence otherwise. I posted yield numbers either that showed they all have similar yields. 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.
Cause stating something without backing it up is proof. Goonwaffe is now recruiting feel free to message me in game for information about joining! |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1728
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 17:04:00 -
[1749] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:a shame that no matter how much they Trammelize hisec, they will never compete with WoW
You have really to hope the current CEO and stake holders don't change and get replaced by "$$$$ in the eyes" quick short term money mongers a la EA.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1494
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 17:10:00 -
[1750] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Richard Desturned wrote: those who unsub because they can't stand getting ~griefed~ will unsub for some other reason
this game is not for everyone
Right. And when CCP tallies the votes (aka subs,) who do you think has a bigger voice? The high-sec gankers? Or the high-sec miners? I think it's pretty obvious that CCP values the miners' concerns over the high-sec gankers' concerns. The real question is: will the high-sec gankers unsub over the mining ship changes? Because, you know, this game isn't for everyone.
they won't, they'll adapt, like the miners have routinely failed to
on the other hand, the miners will unsub for other reasons, such as another wow clone they can give $15/mo to or getting scammed
the only way to adapt this game for the crowd in question is to completely throw away everything that keeps the people who actually love this game subscribed EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1728
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 17:10:00 -
[1751] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote: 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.
And with the changes on SIsi, the only ships you ever need to fly are the Hulk for fleet ops, and the Mack for solo and afk.
The others will only be useful for poor people and those without the skills for the other two. And odd PvP doctrines... but that is not CCPs intention.[/quote]
CCP can do just so much to diversify the ships. Game model is too simple and lacks of the hundreds of tangent factors that in RL make people buy products that are not min maxed in the 2-3 super important stats.
Also, there are "mining doctrines" too. If common belief is that max yield is THE MUST then they can sugar coat all they want, people will still fly untanked double MLU Hulks.
I don't expect to see equality in ships usage, nor ISK will play a factor since everybody can and will switch to an exhumer ASAP.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Mallak Azaria
450
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 17:10:00 -
[1752] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:a shame that no matter how much they Trammelize hisec, they will never compete with WoW You have really to hope the current CEO and stake holders don't change and get replaced by "$$$$ in the eyes" quick short term money mongers a la EA.
That already happened. It didn't quite turn out the way they had hoped. Mining Barge buff: CCP-áhas acknowledged that miners in general-áare too stupid to make the correct fitting choices to make ganking them unprofitable. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1494
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 17:11:00 -
[1753] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:a shame that no matter how much they Trammelize hisec, they will never compete with WoW You have really to hope the current CEO and stake holders don't change and get replaced by "$$$$ in the eyes" quick short term money mongers a la EA.
you too, because every MMO that undergoes such radical changes dies
see SWG, UO, etc. EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
258
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 17:13:00 -
[1754] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:stoicfaux wrote:Richard Desturned wrote: those who unsub because they can't stand getting ~griefed~ will unsub for some other reason
this game is not for everyone
Right. And when CCP tallies the votes (aka subs,) who do you think has a bigger voice? The high-sec gankers? Or the high-sec miners? I think it's pretty obvious that CCP values the miners' concerns over the high-sec gankers' concerns. The real question is: will the high-sec gankers unsub over the mining ship changes? Because, you know, this game isn't for everyone. they won't, they'll adapt, like the miners have routinely failed to on the other hand, the miners will unsub for other reasons, such as another wow clone they can give $15/mo to or getting scammed the only way to adapt this game for the crowd in question is to completely throw away everything that keeps the people who actually love this game subscribed If mining is such a revolving door of subs, how are there enough of them here for this to matter and for this conversation to even be happening? |
Smohq Anmirorz
State War Academy Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 17:14:00 -
[1755] - Quote
Quote: Cause stating something without backing it up is proof.
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.
|
Blastcaps Madullier
Celestial Horizon Corp. Ethereal Dawn
75
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 17:14:00 -
[1756] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:a shame that no matter how much they Trammelize hisec, they will never compete with WoW You have really to hope the current CEO and stake holders don't change and get replaced by "$$$$ in the eyes" quick short term money mongers a la EA. hey dont forgat activision lol
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1728
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 17:15:00 -
[1757] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:a shame that no matter how much they Trammelize hisec, they will never compete with WoW You have really to hope the current CEO and stake holders don't change and get replaced by "$$$$ in the eyes" quick short term money mongers a la EA. That already happened. It didn't quite turn out the way they had hoped.
You have yet to see the real EA-alike directors in action. If you believe that little CCP brainfart was something serious you'd see MMOs that got totally gutted to the point of losing dozens of servers in 2-3 months, others that within 3 months off release were already 40% player base down and so on.
Blastcaps Madullier wrote: hey dont forgat activision lol
Fortunately I stopped having any sub to any of their games 6 years ago so I don't know how much they killed valuable products.
But remember this motto: "usually competitors are very similar to actually be in a long lasting fight". (else one would just crush the other).
So I suppose Activision became an EA mirror. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Mallak Azaria
450
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 17:17:00 -
[1758] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:a shame that no matter how much they Trammelize hisec, they will never compete with WoW You have really to hope the current CEO and stake holders don't change and get replaced by "$$$$ in the eyes" quick short term money mongers a la EA. That already happened. It didn't quite turn out the way they had hoped. You have yet to see the real EA-alike directors in action. If you believe that little CCP brainfart was something serious you'd see MMOs that got totally gutted to the point of losing dozens of servers in 2-3 months, others that within 3 months off release were already 40% player base down and so on.
I don't usually play other MMO's past the free month phase. I prefere playing with myself. Mining Barge buff: CCP-áhas acknowledged that miners in general-áare too stupid to make the correct fitting choices to make ganking them unprofitable. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1728
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 17:18:00 -
[1759] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote: I don't usually play other MMO's past the free month phase. I prefere playing with myself.
Beware not to get blind!
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1129
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 18:17:00 -
[1760] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Corina Jarr wrote: And with the changes on SIsi, the only ships you ever need to fly are the Hulk for fleet ops, and the Mack for solo and afk.
The others will only be useful for poor people and those without the skills for the other two. And odd PvP doctrines... but that is not CCPs intention.
CCP can do just so much to diversify the ships. Game model is too simple and lacks of the hundreds of tangent factors that in RL make people buy products that are not min maxed in the 2-3 super important stats. Also, there are "mining doctrines" too. If common belief is that max yield is THE MUST then they can sugar coat all they want, people will still fly untanked double MLU Hulks. I don't expect to see equality in ships usage, nor ISK will play a factor since everybody can and will switch to an exhumer ASAP. Oh I don't know. They could have, for example, kept the Hulk and Mack with the same (well close to it, more fittings) tank levels they are now. Then the baby miner would have a desirability for those who don't like losing ships to gankers.
But the vocal miners won't adapt anyway (since they could have for years now and haven't), so what is the point of making any changes. They still will fail fit, die to gankers, and whine on the forums. Meanwhile us adaptable miners will switch to ganking them because they are so destructive to the game as a whole. |
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
443
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 18:22:00 -
[1761] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:stoicfaux wrote:Richard Desturned wrote: those who unsub because they can't stand getting ~griefed~ will unsub for some other reason
this game is not for everyone
Right. And when CCP tallies the votes (aka subs,) who do you think has a bigger voice? The high-sec gankers? Or the high-sec miners? I think it's pretty obvious that CCP values the miners' concerns over the high-sec gankers' concerns. The real question is: will the high-sec gankers unsub over the mining ship changes? Because, you know, this game isn't for everyone. The HS gankers include a large portion of low sec folks, null sec folks, and HS folks. Remember, a lot of gankers are alts. And if miners become the only voice CCP listens to, we'll cull them by the thousands. EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1729
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 18:24:00 -
[1762] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote: But the vocal miners won't adapt anyway (since they could have for years now and haven't), so what is the point of making any changes. They still will fail fit, die to gankers, and whine on the forums. Meanwhile us adaptable miners will switch to ganking them because they are so destructive to the game as a whole.
I would not consider just "vocal miners", because only a dozen of posts a month over thousands and thousands of people who daily mine in max yield fits make them quite irrelevant.
I am fairly sure CCP keeps statistics that cover with better detail the thousands who play and never post and change the game basing on them. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1729
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 18:25:00 -
[1763] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:stoicfaux wrote:Richard Desturned wrote: those who unsub because they can't stand getting ~griefed~ will unsub for some other reason
this game is not for everyone
Right. And when CCP tallies the votes (aka subs,) who do you think has a bigger voice? The high-sec gankers? Or the high-sec miners? I think it's pretty obvious that CCP values the miners' concerns over the high-sec gankers' concerns. The real question is: will the high-sec gankers unsub over the mining ship changes? Because, you know, this game isn't for everyone. The HS gankers include a large portion of low sec folks, null sec folks, and HS folks. Remember, a lot of gankers are alts. And if miners become the only voice CCP listens to, we'll cull them by the thousands.
Yes keep making them re-buffed again and again, that'll really show them. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
305
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 18:25:00 -
[1764] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:stoicfaux wrote:Richard Desturned wrote: those who unsub because they can't stand getting ~griefed~ will unsub for some other reason
this game is not for everyone
Right. And when CCP tallies the votes (aka subs,) who do you think has a bigger voice? The high-sec gankers? Or the high-sec miners? I think it's pretty obvious that CCP values the miners' concerns over the high-sec gankers' concerns. The real question is: will the high-sec gankers unsub over the mining ship changes? Because, you know, this game isn't for everyone. The HS gankers include a large portion of low sec folks, null sec folks, and HS folks. Remember, a lot of gankers are alts. And if miners become the only voice CCP listens to, we'll cull them by the thousands.
considering on sisi the hulks have had their 7.5% shield resistances/mining barge level cut to 5%/level i think they're listening to the gankers too. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
443
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 18:34:00 -
[1765] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:stoicfaux wrote:Richard Desturned wrote: those who unsub because they can't stand getting ~griefed~ will unsub for some other reason
this game is not for everyone
Right. And when CCP tallies the votes (aka subs,) who do you think has a bigger voice? The high-sec gankers? Or the high-sec miners? I think it's pretty obvious that CCP values the miners' concerns over the high-sec gankers' concerns. The real question is: will the high-sec gankers unsub over the mining ship changes? Because, you know, this game isn't for everyone. The HS gankers include a large portion of low sec folks, null sec folks, and HS folks. Remember, a lot of gankers are alts. And if miners become the only voice CCP listens to, we'll cull them by the thousands. Yes keep making them re-buffed again and again, that'll really show them. Well if the puny ones leave the game it's better for us all. EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
88
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 18:39:00 -
[1766] - Quote
Smohq Anmirorz wrote:Quote: Cause stating something without backing it up is proof.
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.
Why should I do all that when your only argument is "lol no?" Low effort argument gets a low effort return. Goonwaffe is now recruiting feel free to message me in game for information about joining! |
Pipa Porto
553
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 18:41:00 -
[1767] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Yes keep making them re-buffed again and again, that'll really show them.
They get buffed, buffed, and buffed again, and yet still they whine that their boats can be violenced. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Charles Baker
Federal Mineral Acquisition VORTEX RISING
113
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 18:53:00 -
[1768] - Quote
Lets make this 100 pages of tears. |
Drone 16
Law Dogz
2
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 19:12:00 -
[1769] - Quote
Gone are the days in Eve where 0.0 strife (BoB v. Goons, the Drone Wars etc etc) drove the game...have we fallen so low that all we have to discuss are the 2 professions that were once considered beneath contempt and not thread-worthy...
Miners vs. Gankers. That's all we have left. I find that sad. I feel dirty having even posted the amount of times I have in this thread. I am going to wash now. |
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
1664
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 19:27:00 -
[1770] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Richard Desturned wrote: those who unsub because they can't stand getting ~griefed~ will unsub for some other reason
this game is not for everyone
Right. And when CCP tallies the votes (aka subs,) who do you think has a bigger voice? The high-sec gankers? Or the high-sec miners? I think it's pretty obvious that CCP values the miners' concerns over the high-sec gankers' concerns. The real question is: will the high-sec gankers unsub over the mining ship changes? Because, you know, this game isn't for everyone.
Interesting take.
It's becoming obvious what CCP is trying to do, but can they do it in a matter that the game becomes comprised of "worlds within worlds"?
Take the WiS thing. Will there ever be a time when there is station content at a level that a person can play the game but never fly a ship? What would that mean?
While the OP makes a lot of good points, perhaps the miner and the ganker are two worlds that cross paths in such a manner that CCP finds detrimental. The statement that suicide ganking should not be profitable appears to support this.
For me, it seems to break immersion for me that a small ship can take out a large industrial ship so easily, being an indication that industrials are to intentionally flimsy or weapons are OP. I imagine taking out a Hulk with a cat to be comparabe to getting a car, filling it up with friends, giving them guns, and then we use it to go destroy a garbage truck or semi in "a few volleys".
It did not make much sense.
Upping their tank looks like a logical progression.
Ganking or suicide ganking is more of a symptom than a problem in itself. I hope that the content and the mechanics of the game become a solution for this, rather than simple "balancing" through EHP.
Once that happens, then we will know who is "playing a game" and who is here to pee in the pool.
|
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1731
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 19:28:00 -
[1771] - Quote
Drone 16 wrote:Gone are the days in Eve where 0.0 strife (BoB v. Goons, the Drone Wars etc etc) drove the game...have we fallen so low that all we have to discuss are the 2 professions that were once considered beneath contempt and not thread-worthy...
Miners vs. Gankers. That's all we have left. I find that sad. I feel dirty having even posted the amount of times I have in this thread. I am going to wash now.
Quoting myself:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: This whole thread is created by bads who want to keep effortlessy farming other bads who are even worse.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Josef Djugashvilis
The Scope Gallente Federation
379
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 19:34:00 -
[1772] - Quote
James Amril-kesh has suggested that the game would be better for us all if, 'the puny ones' leave the game.
I disagree, Eve would just not be the same without gankers. You want fries with that? |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
443
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 19:59:00 -
[1773] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:James Amril-kesh has suggested that the game would be better for us all if, 'the puny ones' leave the game.
I disagree, Eve would just not be the same without gankers. They're a necessary evil. I was of couse referring to the miners with a sense of entitlement, however. EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
Asuka Solo
Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises
1573
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 20:02:00 -
[1774] - Quote
Jihaddists can suck it. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
443
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 20:05:00 -
[1775] - Quote
Drone 16 wrote:Gone are the days in Eve where 0.0 strife (BoB v. Goons, the Drone Wars etc etc) drove the game...have we fallen so low that all we have to discuss are the 2 professions that were once considered beneath contempt and not thread-worthy... You have a very selective memory... EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
Pipa Porto
554
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 20:06:00 -
[1776] - Quote
Drone 16 wrote:Gone are the days in Eve where 0.0 strife (BoB v. Goons, the Drone Wars etc etc) drove the game...have we fallen so low that all we have to discuss are the 2 professions that were once considered beneath contempt and not thread-worthy...
Miners vs. Gankers. That's all we have left. I find that sad. I feel dirty having even posted the amount of times I have in this thread. I am going to wash now.
If you are disappointed with the stories coming from 0.0, you're free to go there and make better ones. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Smohq Anmirorz
State War Academy Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 20:18:00 -
[1777] - Quote
La Nariz wrote: Low effort argument gets a low effort return.
ditto |
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
549
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 20:33:00 -
[1778] - Quote
Drone 16 wrote:Gone are the days in Eve where 0.0 strife (BoB v. Goons, the Drone Wars etc etc) drove the game...have we fallen so low that all we have to discuss are the 2 professions that were once considered beneath contempt and not thread-worthy...
Miners vs. Gankers. That's all we have left. I find that sad. I feel dirty having even posted the amount of times I have in this thread. I am going to wash now.
No, no, no.
Turn that around:
Those days are gone because no-one cares anymore, and the reason for that is 100% legit:
See, real adults don't take a freakin' video-game that seriously, plus they generally have little use for lame-ass e-drama that informs this.
Zerosec is a semi-consensual battleground full of no-life douchebags with monumentally overblown egos. The real sandbox is in empire-space hisec, in large part because of the false sense of security of many of its denizens.
And because sui-ganking is funny as Hell, too.
Why am I dreaming of some strange woman who keeps telling me, "You fail at life because you are cloaked?" |
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
549
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 20:38:00 -
[1779] - Quote
Asuka Solo wrote:Jihaddists can suck it.
X:
ArtyToro, or BlapTos.
Why am I dreaming of some strange woman who keeps telling me, "You fail at life because you are cloaked?" |
stoicfaux
1334
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 20:40:00 -
[1780] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:stoicfaux wrote:Richard Desturned wrote: those who unsub because they can't stand getting ~griefed~ will unsub for some other reason
this game is not for everyone
Right. And when CCP tallies the votes (aka subs,) who do you think has a bigger voice? The high-sec gankers? Or the high-sec miners? I think it's pretty obvious that CCP values the miners' concerns over the high-sec gankers' concerns. The real question is: will the high-sec gankers unsub over the mining ship changes? Because, you know, this game isn't for everyone. The HS gankers include a large portion of low sec folks, null sec folks, and HS folks. Remember, a lot of gankers are alts. But that would imply that the only Fun thing left to do in Eve is ganking high-sec miners. Which is a heck of an accusation to level at CCP/Eve.
If we're really at the point where most people find high-sec miner ganking (i.e. in-game bullying) to be the main point of fun in the game, then Eve really is dying, and after the Aug 8th mining ship buff, we'll see massive unsubs.
/not_holding_my_breath
However, when Planetside 2 goes live, I do expect a lot of the casual PvP crowd to leave in droves.
You can tell me what is and isn't Truth when you pry the tinfoil from my cold, lifeless head.
|
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
443
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 20:40:00 -
[1781] - Quote
Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:Drone 16 wrote:Gone are the days in Eve where 0.0 strife (BoB v. Goons, the Drone Wars etc etc) drove the game...have we fallen so low that all we have to discuss are the 2 professions that were once considered beneath contempt and not thread-worthy...
Miners vs. Gankers. That's all we have left. I find that sad. I feel dirty having even posted the amount of times I have in this thread. I am going to wash now. No, no, no. Turn that around: Those days are gone because no-one cares anymore, and the reason for that is 100% legit: See, real adults don't take a freakin' video-game that seriously, plus they generally have little use for lame-ass e-drama that informs this. Zerosec is a semi-consensual battleground full of no-life douchebags with monumentally overblown egos. The real sandbox is in empire-space hisec, in large part because of the false sense of security of many of its denizens. Know how I can tell you've never been there? EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
1459
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 20:42:00 -
[1782] - Quote
Fit a 100k EHP tank skiff on test server tbh I preferred the mercoxit bonus |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1731
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 20:54:00 -
[1783] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Fit a 100k EHP tank skiff on test server tbh I preferred the mercoxit bonus
Think they'll put a rig for that. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Pipa Porto
555
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 20:55:00 -
[1784] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Fit a 100k EHP tank skiff on test server tbh I preferred the mercoxit bonus
There's a Rig for that. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
305
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 20:55:00 -
[1785] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Fit a 100k EHP tank skiff on test server tbh I preferred the mercoxit bonus Think they'll put a rig for that.
there is a rig for that on sisi. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Komen
Capital Enrichment Services The Night Crew Alliance
123
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 21:07:00 -
[1786] - Quote
I started reading this thread, and I got that it SEEMS to be that ganking miners won't be profitable because it'll take too many gankers to accomplish now.
Which leaves gankers a couple options: Gank for fun, and screw the profit, or move on to other pastures in search of profitable PvP. I wish you all the best with whichever path you choose. And remember, in Eve, you must adapt or die. Unless you're a miner, I guess.
|
stoicfaux
1335
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 21:10:00 -
[1787] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote: the only way to adapt this game for the crowd in question is to completely throw away everything that keeps the people who actually love this game subscribed
Interesting point of view. My only concern is that when someone decides to be the unilateral arbiter of Who Is and Isn't Worthy, bad things tend to follow.
You can tell me what is and isn't Truth when you pry the tinfoil from my cold, lifeless head.
|
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
1555
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 21:22:00 -
[1788] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Zagdul wrote:Gone are the days where EVE is a dangerous place. I seem to have missed the part when they made all player ships immune to damage. 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. So when are you fixing war decs so suicide ganking isn't the only viable kind of sandbox PvP in high sec?
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"-á-á-MXZF |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
305
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 21:26:00 -
[1789] - Quote
neeever mind, totally misread that. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
1459
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 21:51:00 -
[1790] - Quote
Simi Kusoni wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:[quote=Tyberius Franklin]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. So when are you fixing war decs so suicide ganking isn't the only viable kind of sandbox PvP in high sec? This is a good question |
|
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
550
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 22:09:00 -
[1791] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:Drone 16 wrote:Gone are the days in Eve where 0.0 strife (BoB v. Goons, the Drone Wars etc etc) drove the game...have we fallen so low that all we have to discuss are the 2 professions that were once considered beneath contempt and not thread-worthy...
Miners vs. Gankers. That's all we have left. I find that sad. I feel dirty having even posted the amount of times I have in this thread. I am going to wash now. No, no, no. Turn that around: Those days are gone because no-one cares anymore, and the reason for that is 100% legit: See, real adults don't take a freakin' video-game that seriously, plus they generally have little use for lame-ass e-drama that informs this. Zerosec is a semi-consensual battleground full of no-life douchebags with monumentally overblown egos. The real sandbox is in empire-space hisec, in large part because of the false sense of security of many of its denizens. Know how I can tell you've never been there?
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!
Why am I dreaming of some strange woman who keeps telling me, "You fail at life because you are cloaked?" |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1129
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 22:42:00 -
[1792] - Quote
We are still raging about the mining ship changes right?
I'm not sure anymore. |
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
551
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 22:57:00 -
[1793] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:We are still raging about the mining ship changes right?
I'm not sure anymore.
I was hoping for three-figure page count, but yeah.
It would seem that this thread has run its course.
In before lock, HA-HA!!
Why am I dreaming of some strange woman who keeps telling me, "You fail at life because you are cloaked?" |
Danks
Fat Angry Toe Tappin Inbreds
83
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 23:12:00 -
[1794] - Quote
Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:We are still raging about the mining ship changes right?
I'm not sure anymore. I was hoping for three-figure page count, but yeah. It would seem that this thread has run its course. In before lock, HA-HA!!
So who won? |
Russell Casey
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
176
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 23:31:00 -
[1795] - Quote
Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:We are still raging about the mining ship changes right?
I'm not sure anymore. I was hoping for three-figure page count, but yeah. It would seem that this thread has run its course. In before lock, HA-HA!!
Ten pages left....EVERYBODY POST ON YOUR ALTS! |
stoicfaux
1336
|
Posted - 2012.07.28 23:36:00 -
[1796] - Quote
Danks wrote:Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:We are still raging about the mining ship changes right?
I'm not sure anymore. I was hoping for three-figure page count, but yeah. It would seem that this thread has run its course. In before lock, HA-HA!! So who won? Everyone in this thread, because...
The people who aren't aware of the patch notes/dev blogs will rage-post on the 8th about how the patch introduced a bug that reduced their Mack's ice mining bonus from 100% to 1%.
The shiptoasting will be epic that day.
You can tell me what is and isn't Truth when you pry the tinfoil from my cold, lifeless head.
|
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
551
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 00:00:00 -
[1797] - Quote
Danks wrote:Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:We are still raging about the mining ship changes right?
I'm not sure anymore. I was hoping for three-figure page count, but yeah. It would seem that this thread has run its course. In before lock, HA-HA!! So who won?
I won:
Because of Falcon Cyno-bait Procurer!
Why am I dreaming of some strange woman who keeps telling me, "You fail at life because you are cloaked?" |
Ludi Burek
The Player Haters Corp
121
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 00:06:00 -
[1798] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: MMOs reflect the real world in many wicked ways. One of them is the kind of player playing it....
I must apologise for my words earlier. I blame my speed reading of this threadnought. This was a top notch post. |
Pipa Porto
558
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 01:28:00 -
[1799] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Fit a 100k EHP tank skiff on test server tbh I preferred the mercoxit bonus Think they'll put a rig for that. there is a rig for that on sisi.
All the Mercx Miners (All the Mercx Miners) All the Mercx Miners (All the Mercx Miners) All the Mercx Miners (All the Mercx Miners) All the Mercx Miners Now turn your strips up up
Up in the belt, we just locked up I'm mining my own little thing You decided to dip but now you wanna trip Cause another miner noticed me I'm up on him, he up on me don't pay him any attention Cause I cried my tears, for three good years Ya can't be mad at me
Cause if you liked it then you should have put a Rig on it If you liked it then you should've put a Rig on it Don't be mad once you see that he want it If you liked it then you should've put a Rig on it EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
baltec1
Bat Country
1729
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 01:52:00 -
[1800] - Quote
Tarryn Nightstorm wrote: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!
Sounds like the NC alright. |
|
Red Teufel
Blackened Skies The Unthinkables
61
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 02:21:00 -
[1801] - Quote
90 page thread....over mining ships that i'll still gank anyways. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
447
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 02:50:00 -
[1802] - Quote
Who's Lucian James? I feel like I'm supposed to know... EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1496
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 03:18:00 -
[1803] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Who's Lucian James? I feel like I'm supposed to know...
according to tarryn nightstorm he is one of our best friends ever, right up there with TJ and riverini even! EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
LIssa Ho
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 04:01:00 -
[1804] - Quote
The new mining stuff sucks. So much so, that I'm going to start flying my miner alt just so I can gank him myself! Stupid miner!
I'm going to gank myself. You should try it too! Gank yourself. It's fun! |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1732
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 04:24:00 -
[1805] - Quote
Ludi Burek wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: MMOs reflect the real world in many wicked ways. One of them is the kind of player playing it....
I must apologise for my words earlier. I blame my speed reading of this threadnought. This was a top notch post.
Apologies accepted Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
582
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 04:32:00 -
[1806] - Quote
Komen wrote:I started reading this thread, and I got that it SEEMS to be that ganking miners won't be profitable because it'll take too many gankers to accomplish now.
Which leaves gankers a couple options: Gank for fun, and screw the profit, or move on to other pastures in search of profitable PvP. I wish you all the best with whichever path you choose. And remember, in Eve, you must adapt or die. Unless you're a miner, I guess.
Hm, almost good point. But what about the destroyer and T3 BC expansion? Hm, lets see. Well it looks like gankers got a buff (As in couldn't adapt, and sadly wouldn't die) so CCP gave them cake and let them eat it. Lets see again. Now miners get a pretty much the same or equivalent expansion, it its only miners that can't adapt or die or whine too much, or were given cake and now can eat it.
I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Mukuro Gravedigger
Republic University Minmatar Republic
19
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 04:45:00 -
[1807] - Quote
As an old school miner that used to mine with a pretty paper thin ship, once events like Hulkaggeddon were to be a daily affair, I went about to learn skills to help defend myself. Now CCP is making these changes to help those that are unwilling to help themselves - story of my life.
Perhaps CCP could heavily boost industrial ships too, since they are currently paper thin. Granted my skills will help defend it from some attacks, but alas, someone somewhere will still fly them defensive module free.
Of course, some "hard core" pvpers will rage up a storm about missing out on easy kills once that change occurs. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1732
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 05:22:00 -
[1808] - Quote
Mukuro Gravedigger wrote:As an old school miner that used to mine with a pretty paper thin ship, once events like Hulkaggeddon were to be a daily affair, I went about to learn skills to help defend myself. Now CCP is making these changes to help those that are unwilling to help themselves - story of my life.
Think again about yourself: you think ahead of the crowd, you are able to gain a competitive advantage.
You should look at yourself with a more good-tempered eye and enjoy the fact you are able to be better than average.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
447
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 05:28:00 -
[1809] - Quote
LIssa Ho wrote:The new mining stuff sucks. So much so, that I'm going to start flying my miner alt just so I can gank him myself! Stupid miner!
I'm going to gank myself. You should try it too! Gank yourself. It's fun! I tried sticking a model of the Itty V up my bunghole. It was more fun, but it bled so much I had to stop. EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
Delen Ormand
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
92
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 05:30:00 -
[1810] - Quote
Red Teufel wrote:90 page thread....over mining ships that i'll still gank anyways.
..and that Richard Goon Guy said it's not about profit, so the fact that it'll now be more expensive to gank miners seems a bit of a non-issue. Which begs the question, wtf were the last 90-odd pages about??
|
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
258
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 05:34:00 -
[1811] - Quote
Mukuro Gravedigger wrote:As an old school miner that used to mine with a pretty paper thin ship, once events like Hulkaggeddon were to be a daily affair, I went about to learn skills to help defend myself. Now CCP is making these changes to help those that are unwilling to help themselves - story of my life. Those that were unwilling to tank before will still die thinking the newly buffed (if it remains that way after revisions) natural HP of the ship should keep them safe. And your adaptations will still make you a less desirable target, only then even more so than now. |
Bronya Boga
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
5
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 05:34:00 -
[1812] - Quote
Adalynne Rohks wrote:Oh Yayah! This is the stuff that general discussion was made for! Keep the tears flowing. They're delicious!
I loled :D |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
447
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 05:40:00 -
[1813] - Quote
Delen Ormand wrote:Red Teufel wrote:90 page thread....over mining ships that i'll still gank anyways. ..and that Richard Goon Guy said it's not about profit, so the fact that it'll now be more expensive to gank miners seems a bit of a non-issue. Which begs the question, wtf were the last 90-odd pages about?? It's about CCP catering to a group whose sole concern was to feel safer in a game where you should never have such a luxury, and how these changes dumb down the game for this group. EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
553
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 05:43:00 -
[1814] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Who's Lucian James? I feel like I'm supposed to know...
He FC'ed a number of Alli-Ops I was on.
With him, even structure-bashing became almost tolerable.
Why am I dreaming of some strange woman who keeps telling me, "You fail at life because you are cloaked?" |
Bunnie Hop
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
312
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 05:44:00 -
[1815] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Delen Ormand wrote:Red Teufel wrote:90 page thread....over mining ships that i'll still gank anyways. ..and that Richard Goon Guy said it's not about profit, so the fact that it'll now be more expensive to gank miners seems a bit of a non-issue. Which begs the question, wtf were the last 90-odd pages about?? It's about CCP catering to a group whose sole concern was to feel safer in a game where you should never have such a luxury, and how these changes dumb down the game for this group.
No, its more about adding balance to a ship so easily ganked that people make recycleable gank alts with low skill points to gank with and throw away when sec gets too low. Those are the people creating problems, not the miners. |
Surfin's PlunderBunny
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1737
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 05:46:00 -
[1816] - Quote
Bunnie Hop wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Delen Ormand wrote:Red Teufel wrote:90 page thread....over mining ships that i'll still gank anyways. ..and that Richard Goon Guy said it's not about profit, so the fact that it'll now be more expensive to gank miners seems a bit of a non-issue. Which begs the question, wtf were the last 90-odd pages about?? It's about CCP catering to a group whose sole concern was to feel safer in a game where you should never have such a luxury, and how these changes dumb down the game for this group. No, its more about adding balance to a ship so easily ganked that people make recycleable gank alts with low skill points to gank with and throw away when sec gets too low. Those are the people creating problems, not the miners.
No, the people making problems are anyone that likes the Kardashians |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
447
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 05:50:00 -
[1817] - Quote
Bunnie Hop wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Delen Ormand wrote:Red Teufel wrote:90 page thread....over mining ships that i'll still gank anyways. ..and that Richard Goon Guy said it's not about profit, so the fact that it'll now be more expensive to gank miners seems a bit of a non-issue. Which begs the question, wtf were the last 90-odd pages about?? It's about CCP catering to a group whose sole concern was to feel safer in a game where you should never have such a luxury, and how these changes dumb down the game for this group. No, its more about adding unnecessary HP to a ship so easily tanked to discourage ganking that people who never bother to do so never learn from their mistakes and become repeat targets. Those are the people creating problems, not the gankers. FTFY EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
Bunnie Hop
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
312
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 05:50:00 -
[1818] - Quote
Surfin's PlunderBunny wrote:Bunnie Hop wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Delen Ormand wrote:Red Teufel wrote:90 page thread....over mining ships that i'll still gank anyways. ..and that Richard Goon Guy said it's not about profit, so the fact that it'll now be more expensive to gank miners seems a bit of a non-issue. Which begs the question, wtf were the last 90-odd pages about?? It's about CCP catering to a group whose sole concern was to feel safer in a game where you should never have such a luxury, and how these changes dumb down the game for this group. No, its more about adding balance to a ship so easily ganked that people make recycleable gank alts with low skill points to gank with and throw away when sec gets too low. Those are the people creating problems, not the miners. No, the people making problems are anyone that likes the Kardashians
Ohh, I must live under a rock or something, I don't know who they are I just googled the name though and I agree, anyone who likes them must be ganked! |
Bunnie Hop
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
312
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 05:52:00 -
[1819] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Bunnie Hop wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Delen Ormand wrote:Red Teufel wrote:90 page thread....over mining ships that i'll still gank anyways. ..and that Richard Goon Guy said it's not about profit, so the fact that it'll now be more expensive to gank miners seems a bit of a non-issue. Which begs the question, wtf were the last 90-odd pages about?? It's about CCP catering to a group whose sole concern was to feel safer in a game where you should never have such a luxury, and how these changes dumb down the game for this group. No, its more about adding unnecessary HP to a ship so easily tanked to discourage ganking that people who never bother to do so never learn from their mistakes and become repeat targets. Those are the people creating problems, not the gankers. FTFY
People who change other peoples quotes are pretty much bottom feeders. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
447
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 05:53:00 -
[1820] - Quote
Bunnie Hop wrote:
People who change other peoples quotes are pretty much bottom feeders.
You sound upset. EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
|
Bunnie Hop
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
312
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 05:59:00 -
[1821] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Bunnie Hop wrote:
People who change other peoples quotes are pretty much bottom feeders.
You sound upset.
Not at all, its a lovely morning, drinking coffee and listening to Mendelssohn and the kids are still sleeping, not much could upset me. |
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
553
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 06:00:00 -
[1822] - Quote
Bunnie Hop wrote:
No, its more about adding balance to a ship so easily ganked that people make recycleable gank alts with low skill points to gank with and throw away when sec gets too low. Those are the people creating problems, not the miners.
Oh, look, someone who still believes this half-baked horseshit:
CCP has said on numerous occasions that recycling blinky-blinky alts to avoid the penalties for being so is an exploit. Exploiting gets one permanently banned.
And no, ganky/Arty urp-splody types aren't the cause of the "problem."
Sui-ganking is not a problem, unless you allow it to be one. The ways to make it not be one are well-known and numerous, and require minimal effort. (Having two brain-cells to rub together is also an asset)
The only "problem" here is whinging little over-entitled cry-kiddies who choose to be victims and--quelle surprise!--actually suffering appropriate penalties for same instead of getting a special little snowflake-cookie like they would in those crap childrens' MMOs.
The real problem here is that CCP is apparently caving in to them after 10 years of sticking to their vision, even though EVE has only grown during that time, and succeeded just fine, except for the ::18 months::/Incarna debacle.
Why am I dreaming of some strange woman who keeps telling me, "You fail at life because you are cloaked?" |
Bunnie Hop
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
312
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 06:01:00 -
[1823] - Quote
Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:Bunnie Hop wrote:
No, its more about adding balance to a ship so easily ganked that people make recycleable gank alts with low skill points to gank with and throw away when sec gets too low. Those are the people creating problems, not the miners.
Oh, look, someone who still believes this half-baked horseshit: CCP has said on numerous occasions that recycling blinky-blinky alts to avoid the penalties for being so is an exploit. Exploiting gets one permanently banned. And no, ganky/Arty urp-splody types aren't the cause of the "problem." Sui-ganking is not a problem, unless you allow it to be one. The ways to make it not be one are well-known and numerous, and require minimal effort. (Having two brain-cells to rub together is also an asset ) The only "problem" here is whinging little over-entitled cry-kiddies who choose to be victims and-- quelle surprise!--actually suffering appropriate penalties for same instead of getting a special little snowflake-cookie like they would in those crap childrens' MMOs. The real problem here is that CCP is apparently caving in to them after 10 years of sticking to their vision, even though EVE has only grown during that time, and succeeded just fine, except for the ::18 months::/ Incarna debacle.
Now this is a person who sounds upset. Breath in, Breath out, Breath in, Breath out. Now, isn't that better. |
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
553
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 06:08:00 -
[1824] - Quote
Bunnie Hop wrote:Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:Bunnie Hop wrote:
No, its more about adding balance to a ship so easily ganked that people make recycleable gank alts with low skill points to gank with and throw away when sec gets too low. Those are the people creating problems, not the miners.
Oh, look, someone who still believes this half-baked horseshit: CCP has said on numerous occasions that recycling blinky-blinky alts to avoid the penalties for being so is an exploit. Exploiting gets one permanently banned. And no, ganky/Arty urp-splody types aren't the cause of the "problem." Sui-ganking is not a problem, unless you allow it to be one. The ways to make it not be one are well-known and numerous, and require minimal effort. (Having two brain-cells to rub together is also an asset ) The only "problem" here is whinging little over-entitled cry-kiddies who choose to be victims and-- quelle surprise!--actually suffering appropriate penalties for same instead of getting a special little snowflake-cookie like they would in those crap childrens' MMOs. The real problem here is that CCP is apparently caving in to them after 10 years of sticking to their vision, even though EVE has only grown during that time, and succeeded just fine, except for the ::18 months::/ Incarna debacle. Now this is a person who sounds upset. Breath in, Breath out, Breath in, Breath out. Now, isn't that better.
Everything I say is the truth, and you bloody well know it.
It's "breathe," by the way.
Next!
Why am I dreaming of some strange woman who keeps telling me, "You fail at life because you are cloaked?" |
Bunnie Hop
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
312
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 06:10:00 -
[1825] - Quote
Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:Bunnie Hop wrote:Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:Bunnie Hop wrote:
No, its more about adding balance to a ship so easily ganked that people make recycleable gank alts with low skill points to gank with and throw away when sec gets too low. Those are the people creating problems, not the miners.
Oh, look, someone who still believes this half-baked horseshit: CCP has said on numerous occasions that recycling blinky-blinky alts to avoid the penalties for being so is an exploit. Exploiting gets one permanently banned. And no, ganky/Arty urp-splody types aren't the cause of the "problem." Sui-ganking is not a problem, unless you allow it to be one. The ways to make it not be one are well-known and numerous, and require minimal effort. (Having two brain-cells to rub together is also an asset ) The only "problem" here is whinging little over-entitled cry-kiddies who choose to be victims and-- quelle surprise!--actually suffering appropriate penalties for same instead of getting a special little snowflake-cookie like they would in those crap childrens' MMOs. The real problem here is that CCP is apparently caving in to them after 10 years of sticking to their vision, even though EVE has only grown during that time, and succeeded just fine, except for the ::18 months::/ Incarna debacle. Now this is a person who sounds upset. Breath in, Breath out, Breath in, Breath out. Now, isn't that better. Everything I say is the truth, and you bloody well know it. It's "breathe," by the way. Next!
It may be considered an exploit but it is used alot nonetheless. Ah breathe, thanks, english is not my first language so I do make mistakes and take no offense to be corrected. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
447
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 06:12:00 -
[1826] - Quote
If you suspect someone of doing it, petition them. Otherwise, bitching about it here accomplishes nothing. EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
Bunnie Hop
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
312
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 06:15:00 -
[1827] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:If you suspect someone of doing it, petition them. Otherwise, bitching about it here accomplishes nothing.
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. |
Pipa Porto
561
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 06:19:00 -
[1828] - Quote
Bunnie Hop wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Delen Ormand wrote:Red Teufel wrote:90 page thread....over mining ships that i'll still gank anyways. ..and that Richard Goon Guy said it's not about profit, so the fact that it'll now be more expensive to gank miners seems a bit of a non-issue. Which begs the question, wtf were the last 90-odd pages about?? It's about CCP catering to a group whose sole concern was to feel safer in a game where you should never have such a luxury, and how these changes dumb down the game for this group. No, its more about adding balance to a ship so easily ganked that people make recycleable gank alts with low skill points to gank with and throw away when sec gets too low. Those are the people creating problems, not the miners.
If you have evidence that people are recycling alts, you should report them, as that is a EULA violation. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
459
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 06:33:00 -
[1829] - Quote
Bunnie Hop wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:If you suspect someone of doing it, petition them. Otherwise, bitching about it here accomplishes nothing. 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.
So you are saying that I am a tool being manipulated by Goons because I gank miners?
What if I just like punishing bad players? What if I like ruining someone's evening? Some of us have been suicide ganking LONG before Goons controlled key resources.
And if Goons get richer because of my efforts, hey WIN-WIN. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1733
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 06:35:00 -
[1830] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote: It's about CCP catering to a group whose sole concern was to feel safer in a game where you should never have such a luxury, and how these changes dumb down the game for this group.
Well, CCP also catered too much to removing *tangible* consequences to whatever you do.
What kind of consequence is there for being a -10 sec disposable alt parked in a safe spot, ready to take a catalyst out of an Orca? What kind of consequence is there for spam-podding whoever down to -10 when all you have to do is to walk away or - in the worst case - lose zero ISK and zero implants and respawn in the station?
What kind of SP consequence or burden involves training the 1 hit wonder throwaway ships?
What kind of retaliation can be done to a throwaway alt in NPC corp and whose clone cost is zero?
Do you really believe that suiciding a 2M worth of throwaway ship is "The Harsh Game Of Consequences"?
The consequences are so totally biased towards disposable alts it's unreal. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1734
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 06:38:00 -
[1831] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:If you suspect someone of doing it, petition them. Otherwise, bitching about it here accomplishes nothing.
Yeah they clearly reroll their NPC alt with a similar name, same corp and announce it loud in local: "HEY GUYS I AM RECYCLING ALTS!" Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
459
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 06:48:00 -
[1832] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote: It's about CCP catering to a group whose sole concern was to feel safer in a game where you should never have such a luxury, and how these changes dumb down the game for this group.
Well, CCP also catered too much to removing *tangible* consequences to whatever you do. What kind of consequence is there for being a -10 sec disposable alt parked in a safe spot, ready to take a catalyst out of an Orca? What kind of consequence is there for spam-podding whoever down to -10 when all you have to do is to walk away or - in the worst case - lose zero ISK and zero implants and respawn in the station? What kind of SP consequence or burden involves training the 1 hit wonder throwaway ships? What kind of retaliation can be done to a throwaway alt in NPC corp and whose clone cost is zero? Do you really believe that suiciding a 2M worth of throwaway ship is "The Harsh Game Of Consequences"? The consequences are so totally biased towards disposable alts it's unreal.
I don't get you. Why do you call them 'disposable alts'? We don't throw them away. Not only is in an exploit, but its a waste of perfectly good SP. Whats the point of training the same basic skill set over and over just to regain 4-5 measly sec status points. It just doesn't make sense - you get far better returns just going all the way to -10 and keep skilling, train new weapon systems and get those weapons spec skills to V. Hell, my suicide ganker char has like 35M SP and 22M of them are in Gunnery alone.
Its like you are trying to smear gankers as exploiters, when the 'benefits' of the exploit doesn't even make sense. You can do anything you need to do as an outlaw, anyway.
|
Halcyon Ingenium
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
146
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 06:52:00 -
[1833] - Quote
It will be very entertaining when these changes actually turn out to increase ganking. They say that in learning the game Go, it is best to lose your first 50 games as soon as possible. This is because Go is complex, and the only way you will start to get an idea of strategy and play is by first sucking and failing as hard as you can. So...In EVE, it is best to get your first 50 deaths by combat as soon as possible. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
447
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 07:01:00 -
[1834] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:If you suspect someone of doing it, petition them. Otherwise, bitching about it here accomplishes nothing. Yeah they clearly reroll their NPC alt with a similar name, same corp and announce it loud in local: "HEY GUYS I AM RECYCLING ALTS!" So basically what you're saying is you have no proof of anything and are simply talking out of your ass. EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
nate555
GODHC INTERSTELLAR FLEET Primal Force
53
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 07:40:00 -
[1835] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Danks wrote:Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:We are still raging about the mining ship changes right?
I'm not sure anymore. I was hoping for three-figure page count, but yeah. It would seem that this thread has run its course. In before lock, HA-HA!! So who won? Everyone in this thread, because... The people who aren't aware of the patch notes/dev blogs will rage-post on the 8th about how the patch introduced a bug that reduced their Mack's ice mining bonus from 100% to 1%. The shiptoasting will be epic that day. Oh you bet. Already had a guy whining about it yesterday. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
305
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 07:41:00 -
[1836] - Quote
nate555 wrote:stoicfaux wrote:Danks wrote:Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:We are still raging about the mining ship changes right?
I'm not sure anymore. I was hoping for three-figure page count, but yeah. It would seem that this thread has run its course. In before lock, HA-HA!! So who won? Everyone in this thread, because... The people who aren't aware of the patch notes/dev blogs will rage-post on the 8th about how the patch introduced a bug that reduced their Mack's ice mining bonus from 100% to 1%. The shiptoasting will be epic that day. Oh you bet. Already had a guy whining about it yesterday.
ergh yeah, he was calling it a bug even after repeatedly being told to read the ship's description. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
nate555
GODHC INTERSTELLAR FLEET Primal Force
53
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 07:49:00 -
[1837] - Quote
It would seem that this thread has run its course.
In before lock, HA-HA!! [/quote]
So who won?[/quote] Everyone in this thread, because...
The people who aren't aware of the patch notes/dev blogs will rage-post on the 8th about how the patch introduced a bug that reduced their Mack's ice mining bonus from 100% to 1%.
The shiptoasting will be epic that day.
[/quote] Oh you bet. Already had a guy whining about it yesterday.[/quote]
ergh yeah, he was calling it a bug even after repeatedly being told to read the ship's description.[/quote] The guy i know was crying he wasn't going to make 500 million in 4 hours like he use to. 500 million million is a lie. I highly dought he was making that much |
Alexzandvar Douglass
NUTS AND BOLTS MANUFACTURING En Garde
63
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 07:50:00 -
[1838] - Quote
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. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
305
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 07:53:00 -
[1839] - Quote
nate555 wrote:Quote:Quote:
It would seem that this thread has run its course.
In before lock, HA-HA!!
So who won? Everyone in this thread, because... The people who aren't aware of the patch notes/dev blogs will rage-post on the 8th about how the patch introduced a bug that reduced their Mack's ice mining bonus from 100% to 1%. The shiptoasting will be epic that day. Quote:Quote: Oh you bet. Already had a guy whining about it yesterday.
ergh yeah, he was calling it a bug even after repeatedly being told to read the ship's description. The guy i know was crying he wasn't going to make 500 million in 4 hours like he use to. 500 million million is a lie. I highly dought he was making that much he just wouldn't accept that the new hulk will mine almost exactly as much as the current mack. then again there have been a lot of people crying about exhumer changes who simply haven't or can't do the math. it's all rather amusing. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1735
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 08:51:00 -
[1840] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:I don't get you. Why do you call them 'disposable alts'? We don't throw them away. Not only is in an exploit, but its a waste of perfectly good SP. Whats the point of training the same basic skill set over and over just to regain 4-5 measly sec status points. It just doesn't make sense - you get far better returns just going all the way to -10 and keep skilling, train new weapon systems and get those weapons spec skills to V. Hell, my suicide ganker char has like 35M SP and 22M of them are in Gunnery alone.
Its like you are trying to smear gankers as exploiters, when the 'benefits' of the exploit doesn't even make sense. You can do anything you need to do as an outlaw, anyway.
Of course, you get the double choice of:
- making disposable alts. Let's be real, nobody with 2 braincells ever got banned over that, it's impossible to prove he's recycling alts and they don't biomass every 4 hours either for CCP detection routines to catch them. Only specific RMT / spam alts that gets quickly recycled may trigger it.
- not even bothering with disposable alts, since the drawback of being -10 and live parked close to an Orca is Z E R O. I don't even see the point of lowering sec status, it's as pointless as putting a bounty. The only times in my life I went to less than -8 sec was when I *defended* low sec POSes, imagine how stupid was that sec status loss.
I am not calling you exploiters but just calling the lolpenalty mechanics stupidly outdated and pointless and completely stacked.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1735
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 08:54:00 -
[1841] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:If you suspect someone of doing it, petition them. Otherwise, bitching about it here accomplishes nothing. Yeah they clearly reroll their NPC alt with a similar name, same corp and announce it loud in local: "HEY GUYS I AM RECYCLING ALTS!" So basically what you're saying is you have no proof of anything and are simply talking out of your ass.
With you as a master, it comes out easy. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
9026
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 09:46:00 -
[1842] - Quote
Bunnie Hop wrote:It may be considered an exploit but it is used alot nonetheless. Do you have any proof of this? Or are you just beating your gums?
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
Blastcaps Madullier
Celestial Horizon Corp. Ethereal Dawn
75
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 10:17:00 -
[1843] - Quote
gankers who run round hs with -10 sec status and 100m bounty on their heads are fun :) mind you so's anyone running round with neg 5 sec status :) |
baltec1
Bat Country
1730
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 10:30:00 -
[1844] - Quote
Bunnie Hop wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:If you suspect someone of doing it, petition them. Otherwise, bitching about it here accomplishes nothing. 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.
Its not any worse now than in the past 9 years. |
baltec1
Bat Country
1730
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 10:34:00 -
[1845] - Quote
Alexzandvar Douglass wrote: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.
Tanking is what the skiff is going to be for not the mack |
Rats
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
116
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 11:02:00 -
[1846] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Marconus Orion wrote:Oh he mad. But is he wrong? Nope. Fitted properly, a Hulk cannot be profitably ganked.
Awwwwww guess its time for the gankers to cry now
Ganker tears the best tears
Tal
-áI Fought the Law, and the Law Won... -áTalon Silverhawk-á |
Mocam
EVE University Ivy League
157
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 11:29:00 -
[1847] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Suqq Madiq wrote:Get over your preconceived notion that mining ships must be profitable gank targets. They're not profitable gank targets unless the Miners choose to hold a bullseye over their face.
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.
If you want a really funny fix from CCP on this - they setup a NPC killboard. Which NPC factions have killed what pilots in which type of ships. NO competition with main killboards which only show player vs player losses.
Seeing ImUbahGankah showing 500 transport kills... Then checking the NPC boards to find 2300 losses to CONCORD would be worth its weight in laughs. Seeing Serpentis, Angles, etc showing 50 carrier kills, 10 supercap kills ... Yeah, that would be funny as hell and bring an end to your "Nobody will know I lost anything" gank failures.
Seeing the ACTUAL success and failure rates for gankers would remove a lot of "you can't prevent it. They know..." supposed psychic bullshit that too many players buy into about gankers. They fail - a lot. It's just those failures tend to be hidding 99% of the time and even their successes don't *PUBLICALLY* show them losing anything. It would also mitigate a lot of attitude about how "safe" PvE is in EVE.
|
Senyu Takashi
Ponyville
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 11:38:00 -
[1848] - Quote
Mocam wrote:
If you want a really funny fix from CCP on this - they setup a NPC killboard. Which NPC factions have killed what pilots in which type of ships. NO competition with main killboards which only show player vs player losses.
Seeing ImUbahGankah showing 500 transport kills... Then checking the NPC boards to find 2300 losses to CONCORD would be worth its weight in laughs. Seeing Serpentis, Angles, etc showing 50 carrier kills, 10 supercap kills ... Yeah, that would be funny as hell and bring an end to your "Nobody will know I lost anything" gank failures.
Now that would be awesome! |
baltec1
Bat Country
1730
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 12:06:00 -
[1849] - Quote
Rats wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Marconus Orion wrote:Oh he mad. But is he wrong? Nope. Fitted properly, a Hulk cannot be profitably ganked. Awwwwww guess its time for the gankers to cry now Ganker tears the best tears Tal
We can still gank you for profit |
Tiamet Cordova
The Black Ops Black Core Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 12:07:00 -
[1850] - Quote
Its pretty obvious the anger over the buffs given to barges is by the camp of semi pathetic bottom dwelling pvp(sorta) gankers....
If scuicide ganks is the only way you get your kicks...well honestly nothing has changed in terms of it being possible. IT JUST BECAME MORE EXPENSIVE. The stereotypical moron will compare this buff to the ganking of hulks and blah blah "Oh Em GEE you buffed barges wtf dis is gunna bi World uv Werkraft sune!"
The buffs largely are to change the structured use of barges in general. Its pretty obvious 90% of miners go from Frig-Cruiser-(BC/BS or Retriever) then into a hulk. This isn't the linear path CCP wants which was the primary reason for the changes to barges.
secondly...Barges simply were too squishy an typical retriever can be killed in 6-9 seconds by a destroyer on a trial account with under a week of training...actually with about 6 days total(or even less)
options for defense are few and it seems that ccp is looking for a diff outcome. did Retrievers need a BS EHP buff..hell no... I think the problem would have been solved by adding a little grid and cpu to open up the option for a minor tank.... something to bring the effective hp past cruiser and just short of battlecruiser. Unfortunately anytime there is a hole in a system it will get exposed with over exploitation of the hole. If people who were ganking barges and mining ships simply did it and kept quiet this part of the buff may not even be here.
Hulkageddon,widespread can flipping and other typical roid belt nuisances are as much at fault for the changes as the whining,crying people who are constantly getting ganked/canflipped etc.
Miners needed another option to store and move ore other than an Orca and that explains the ore-bay. If you don't think can-flipping is also a part of the reason for some of the barge buffs... go to any roid belt in mid range high sec area...its completely littered with GSC(why? because GSC's are how you combat can flipping). Get some guy in a frig ******* with your can (even if you have a hauler moving ore out of the can as you place it in) you simply use a GSC because he cant get it out and you can transfer from barge to hauler hassle free.
say what you want about how to how you can fit a tank on your hulk to protect it and we all know that's just bogus. there is nothing you can do to protect your hulk from a suicide gank that another ganker wont make up for. 2 destroyers with t2 small calibur weapons could drop a hulk no problem.... I dont have an issue with this. The hulk should be the biggest baddest mining machine you can get your hands on... however it should be a glass cannon. Very fragile. If you want to fly a 300,000,000 isk ship with no protection thats a risk you are taking and you deserve any gank that comes along....
a retriever is a diff story do you know what your defensive options are for solo mining in a retriever when it comes to suicide ganks? : NONE. Actually you have 1. Use a battleship lose 10-12% overall yield and at least become gank proof to trial account solo pilots.
this was never the intent for mining. While i think the buffs are a bit much ill happily take them and dock both battleships i mine in and move to hulk,retriever,Retriever,Reteiever,Orca 5 account setup.
Im interested in other opinions tho. (both ways) |
|
baltec1
Bat Country
1730
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 12:09:00 -
[1851] - Quote
Mocam wrote:
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.
Not true. My corp has over 1000 losses from the ice interdiction showing on our KB. |
baltec1
Bat Country
1730
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 12:13:00 -
[1852] - Quote
Tiamet Cordova wrote:
Im interested in other opinions tho. (both ways)
CCP have rolled back the HP buff to something far better. Before the latest change there was no point in getting a skiff because the two other exhumers could tank far too much. Now the skiff has a roll to fill and miners will continue to require to fit a tank of they will be a tempting target for a ganker.
The t1 barges are all in good shape too as they can now fit a good tank. |
Delen Ormand
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
92
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 12:16:00 -
[1853] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Bunnie Hop wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:If you suspect someone of doing it, petition them. Otherwise, bitching about it here accomplishes nothing. 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. So you are saying that I am a tool being manipulated by Goons because I gank miners? What if I just like punishing bad players? What if I like ruining someone's evening?
Then just the part about you being a tool applies :P |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
754
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 12:46:00 -
[1854] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:CCP have rolled back the HP buff to something far better. Before the latest change there was no point in getting a skiff because the two other exhumers could tank far too much. Now the skiff has a roll to fill and miners will continue to require to fit a tank of they will be a tempting target for a ganker.
The t1 barges are all in good shape too as they can now fit a good tank. Could you please post the changes, or at least summarize them? Can't check at the moment, and I'm sure others are interested too. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
306
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 12:50:00 -
[1855] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:baltec1 wrote:CCP have rolled back the HP buff to something far better. Before the latest change there was no point in getting a skiff because the two other exhumers could tank far too much. Now the skiff has a roll to fill and miners will continue to require to fit a tank of they will be a tempting target for a ganker.
The t1 barges are all in good shape too as they can now fit a good tank. Could you please post the changes, or at least summarize them? Can't check at the moment, and I'm sure others are interested too.
iirc shield/armour/structure hp is going up, but the resist bonuses are 5% not 7.5%/mining barge level now. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Tiamet Cordova
The Black Ops Black Core Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 13:02:00 -
[1856] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:baltec1 wrote:CCP have rolled back the HP buff to something far better. Before the latest change there was no point in getting a skiff because the two other exhumers could tank far too much. Now the skiff has a roll to fill and miners will continue to require to fit a tank of they will be a tempting target for a ganker.
The t1 barges are all in good shape too as they can now fit a good tank. Could you please post the changes, or at least summarize them? Can't check at the moment, and I'm sure others are interested too.
Retriever [-|y] shipMiningBonusORE2 [+|n] iceHarvesterCapacitorNeedMultiplier [+|n] iceHarvesterDurationMultiplier [+|n] miningYieldMultiplyPassive [+|n] shipBonusOreHoldORE2 [-] shipBonusORE3: -3.0 armorHP: 625.0 => 3200.0 capacity: 2000.0 => 350.0 cpuOutput: 125.0 => 235.0 hp: 938.0 => 3500.0 lowSlots: 2.0 => 3.0 shieldCapacity: 391.0 => 3800.0 shieldRechargeRate: 625000.0 => 1500000.0 shipBonusORE2: 3.0 => 10.0 signatureRadius: 120.0 => 250.0 [+] iceHarvestCycleBonus: 0.6666 [+] miningAmountMultiplier: 1.5 [+] specialOreHoldCapacity: 20000.0
The Retriever is a mining barge with an extensive ore bay.
Mining Barge skill bonus per level: 10% bonus to ore hold capacity
Role Bonus: 50% bonus to Strip Miner yield 33.33% reduction in Ice Harvester Duration and capacitor use
Development The mining barge was designed by ORE to facilitate advancing the mining profession to a new level. Each barge was created to excel at a specific function, the Retriever's being storage. Although it only has space to fit two mining or ice harvesting modules, a fast loading system allows those two module to do the work of three modules. Mining barges are equipped with electronic subsystems specifically designed to accommodate Strip Mining and Ice Harvesting modules.
Yes you read this right 20k ore bay 3200 Armor 3800 shield on the retriever(will post others also)
These are not final changes btw they may or maynot be modified/edited or rolled back alltogether |
Tiamet Cordova
The Black Ops Black Core Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 13:06:00 -
[1857] - Quote
Covetor [+|n] shipBonusIceHarvesterDurationORE3 armorHP: 1250.0 => 1800.0 capacity: 4000.0 => 500.0 cpuOutput: 200.0 => 255.0 hp: 1875.0 => 2000.0 shieldCapacity: 781.0 => 2200.0 shieldRechargeRate: 625000.0 => 1000000.0 shipBonusORE2: 3.0 => 4.0 [+] specialOreHoldCapacity: 7000.0
The Covetor is a mining barge with superb mining yield.
Mining Barge skill bonus per level: 4% bonus to Strip Miner yield 3% reduction in Ice Harvester duration
Development The mining barge was designed by ORE to facilitate advancing the mining profession to a new level. Each barge was created to excel at a specific function, the Covetor's being mining yield. This additional yield comes at a price, as the Covetor has weaker defenses and a smaller ore bay than the other mining barges. Mining barges are equipped with electronic subsystems specifically designed to accommodate Strip Mining and Ice Harvesting modules.
Procurer [-|y] shipMiningBonusORE2 [+|n] iceHarvesterCapacitorNeedMultiplier [+|n] iceHarvesterDurationMultiplier [+|n] miningYieldMultiplyPassive [+|n] shipBonusShieldCapacityORE2 [-] shipBonusORE3: -3.0 armorHP: 313.0 => 5000.0 capacitorCapacity: 187.5 => 800.0 capacity: 1000.0 => 350.0 cpuOutput: 125.0 => 250.0 hp: 469.0 => 5500.0 powerOutput: 35.0 => 45.0 shieldCapacity: 195.0 => 6000.0 shieldRechargeRate: 625000.0 => 2500000.0 shipBonusORE2: 3.0 => 5.0 signatureRadius: 90.0 => 200.0 [+] iceHarvestCycleBonus: 0.3333 [+] miningAmountMultiplier: 3.0 [+] specialOreHoldCapacity: 15000.0
The Procurer is a mining barge with exceptional defensive capabilities.
Mining Barge skill bonus per level: 5% bonus to shield hit points
Role Bonus: 200% bonus to Strip Miner yield 66.66% reduction in Ice Harvester Duration and capacitor use
Development The mining barge was designed by ORE to facilitate advancing the mining profession to a whole new level. Each barge was created to excel at a specific function, the Procurer's being durability. With that in mind, the designers could only make space to fit one mining or ice harvesting module. To mitigate the effect this would have on the ship's mining output, they came up with a unique loading system that allows this one module to work at triple efficiency. Mining barges are equipped with electronic subsystems specifically designed to accommodate Strip Mining and Ice Harvesting modules.
|
Tiamet Cordova
The Black Ops Black Core Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 13:07:00 -
[1858] - Quote
Hulk armorHP: 1013.0 => 2300.0 capacity: 8000.0 => 500.0 eliteBonusBarge2: -3.0 => -4.0 hp: 2531.0 => 2500.0 shieldCapacity: 1519.0 => 2700.0 shieldRechargeRate: 625000.0 => 1000000.0 [+] specialOreHoldCapacity: 7500.0
The Hulk is a mining barge with superb mining yield.
Mining Barge skill bonus per level: 3% bonus to Strip Miner yield 7.5% bonus to all shield resistances
Exhumer skill bonus per level: 3% bonus to Strip Miner yield 4% reduction in Ice Harvester duration
Development The exhumer is the second generation of mining vessels created by ORE. Exhumers, like their mining barge cousins, were each created to excel at a specific function, the Hulk's being mining yield. The additional yield comes at a price, as the Hulk has weaker defenses and a smaller ore bay than the other exhumers. Exhumers are equipped with electronic subsystems specifically designed to accommodate Strip Mining and Ice Harvesting modules.
Mackinaw [-|y] iceHarvestCycleTimeModulesRequiringIceHarvesting [-|y] iceHarvesterMiningAmountBonusMultiplier [-|y] shipMiningBonusORE2 [+|y] eliteBonusBargeMiningYield [+|n] iceHarvesterCapacitorNeedMultiplier [+|n] iceHarvesterDurationMultiplier [+|n] miningYieldMultiplyPassive [+|n] shipBonusOreHoldORE2 [-] shipBonusORE3: -3.0 armorHP: 788.0 => 3700.0 capacity: 6000.0 => 350.0 cpuOutput: 198.0 => 270.0 eliteBonusBarge1: 10.0 => 1.0 eliteBonusBarge2: -5.0 => -1.0 hp: 1266.0 => 4000.0 iceHarvestCycleBonus: 25.0 => 0.6666 lowSlots: 2.0 => 3.0 miningAmountMultiplier: 2.0 => 1.5 shieldCapacity: 1181.0 => 4300.0 shieldRechargeRate: 625000.0 => 1500000.0 shipBonusORE2: 3.0 => 10.0 signatureRadius: 120.0 => 250.0 [+] specialOreHoldCapacity: 25000.0
The Mackinaw is an exhumer with an extensive ore bay.
Mining Barge skill bonus per level: 10% bonus to ore hold capacity 7.5% bonus to all shield resistances
Exhumer skill bonus per level: 1% bonus to Strip Miner yield 1% reduction in Ice Harvester duration
Role Bonus: 50% bonus to Strip Miner yield 33.33% |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
88
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 13:48:00 -
[1859] - Quote
Drop the resist bonuses and they'd be fine. Goonwaffe is now recruiting feel free to message me in game for information about joining! |
Taranius De Consolville
Lost Dawn Chaos Corrosive.
78
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 13:55:00 -
[1860] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Well played, CCP. Your DEVs/balancing team apparently have the reasoning ability of small children so I'll put this in terms they will understand. ********** "Once upon a time there were three little miners. They ventured into the big wide world to earn their fortunes. The First Little Miner went to Jita and fit his Hulk with Cargo Expanders.This way, he could AFK mine with a minimum of effort and fuss. It left the miner plenty of freetime to daydream, jerk off, and watch Japanese Anime while earning ISK. ....Then along came the Big Bad Ganker in a Catalyst, saying "Little miner, little miner, I'm going to ******* do you in." The first miner, predictably, was tabbed out and said nothing. So the Ganker loaded and overheated and blew the Hulk in, and splattered the pod, too. The Second Little Miner went to Jita, bought MLU's and a hauler.This way, he could mine faster than anyone else - and become quite wealthy in no time. It was a bit more work, of course, but he kept himself entertained chatting in local with his neighbors. ...Then along came the Big Bad Ganker, in a Tornado, saying "Little miner, little miner, I'm going to ******* do you in." The second miner, said "Not by the hair of my chinny, chin chin," aligns, and turned on his Small Booster II. So the Ganker loaded and overheated and blew the Hulk in. The frightened miner flees in his pod, broke, but alive. The Third Little Miner went to Jita and fit his Hulk with a DCII, MSE, Invulnerability Fields, and Shield Extender Rigs. Wisely, he sets his Hulk to orbit a nearby asteroid, and always kept an wary eye on his surroundings. ...Then along came the Big Bad Ganker, in a T2 Talos, saying "Little miner, little miner, I'm going to ******* do you in." The Third miner chuckles to himself, overheats his Invulnerability Fields and aligns to the nearest station. So the Ganker loaded, and overheated, and simply CANNOT blow the Hulk in.Defeated, the ganker slinks off in his pod, and the smart little Miner scoops the Talos wreckage and sells it for a tidy profit." THE END********** Cargo Hulk, Yield Hulk, Tank Hulk, those were the choices - all with drawbacks. Cargo - for a Hybrid Exhumer/Hauler, with a risky AFK 'cruise control' option. Yield - to maximize returns with friends providing transport. Tank - 30-40K EHP to discourage/thwart gankers. (and really, one could still put up a reasonable tank on either Cargo or Yield fit Hulks, if they used the mid-slots.... ) But choices are dangerous things. Given the choice, miners will take cargo/yield every time - and then throw a tantrum when they are ganked. The rare, clever miner who tanked his Hulk; well, he weathered the storm - and reaped the benefits as mineral prices rose. But throw that out the window, just give the whining miners all three. Notice how CCP put quite a bit of care into saving miners from their own bad choices. This is more than a buff - this is CCP acknowledging that miners, as a group, are too stupid to make the correct fitting choices.Step 1: Idiot miners don't even use the slots they have - so slap stupid amounts of EHP directly to the hull, rather than give them additional slots/PG or CPU. Frigate-size Skiff, Orca EHP. Really? Step 2: Idiot miners keep sacking their EHP with Cargo Expanders - so make Cargo Expanders pointless with the Ore Bay. (And I doubt the DEVs will get around to fixing the 'special cargo bays don't drop loot' bug, either - simply because fixing THAT bug would benefit the wrong kinds of players, I suppose.....) So, good game, CCP. Good to know we are still steaming, full speed ahead! - towards Hello-Kitty highsec, a paradise for bots and stupidass gameplay. Hard to hear myself say it, but I'm now officially nostalgic for the days of Incarna and WiS development. At least back then, the DEVs were merely wasting their own time.
cry more |
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1738
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 15:06:00 -
[1861] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:Drop the resist bonuses and they'd be fine.
Like, deceive the miners with fat display stats values while in reality nothing changes?
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Tiamet Cordova
The Black Ops Black Core Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 15:16:00 -
[1862] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:La Nariz wrote:Drop the resist bonuses and they'd be fine. Like, deceive the miners with fat display stats values while in reality nothing changes?
i dont know what youre reading the the change pretty much stomps out a large hole in the nagging complaint of suicide ganks. with the lowest ranges of barges going from 3k to well into 15k+ effective health they have become virtualy solo gank proof by trial accounts.... it looks like their almost doubling the cpu and adding slots also adding the ability for even more survivability....damage control ii goes a long way. i think its a drastic overbuff |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
449
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 15:20:00 -
[1863] - Quote
Tiamet Cordova wrote:i think its a drastic overbuff Seems to me that's a drastic change from your earlier position. EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
Tiamet Cordova
The Black Ops Black Core Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 15:34:00 -
[1864] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Tiamet Cordova wrote:i think its a drastic overbuff Seems to me that's a drastic change from your earlier position. then you have reading comprehension issues .... |
JamesCLK
Lone Star Exploration Lone Star Partners
191
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 15:37:00 -
[1865] - Quote
And here are todays sisi changes to barges.
Serpentine's EVE wrote: tldr; GÇótech 1 barges now only require Astrogeology III and Mining Barge I GÇóCovetor and Hulk lose -500hp from shield, armour and structure (about 20% less effective HP than last build) GÇóHulk gets increased yield; one of the +3% bonuses gets buffed to +5%/level GÇóProcurer gets a massive 4 mid slots (+3 from last build) making it quite tough GÇóRetriever ore hold goes from 30k to 28k, but more forgiving of those with low barge piloting skills GÇóExhumer shields reset to t1 resists + 5% per level (I think GÇô hard to read diffs sometimes) GÇóMining crystals reduced to half the volume (inb4 mineral compressionGǪ.)
Eat your hearts out. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1738
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 15:54:00 -
[1866] - Quote
JamesCLK wrote:And here are todays sisi changes to barges.Serpentine's EVE wrote: tldr; GÇótech 1 barges now only require Astrogeology III and Mining Barge I GÇóCovetor and Hulk lose -500hp from shield, armour and structure (about 20% less effective HP than last build) GÇóHulk gets increased yield; one of the +3% bonuses gets buffed to +5%/level GÇóProcurer gets a massive 4 mid slots (+3 from last build) making it quite tough GÇóRetriever ore hold goes from 30k to 28k, but more forgiving of those with low barge piloting skills GÇóExhumer shields reset to t1 resists + 5% per level (I think GÇô hard to read diffs sometimes) GÇóMining crystals reduced to half the volume (inb4 mineral compressionGǪ.)
Eat your hearts out.
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. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Alexzandvar Douglass
NUTS AND BOLTS MANUFACTURING En Garde
63
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 15:57:00 -
[1867] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Alexzandvar Douglass wrote: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. Tanking is what the skiff is going to be for not the mack
But you will be ABLE to tank a Machinaw, it will have much more EHP than it does now. |
JamesCLK
Lone Star Exploration Lone Star Partners
191
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 16:43:00 -
[1868] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:JamesCLK wrote:And here are todays sisi changes to barges.Serpentine's EVE wrote: tldr; GÇótech 1 barges now only require Astrogeology III and Mining Barge I GÇóCovetor and Hulk lose -500hp from shield, armour and structure (about 20% less effective HP than last build) GÇóHulk gets increased yield; one of the +3% bonuses gets buffed to +5%/level GÇóProcurer gets a massive 4 mid slots (+3 from last build) making it quite tough GÇóRetriever ore hold goes from 30k to 28k, but more forgiving of those with low barge piloting skills GÇóExhumer shields reset to t1 resists + 5% per level (I think GÇô hard to read diffs sometimes) GÇóMining crystals reduced to half the volume (inb4 mineral compressionGǪ.)
Eat your hearts out. 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.
Don't exaggerate; resistances alone do not a T2 ship make.
You can still achieve high resistances, but you need to use the increased CPU and slots to get them instead of just having them regardless of fittings. It makes tank a more or less mandatory (and easy to acomplish) thing on any good barge fitting.
I don't need to point out why that is a good thing.
|
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
308
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 16:59:00 -
[1869] - Quote
JamesCLK wrote:And here are todays sisi changes to barges.Serpentine's EVE wrote: tldr; GÇótech 1 barges now only require Astrogeology III and Mining Barge I GÇóCovetor and Hulk lose -500hp from shield, armour and structure (about 20% less effective HP than last build) GÇóHulk gets increased yield; one of the +3% bonuses gets buffed to +5%/level GÇóProcurer gets a massive 4 mid slots (+3 from last build) making it quite tough GÇóRetriever ore hold goes from 30k to 28k, but more forgiving of those with low barge piloting skills GÇóExhumer shields reset to t1 resists + 5% per level (I think GÇô hard to read diffs sometimes) GÇóMining crystals reduced to half the volume (inb4 mineral compressionGǪ.)
Eat your hearts out.
yield bonus on the hulk is nice. retriever never had a 30k ore bay anyway, it has been 28k for the last few days now, the 50% bonus dropped to 25% but it got an extra 2.5k base ore bay increase anyway. mining crystal change was a few days ago unless crystals are now like 12.5m3? Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
JamesCLK
Lone Star Exploration Lone Star Partners
191
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 17:09:00 -
[1870] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:JamesCLK wrote:And here are todays sisi changes to barges.Serpentine's EVE wrote: tldr; GÇótech 1 barges now only require Astrogeology III and Mining Barge I GÇóCovetor and Hulk lose -500hp from shield, armour and structure (about 20% less effective HP than last build) GÇóHulk gets increased yield; one of the +3% bonuses gets buffed to +5%/level GÇóProcurer gets a massive 4 mid slots (+3 from last build) making it quite tough GÇóRetriever ore hold goes from 30k to 28k, but more forgiving of those with low barge piloting skills GÇóExhumer shields reset to t1 resists + 5% per level (I think GÇô hard to read diffs sometimes) GÇóMining crystals reduced to half the volume (inb4 mineral compressionGǪ.)
Eat your hearts out. yield bonus on the hulk is nice. retriever never had a 30k ore bay anyway, it has been 28k for the last few days now, the 50% bonus dropped to 25% but it got an extra 2.5k base ore bay increase anyway. mining crystal change was a few days ago unless crystals are now like 12.5m3?
notes wrote:
Dark Ochre Mining Crystal I volume: 30.0 => 15.0
They are 15 m3 now :sherlock:
As for the tldr, I'm not claiming any accuracy as it was a direct copy paste from Serpentine's blog. |
|
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
308
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 17:15:00 -
[1871] - Quote
JamesCLK wrote:
They are 15 m3 now :sherlock:
As for the tldr, I'm not claiming any accuracy as it was a direct copy paste from Serpentine's blog.
yeah that's an unimportant t1 crystal that was 15m3 a few days ago, these aren't new changes. t2 crystals (the only ones any one gives a **** about) were originally 50m3, hence two reductions in size would put them at 12.5m3 but obviously that hasn't happened and this is old news. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
qDoctor Strangelove
Beware of the Red Fox
37
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 17:31:00 -
[1872] - Quote
Have they changed the mass of the ships? My 100mn MWD cruiser pilot wants to know... |
Pipa Porto
565
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 18:00:00 -
[1873] - Quote
Mocam wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Suqq Madiq wrote:Get over your preconceived notion that mining ships must be profitable gank targets. They're not profitable gank targets unless the Miners choose to hold a bullseye over their face. 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. If you want a really funny fix from CCP on this - they setup a NPC killboard. Which NPC factions have killed what pilots in which type of ships. NO competition with main killboards which only show player vs player losses. Seeing ImUbahGankah showing 500 transport kills... Then checking the NPC boards to find 2300 losses to CONCORD would be worth its weight in laughs. Seeing Serpentis, Angles, etc showing 50 carrier kills, 10 supercap kills ... Yeah, that would be funny as hell and bring an end to your "Nobody will know I lost anything" gank failures. Seeing the ACTUAL success and failure rates for gankers would remove a lot of "you can't prevent it. They know..." supposed psychic bullshit that too many players buy into about gankers. They fail - a lot. It's just those failures tend to be hidding 99% of the time and even their successes don't *PUBLICALLY* show them losing anything. It would also mitigate a lot of attitude about how "safe" PvE is in EVE.
That would be great. I'd love to see how many JF Pilots get dead to faction police. (I've seen 4-5 make it to real KBs). How many mission runners/ratters get dead to rats. And how many miners get embarrassingly dead to rats.
Anyway, look at Bat Country's KB for the Ice interdictions. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Jake Warbird
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1644
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 18:24:00 -
[1874] - Quote
My my... 94 pages already? How **** does fly..... |
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
553
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 19:08:00 -
[1875] - Quote
Bunnie Hop wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:If you suspect someone of doing it, petition them. Otherwise, bitching about it here accomplishes nothing. 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.
My God, do you seriously believe that the so-called "OTEC" has that much of a hold on everyone? Do you seriously believe that everyone in this game is so credulous, so blinkered, so stupid as to allow themselves to be forced into this as the "only" option -- in an open-world sandbox?
Advice: If you want to convince your audience of something, then it helps not to disrespect their intelligence that blatantly.
My manufacturing/invention character -- as in, building Hulks, among other T II stuff -- would beg to differ, in any case.
(And no, I'm not a shill for them: I despise those fart-bags just as much as you lot seem to, although I suspect my reasons are rather different.)
Why am I dreaming of some strange woman who keeps telling me, "You fail at life because you are cloaked?" |
Soundwave Plays Diablo
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
67
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 19:22:00 -
[1876] - Quote
Jake Warbird wrote:My my... 94 pages already? How **** does fly.....
It makes sense that CCP censors the word T I M E.
|
Soundwave Plays Diablo
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
67
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 19:25:00 -
[1877] - Quote
Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:Bunnie Hop wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:If you suspect someone of doing it, petition them. Otherwise, bitching about it here accomplishes nothing. 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. My God, do you seriously believe that the so-called "OTEC" has that much of a hold on everyone? Do you seriously believe that everyone in this game is so credulous, so blinkered, so stupid as to allow themselves to be forced into this as the "only" option -- in an open-world sandbox? Advice: If you want to convince your audience of something, then it helps not to disrespect their intelligence that blatantly. My manufacturing/invention character -- as in, building Hulks, among other T II stuff -- would beg to differ, in any case. (And no, I'm not a shill for them: I despise those fart-bags just as much as you lot seem to, although I suspect my reasons are rather different.) E: See, that's the whole point I've been trying to make: You carebears always choose to be victims, and then always bleat about how you're somehow entitled to being protected from consequences of same without having to take any steps to protect/help yourselves, which are all easy, readily available to everyone, and far too numerous to list here, even if they hadn't already been being listed for the last 90-odd pages. And in the forums for the last 8-odd years.
But just because you choose to be a victim, doesn't mean everyone else does -- a proper miner would shudder in revulsion at the concept; Yes, there still are some! -- nor yet is everyone else obligated to sacrifice gameplay so you can continue to be safe on your greasy fear-sweat-dripping/stinking pedestal of sanctimonious victim-hood.EVE is a game about taking your safety, business, and fun into your own hands. If you can't/won't handle that, then there are plenty of bland, safe, easy MMOs out there, go play them, and quit trying to turn EVE into another one like them. There's a reason so many are going/have gone free-to-play/pay-to-win, if they weren't before. [/mini-rant]
The irony of course being that if you know so from mining firsthand you are in fact a carebear yourself, and if you don't you are a theorycrafter, which is much worse.
|
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
553
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 19:26:00 -
[1878] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:LIssa Ho wrote:The new mining stuff sucks. So much so, that I'm going to start flying my miner alt just so I can gank him myself! Stupid miner!
I'm going to gank myself. You should try it too! Gank yourself. It's fun! I tried sticking a model of the Itty V up my bunghole. It was more fun, but it bled so much I had to stop.
Try the Itty III.
It's smoother.
Why am I dreaming of some strange woman who keeps telling me, "You fail at life because you are cloaked?" |
|
ISD TYPE40
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
33
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 19:32:00 -
[1879] - Quote
Just a friendly little reminder to everyone, please post constructively and politely. Thanks ISD Type40 Ensign Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
88
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 19:42:00 -
[1880] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:JamesCLK wrote:And here are todays sisi changes to barges.Serpentine's EVE wrote: tldr; GÇótech 1 barges now only require Astrogeology III and Mining Barge I GÇóCovetor and Hulk lose -500hp from shield, armour and structure (about 20% less effective HP than last build) GÇóHulk gets increased yield; one of the +3% bonuses gets buffed to +5%/level GÇóProcurer gets a massive 4 mid slots (+3 from last build) making it quite tough GÇóRetriever ore hold goes from 30k to 28k, but more forgiving of those with low barge piloting skills GÇóExhumer shields reset to t1 resists + 5% per level (I think GÇô hard to read diffs sometimes) GÇóMining crystals reduced to half the volume (inb4 mineral compressionGǪ.)
Eat your hearts out. 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.
They're made by ORE and are noncombat ships so why would they need resists? You can't tell me belt rats are that threatening. Goonwaffe is now recruiting feel free to message me in game for information about joining! |
|
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
309
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 19:47:00 -
[1881] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:JamesCLK wrote:And here are todays sisi changes to barges.Serpentine's EVE wrote: tldr; GÇótech 1 barges now only require Astrogeology III and Mining Barge I GÇóCovetor and Hulk lose -500hp from shield, armour and structure (about 20% less effective HP than last build) GÇóHulk gets increased yield; one of the +3% bonuses gets buffed to +5%/level GÇóProcurer gets a massive 4 mid slots (+3 from last build) making it quite tough GÇóRetriever ore hold goes from 30k to 28k, but more forgiving of those with low barge piloting skills GÇóExhumer shields reset to t1 resists + 5% per level (I think GÇô hard to read diffs sometimes) GÇóMining crystals reduced to half the volume (inb4 mineral compressionGǪ.)
Eat your hearts out. 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. They're made by ORE and are noncombat ships so why would they need resists? You can't tell me belt rats are that threatening.
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... Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
553
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 19:48:00 -
[1882] - Quote
Mocam wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Suqq Madiq wrote:Get over your preconceived notion that mining ships must be profitable gank targets. They're not profitable gank targets unless the Miners choose to hold a bullseye over their face. 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. [...]
Miner has combat drones out, sets them to "aggressive." Free killmail for the miner, even if they lose their ship.
Next!
E:
Lots of typing-fail today, fixed
Why am I dreaming of some strange woman who keeps telling me, "You fail at life because you are cloaked?" |
Lilianna Star
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 19:54:00 -
[1883] - Quote
Quote:Good to know we are still steaming, full speed ahead! - towards Hello-Kitty highsec, a paradise for bots and stupidass gameplay.
Wait, so you're actually complaining that high security is a haven for carebears?
If you don't like carebear gameplay, most of the New Eden is in Null Sec so you can go there. |
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
553
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 19:57:00 -
[1884] - Quote
Soundwave Plays Diablo wrote:Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:Bunnie Hop wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:If you suspect someone of doing it, petition them. Otherwise, bitching about it here accomplishes nothing. 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. My God, do you seriously believe that the so-called "OTEC" has that much of a hold on everyone? Do you seriously believe that everyone in this game is so credulous, so blinkered, so stupid as to allow themselves to be forced into this as the "only" option -- in an open-world sandbox? Advice: If you want to convince your audience of something, then it helps not to disrespect their intelligence that blatantly. My manufacturing/invention character -- as in, building Hulks, among other T II stuff -- would beg to differ, in any case. (And no, I'm not a shill for them: I despise those fart-bags just as much as you lot seem to, although I suspect my reasons are rather different.) E: See, that's the whole point I've been trying to make: You carebears always choose to be victims, and then always bleat about how you're somehow entitled to being protected from consequences of same without having to take any steps to protect/help yourselves, which are all easy, readily available to everyone, and far too numerous to list here, even if they hadn't already been being listed for the last 90-odd pages. And in the forums for the last 8-odd years.
But just because you choose to be a victim, doesn't mean everyone else does -- a proper miner would shudder in revulsion at the concept; Yes, there still are some! -- nor yet is everyone else obligated to sacrifice gameplay so you can continue to be safe on your greasy fear-sweat-dripping/stinking pedestal of sanctimonious victim-hood.EVE is a game about taking your safety, business, and fun into your own hands. If you can't/won't handle that, then there are plenty of bland, safe, easy MMOs out there, go play them, and quit trying to turn EVE into another one like them. There's a reason so many are going/have gone free-to-play/pay-to-win, if they weren't before. [/mini-rant] The irony of course being that if you know so from mining firsthand you are in fact a carebear yourself, and if you don't you are a theorycrafter, which is much worse.
Yes, I do know so firsthand.
I never said I didn't do carebear stuff. I do, in fact, consider myself at least something of a carebear at heart (******* with people just because I can, being a **** about it--that's not really my way anymore, and never really was; I just like doing my own thing, ya know), but the crux of this is:
If I may say so myself, I'm the right kind of "carebear" for EVE -- call it "fighting bear," "carebear with teeth," or similar, if you like.
The one thing you will NEVER see from me, in any of my "guises" is whining for "100%" safety in any context, for any reason.
The lack thereof, and that you take your fate into your own hands each time you press EVE's PvP-flag -- that would be the yellow and black chevron-shaped button tool-tipped "Undock from Station," by the way -- is one of the things that has kept me in EVE going on 4 years now, and I've no intention of going away anytime soon, or even Soon(TM).
Why am I dreaming of some strange woman who keeps telling me, "You fail at life because you are cloaked?" |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
259
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 20:04:00 -
[1885] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:They're made by ORE and are noncombat ships so why would they need resists? You can't tell me belt rats are that threatening. 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. |
baltec1
Bat Country
1732
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 20:06:00 -
[1886] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:La Nariz wrote:They're made by ORE and are noncombat ships so why would they need resists? You can't tell me belt rats are that threatening. 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.
Thankfully they can do this job. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1741
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 20:07:00 -
[1887] - Quote
La Nariz wrote: They're made by ORE and are noncombat ships so why would they need resists? You can't tell me belt rats are that threatening.
Lol you can't be real.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1741
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 20:11:00 -
[1888] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:La Nariz wrote:They're made by ORE and are noncombat ships so why would they need resists? You can't tell me belt rats are that threatening. 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. Thankfully they can do this job.
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. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
baltec1
Bat Country
1732
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 20:13:00 -
[1889] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:baltec1 wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:La Nariz wrote:They're made by ORE and are noncombat ships so why would they need resists? You can't tell me belt rats are that threatening. 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. Thankfully they can do this job. 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.
The new retriver doesnt have that issue. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
259
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 20:14:00 -
[1890] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:La Nariz wrote:They're made by ORE and are noncombat ships so why would they need resists? You can't tell me belt rats are that threatening. 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. Thankfully they can do this job. I'll take your word for it. I don't mine but for me a 30k EHP tengu felt too squishy and I don't have the confidence to say I can always get out of it in a ship that combat capable. The confidence doesn't get any better with the idea of being in a hulk and neither does the EHP. |
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
259
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 20:15:00 -
[1891] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:baltec1 wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:La Nariz wrote:They're made by ORE and are noncombat ships so why would they need resists? You can't tell me belt rats are that threatening. 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. Thankfully they can do this job. 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. The new retriver doesnt have that issue. This is the retriever that many of your peers are saying isn't necessary and shouldn't exist. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
310
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 20:16:00 -
[1892] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:baltec1 wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:La Nariz wrote:They're made by ORE and are noncombat ships so why would they need resists? You can't tell me belt rats are that threatening. 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. Thankfully they can do this job. 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. The new retriver doesnt have that issue.
go to 0.7 and nor does the current one. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1741
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 20:25:00 -
[1893] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:
Thankfully they can do this job.
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.[/quote]
The new retriver doesnt have that issue.[/quote]
go to 0.7 and nor does the current one.[/quote]
A new minmatar pilot (like one of my alts) is between all sorts of secs, in some 1.0 newbie systems the next one is 0.5 sec. And yes a low SP pilot gets loads of damage, you might have forgot how it is but I don't.
Also restricting new players in a ghetto is totally against the idea of letting them explore, do you want more bears? Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
baltec1
Bat Country
1732
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 20:28:00 -
[1894] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:
go to 0.7 and nor does the current one.
All depends on how you fit it. Right now on TQ you can tank it enough so that the drones will mop up any NPC spawn long before you get into trouble in 0.5. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
310
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 20:31:00 -
[1895] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dave stark wrote:
go to 0.7 and nor does the current one.
All depends on how you fit it. Right now on TQ you can tank it enough so that the drones will mop up any NPC spawn long before you get into trouble in 0.5.
survey scanner and mlus. the difference is that the belt rats are only an issue if you have poor drone skills. nothing to do with tanking skills. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
baltec1
Bat Country
1732
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 20:33:00 -
[1896] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:
survey scanner and mlus.
Blah those are optional extras. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
259
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 20:39:00 -
[1897] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dave stark wrote:
survey scanner and mlus.
Blah those are optional extras. 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. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
310
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 20:42:00 -
[1898] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:baltec1 wrote:Dave stark wrote:
survey scanner and mlus.
Blah those are optional extras. 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.
this is because when you fit a combat ship there are 4 things you can fit. more dps, tank, or utility (webs, scram all that ****).
with a mining ship you only have yield and tank, and you can't fit both because of the lack of cpu on ships. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
baltec1
Bat Country
1732
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 20:43:00 -
[1899] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:baltec1 wrote:Dave stark wrote:
survey scanner and mlus.
Blah those are optional extras. 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.
Tell that to my Impel. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
310
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 20:45:00 -
[1900] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:baltec1 wrote:Dave stark wrote:
survey scanner and mlus.
Blah those are optional extras. 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. Tell that to my Impel.
your impel is the higest cargo space dst anyway. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
259
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 20:46:00 -
[1901] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:baltec1 wrote:Dave stark wrote:
survey scanner and mlus.
Blah those are optional extras. 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. this is because when you fit a combat ship there are 4 things you can fit. more dps, tank, or utility (webs, scram all that ****). with a mining ship you only have yield and tank, and you can't fit both because of the lack of cpu on ships. No, I fully understand that, what I don't, to state it more clearly is why people are so opposed to the idea of balance in a fit without one aspect failing to be at all effective. In this case an exhumer's tank unless every non-high slot is dedicated to it. |
baltec1
Bat Country
1732
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 20:47:00 -
[1902] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:
your impel is the higest cargo space dst anyway.
yep, plus it has a monster tank. No cargo mods though if I want that tank. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
310
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 20:48:00 -
[1903] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dave stark wrote:
your impel is the higest cargo space dst anyway.
yep, plus it has a monster tank. No cargo mods though if I want that tank.
who bothers tanking a hauler anyway? max cargo and mwd trick will save you more often. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Suddenly Forums ForumKings
Republic University Minmatar Republic
76
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 20:49:00 -
[1904] - Quote
95 pages of carebear tears. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
310
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 20:49:00 -
[1905] - Quote
Suddenly Forums ForumKings wrote:95 pages of carebear tears.
96. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
259
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 20:51:00 -
[1906] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:baltec1 wrote:Dave stark wrote:
survey scanner and mlus.
Blah those are optional extras. 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. Tell that to my Impel. 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. |
baltec1
Bat Country
1732
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 20:53:00 -
[1907] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:
who bothers tanking a hauler anyway? max cargo and mwd trick will save you more often.
Too sluggish and can be taken down by a nado if you just fit cargo. The only hauler I dont tank is the blocade runner. |
Suddenly Forums ForumKings
Republic University Minmatar Republic
76
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 20:54:00 -
[1908] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Suddenly Forums ForumKings wrote:95 pages of carebear tears. 96.
Let's keep this thread going.
Maybe it'll get longer than the Mittani apology thread. |
baltec1
Bat Country
1732
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 20:59:00 -
[1909] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote: 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.
Those expanders reduce the tank. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
259
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 21:05:00 -
[1910] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote: 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.
Those expanders reduce the tank. Filled in those slots with expanders, 55k EHP, no rigs so can get better. Hulk I can get to just under 30k (must be doing something wrong as I'm missing ~2-3k from what most are stating it can have). No boosts/Implants on either. |
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1496
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 22:32:00 -
[1911] - Quote
rodyas wrote:Komen wrote:I started reading this thread, and I got that it SEEMS to be that ganking miners won't be profitable because it'll take too many gankers to accomplish now.
Which leaves gankers a couple options: Gank for fun, and screw the profit, or move on to other pastures in search of profitable PvP. I wish you all the best with whichever path you choose. And remember, in Eve, you must adapt or die. Unless you're a miner, I guess.
Hm, almost good point. But what about the destroyer and T3 BC expansion? Hm, lets see. Well it looks like gankers got a buff (As in couldn't adapt, and sadly wouldn't die) so CCP gave them cake and let them eat it. Lets see again. Now miners get a pretty much the same or equivalent expansion, it its only miners that can't adapt or die or whine too much, or were given cake and now can eat it.
they also took away insurance payouts for concord losses.but please conveniently ignore that some more EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1496
|
Posted - 2012.07.29 22:37:00 -
[1912] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:baltec1 wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:La Nariz wrote:They're made by ORE and are noncombat ships so why would they need resists? You can't tell me belt rats are that threatening. 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. Thankfully they can do this job. 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 has also to cater to those so despised and spat in face newbies.
"i've been playing for three months and i keep losing vagabonds why are they so weak" EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1743
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 00:01:00 -
[1913] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:baltec1 wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:La Nariz wrote:They're made by ORE and are noncombat ships so why would they need resists? You can't tell me belt rats are that threatening. 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. Thankfully they can do this job. 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 has also to cater to those so despised and spat in face newbies. "i've been playing for three months and i keep losing vagabonds why are they so weak"
A Retriever is clearly on the same advancement level of a Vaga. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Soundwave Plays Diablo
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
68
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 00:05:00 -
[1914] - Quote
"Let them eat cake" is a misquote, and "have your cake and eat it too" is possibly the stupidest cliche ever as it is based entirely on a misquote.
The phrase is from a semi fictional autobiography published before Marie Antionette was queen. |
Pipa Porto
568
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 00:06:00 -
[1915] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:
"i've been playing for three months and i keep losing vagabonds why are they so weak"
A Retriever is clearly on the same advancement level of a Vaga.
"I've been playing for 3 months and I keep losing Stabbers why are they so weak." EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
88
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 01:05:00 -
[1916] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:La Nariz wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:JamesCLK wrote:And here are todays sisi changes to barges.Serpentine's EVE wrote: tldr; GÇótech 1 barges now only require Astrogeology III and Mining Barge I GÇóCovetor and Hulk lose -500hp from shield, armour and structure (about 20% less effective HP than last build) GÇóHulk gets increased yield; one of the +3% bonuses gets buffed to +5%/level GÇóProcurer gets a massive 4 mid slots (+3 from last build) making it quite tough GÇóRetriever ore hold goes from 30k to 28k, but more forgiving of those with low barge piloting skills GÇóExhumer shields reset to t1 resists + 5% per level (I think GÇô hard to read diffs sometimes) GÇóMining crystals reduced to half the volume (inb4 mineral compressionGǪ.)
Eat your hearts out. 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. They're made by ORE and are noncombat ships so why would they need resists? You can't tell me belt rats are that threatening. 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...
Those don't spawn in highsec so I don't think you know what you're talking about. Goonwaffe is now recruiting feel free to message me in game for information about joining! |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
88
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 01:08:00 -
[1917] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:La Nariz wrote:They're made by ORE and are noncombat ships so why would they need resists? You can't tell me belt rats are that threatening. 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 know in six or so months from now when you're crying in a thread about crashing low ends I'm going to laugh so hard and point you to this thread. Goonwaffe is now recruiting feel free to message me in game for information about joining! |
Tarn Kugisa
Bugaboo and some Pew Pew
92
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 01:11:00 -
[1918] - Quote
MinefieldS wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Marconus Orion wrote:Oh he mad. But is he wrong? Nope. Fitted properly, a Hulk cannot be profitably ganked. How about a fleet of 30ish velators w/ cheap blasters?
Never underestimate large amounts of Noobships
Also, could I get a link to the devblog or whatever that mentions a Exhumer/Barge Buff? I Endorse this Product and/or Service Source Recorder-esque tool for EVE |
Chopper Rollins
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
126
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 01:41:00 -
[1919] - Quote
This thread makes me feel like doing some mining.
Used to mine in Placid, the loops in low sec, y'know? Evaded an enyo and a claw in my cloaky hulk through two gates, them with their drones out within 5000 m.
Now i mine in null. Haven't lost a hulk yet, it's been 6 months. Vagabond, stiletto, dramiel and of course the obligatory hound tackle/cynabal gang have all failed to lock me up. Because i do it right.
gf guise gf
Wouldn't have a clue about all them numbers, if you think stats are fun why undock? Or even log on?
Goggles. Making me look good. Making you look good. |
Reiisha
Splint Eye Probabilities Inc. Dawn of Transcendence
138
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 01:51:00 -
[1920] - Quote
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. |
|
Jypsie
Wandering Star Enterprises
18
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 02:04:00 -
[1921] - Quote
Reiisha wrote: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.
96 pages of ganker tears.
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
450
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 02:10:00 -
[1922] - Quote
Jypsie wrote:Reiisha wrote: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. 96 pages of ganker tears. You've clearly read none of them, since there are actually no ganker tears to be found. EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
Tiamet Cordova
The Black Ops Black Core Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 02:12:00 -
[1923] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:And before this thread fills up with endless gloating threads from miners....(and why shouldn't they gloat? They think CCP just handed them the keys to the kingdom - removed the LAST risk they faced in highsec....)
Realize this: if you are a miner who is reading this thread, chances are YOU are the Third Little Pig. The one that stands to benefit from knowledge of good fits and how to avoid a gank.
Sure, in reality the Wolf won't try to blow your door in. He'll move along and kick down another straw house....
but allowing the stubborn...the new....the bots to feed at the same trough 'without risk' means an impending crash in mineral prices - and the smart miners end up suffering.
So, gloat away......
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. |
Sentamon
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
81
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 02:14:00 -
[1924] - Quote
posting in epic 97 page thread that won't be read ~ Professional Forum Alt -á~ |
Jypsie
Wandering Star Enterprises
18
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 02:18:00 -
[1925] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote: No, I'm not, you are!
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
451
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 02:25:00 -
[1926] - Quote
Jypsie wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote: No, I'm not, you are!
Except my assessment of gankers not crying doesn't include me, because I'm not a ganker. My position is significantly more objective. EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
88
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 02:35:00 -
[1927] - Quote
Reiisha wrote: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.
I don't know why you miners always use this argument. You aren't getting ganked because people are afraid to risk their ship, they know well a head of time that they are risking a ship, instead you're getting ganked because you whine and tantrum over it. The most hilarious part of all of this is that you wouldn't get ganked at all if you actually fit a tank. Like I said earlier though in ~6months when minerals crash because of the bot friendly environment brought about by these changes I'm going to laugh at you "smart" miners. Goonwaffe is now recruiting feel free to message me in game for information about joining! |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
88
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 02:37:00 -
[1928] - Quote
Tiamet Cordova wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:And before this thread fills up with endless gloating threads from miners....(and why shouldn't they gloat? They think CCP just handed them the keys to the kingdom - removed the LAST risk they faced in highsec....)
Realize this: if you are a miner who is reading this thread, chances are YOU are the Third Little Pig. The one that stands to benefit from knowledge of good fits and how to avoid a gank.
Sure, in reality the Wolf won't try to blow your door in. He'll move along and kick down another straw house....
but allowing the stubborn...the new....the bots to feed at the same trough 'without risk' means an impending crash in mineral prices - and the smart miners end up suffering.
So, gloat away...... 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.
Making something easier attracts more people to the profession which means more minerals will be being mined. More minerals being mined means more supply available which drives cost down. I never took an econ class and even I know that when somethings more common it generally gets cheaper. Goonwaffe is now recruiting feel free to message me in game for information about joining! |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
340
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 02:37:00 -
[1929] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Jypsie wrote:96 pages of ganker tears.
You've clearly read none of them, since there are actually no ganker tears to be found. I don't know what's worse; that you actually think people will buy this drivel or that you believe it to be true yourself. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
451
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 02:46:00 -
[1930] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Jypsie wrote:96 pages of ganker tears.
You've clearly read none of them, since there are actually no ganker tears to be found. I don't know what's worse; that you actually think people will buy this drivel or that you believe it to be true yourself. I think what's even worse is that you seem to feel entitled to safety in hisec. EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
|
Garreth Vlox
Sons Of 0din Dark Therapy
21
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 02:51:00 -
[1931] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:
No, the low level ones are useless and have no purpose. The only reason Macks are flown is because of their ice bonus.
This is a great way to highlight your complete and total lack of understanding of how mining works in anything other than a .5 system. try mining merc with a hulk while the guy next to you in that small "worthless" ship mines more than twice per cycle what you do while laughing his ass off at the "idiot" mining merc in a hulk. |
Jypsie
Wandering Star Enterprises
18
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 02:53:00 -
[1932] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:...instead you're getting ganked because you whine and tantrum over it...
Awesome, we've circled back to posts around 116'ish
|
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
340
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 03:02:00 -
[1933] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Jypsie wrote:96 pages of ganker tears.
You've clearly read none of them, since there are actually no ganker tears to be found. I don't know what's worse; that you actually think people will buy this drivel or that you believe it to be true yourself. I think what's even worse is that you seem to feel entitled to safety in hisec. A long-needed buff to mining ships does not equate to the end of suicide ganks or risk in high sec for that matter. That you're having an emotional breakdown over this is really not justified at all. |
Pipa Porto
570
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 03:09:00 -
[1934] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Jypsie wrote:96 pages of ganker tears.
You've clearly read none of them, since there are actually no ganker tears to be found. I don't know what's worse; that you actually think people will buy this drivel or that you believe it to be true yourself. I think what's even worse is that you seem to feel entitled to safety in hisec. A long-needed buff to mining ships does not equate to the end of suicide ganks or risk in high sec for that matter. That you're having an emotional breakdown over this is really not justified at all.
The original numbers would have given every Exhumer enough tank that it would be ridiculously expensive to gank them.
The new numbers are almost there. Bring the Mack's tank down a notch to let the Skiff be useful, and bring the Skiff's ore hold down to let the Mack be useful once the Mack's tank goes down, and you have 3 Ships that are useful.
Miners will have a choice.
See that's the thing. Buffing the Skiff and Mack is great. Gives them a reason to exist outside of Mercx and Ice. Buffing the Tank on everything was unnecessary. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
464
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 03:32:00 -
[1935] - Quote
Tiamet Cordova wrote:
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.
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? |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
89
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 03:40:00 -
[1936] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Jypsie wrote:96 pages of ganker tears.
You've clearly read none of them, since there are actually no ganker tears to be found. I don't know what's worse; that you actually think people will buy this drivel or that you believe it to be true yourself. I think what's even worse is that you seem to feel entitled to safety in hisec.
Goonwaffe is now recruiting feel free to message me in game for information about joining! |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
89
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 03:41:00 -
[1937] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Tiamet Cordova wrote:
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.
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?
Ask them if the minerals they mine are free and you'll figure that one out right away. Goonwaffe is now recruiting feel free to message me in game for information about joining! |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
259
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 03:52:00 -
[1938] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:La Nariz wrote:They're made by ORE and are noncombat ships so why would they need resists? You can't tell me belt rats are that threatening. 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 know in six or so months from now when you're crying in a thread about crashing low ends I'm going to laugh so hard and point you to this thread. Too bad that will never happen. |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
89
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 03:59:00 -
[1939] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:La Nariz wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:La Nariz wrote:They're made by ORE and are noncombat ships so why would they need resists? You can't tell me belt rats are that threatening. 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 know in six or so months from now when you're crying in a thread about crashing low ends I'm going to laugh so hard and point you to this thread. Too bad that will never happen.
Are the minerals you mine free? Goonwaffe is now recruiting feel free to message me in game for information about joining! |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
259
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 04:00:00 -
[1940] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:La Nariz wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:La Nariz wrote:They're made by ORE and are noncombat ships so why would they need resists? You can't tell me belt rats are that threatening. 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 know in six or so months from now when you're crying in a thread about crashing low ends I'm going to laugh so hard and point you to this thread. Too bad that will never happen. Are the minerals you mine free? Nothing is free |
|
Pipa Porto
570
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 04:22:00 -
[1941] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote: Nothing is free
Except my love. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1497
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 04:22:00 -
[1942] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:A Retriever is clearly on the same advancement level of a Vaga.
perhaps not, but an exhumer is EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1497
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 04:24:00 -
[1943] - Quote
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:A long-needed buff to mining ships does not equate to the end of suicide ganks or risk in high sec for that matter. That you're having an emotional breakdown over this is really not justified at all.
"Long-needed"
The only change needed was to give mining ships the ability to fit a proper tank while sacrificing yield - and the Hulk was already more than capable of this, the Mackinaw to a lesser extent. Miners didn't want to make such difficult decisions like "should I lose my ship or make 5m more isk" EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
259
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 04:28:00 -
[1944] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote: Nothing is free
Except my love. Correction: Nothing is free save the things that you aren't sure you want. |
Pipa Porto
570
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 04:30:00 -
[1945] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote: Nothing is free
Except my love. Correction: Nothing is free save the things that you aren't sure you want.
Come here, my love! EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1744
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 05:25:00 -
[1946] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:
"i've been playing for three months and i keep losing vagabonds why are they so weak"
A Retriever is clearly on the same advancement level of a Vaga. "I've been playing for 3 months and I keep losing Stabbers why are they so weak." Actually, given the SP Reqs for a Retriever (14d), "I've been playing for 3 months and I keep losing Maelstroms(8d) why are they so weak."
Never came close to risk losing a stabber, but if you are low SP and go pee while you are in a Retriever you really risk coming back and find it popped by 3 NPC frigs. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1744
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 05:27:00 -
[1947] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Jypsie wrote:Reiisha wrote: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. 96 pages of ganker tears. You've clearly read none of them, since there are actually no ganker tears to be found.
That's possibly a testament to this thread, it's almost on Tippia amounts of self implosed blinders-ness. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Pipa Porto
571
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 05:28:00 -
[1948] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:
"i've been playing for three months and i keep losing vagabonds why are they so weak"
A Retriever is clearly on the same advancement level of a Vaga. "I've been playing for 3 months and I keep losing Stabbers why are they so weak." Actually, given the SP Reqs for a Retriever (14d), "I've been playing for 3 months and I keep losing Maelstroms(8d) why are they so weak." Never came close to risk losing a stabber, but if you are low SP and go pee in a Retriever you really risk coming back and find it popped by 3 NPC frigs.
That's true of a Stabber in a Level 2 as well. (Level 2 would be the roughly equivalent income).
Right Click > Dock takes 2-4s. Can you not hold it that long? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1744
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 05:29:00 -
[1949] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:
Making something easier attracts more people to the profession which means more minerals will be being mined. More minerals being mined means more supply available which drives cost down. I never took an econ class and even I know that when somethings more common it generally gets cheaper.
... and how is this a bad thing? Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Pipa Porto
571
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 05:30:00 -
[1950] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:La Nariz wrote:
Making something easier attracts more people to the profession which means more minerals will be being mined. More minerals being mined means more supply available which drives cost down. I never took an econ class and even I know that when somethings more common it generally gets cheaper.
... and how is this a bad thing?
It is for Miners. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1744
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 05:32:00 -
[1951] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:A Retriever is clearly on the same advancement level of a Vaga. perhaps not, but an exhumer is
Too bad you quoted a Retriever post about low SP characters and not an exhumer post, eh? Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1744
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 05:34:00 -
[1952] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:
"i've been playing for three months and i keep losing vagabonds why are they so weak"
A Retriever is clearly on the same advancement level of a Vaga. "I've been playing for 3 months and I keep losing Stabbers why are they so weak." Actually, given the SP Reqs for a Retriever (14d), "I've been playing for 3 months and I keep losing Maelstroms(8d) why are they so weak." Never came close to risk losing a stabber, but if you are low SP and go pee in a Retriever you really risk coming back and find it popped by 3 NPC frigs. That's true of a Stabber in a Level 2 as well. (Level 2 would be the roughly equivalent income). Right Click > Dock takes 2-4s. Can you not hold it that long?
I have done thousands of missions, what you say is simply a lie. L3 can do that, L2 won't kill any vaguely fitted stabber expecially if it's not sitting idle at the center of the spawns. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1744
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 05:34:00 -
[1953] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:La Nariz wrote:
Making something easier attracts more people to the profession which means more minerals will be being mined. More minerals being mined means more supply available which drives cost down. I never took an econ class and even I know that when somethings more common it generally gets cheaper.
... and how is this a bad thing? It is for Miners.
And we should care... why? I don't see you caring for Samsung selling sell for much less than Apple prices, do you? Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
127
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 05:36:00 -
[1954] - Quote
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. |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
89
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 05:38:00 -
[1955] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:La Nariz wrote:
Making something easier attracts more people to the profession which means more minerals will be being mined. More minerals being mined means more supply available which drives cost down. I never took an econ class and even I know that when somethings more common it generally gets cheaper.
... and how is this a bad thing?
Because what will happen is mining will become the worst profession again and then all the miners will throw forum tantrums again until CCP buffs mining again. I don't care if it becomes a terrible profession again, but I do care that CCP is giving in to stupid things like forum tantrums from people that basically want pvp removed from highsec. Goonwaffe is now recruiting feel free to message me in game for information about joining! |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
127
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 05:41:00 -
[1956] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:Because what will happen is mining will become the worst profession again and then all the miners will throw forum tantrums again until CCP buffs mining again. I don't care if it becomes a terrible profession again, but I do care that CCP is giving in to stupid things like forum tantrums from people that basically want pvp removed from highsec.
Cheaper minerals doesn't mean just cheaper Catalysts/Tornadoes. It also means cheaper supers. |
Pipa Porto
571
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 05:47:00 -
[1957] - Quote
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. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Pipa Porto
571
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 05:48:00 -
[1958] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:
That's true of a Stabber in a Level 2 as well. (Level 2 would be the roughly equivalent income).
Right Click > Dock takes 2-4s. Can you not hold it that long?
I have done thousands of missions, what you say is simply a lie. L3 can do that, L2 won't kill any vaguely fitted stabber expecially if it's not sitting idle at the center of the spawns.
If it's sitting AFK in the mission "because you had to go to the bathroom" it sure will die. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
584
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 05:57:00 -
[1959] - Quote
And you vagabond........shalll.......die - emperor palpatine I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
452
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 05:59:00 -
[1960] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:La Nariz wrote:Because what will happen is mining will become the worst profession again and then all the miners will throw forum tantrums again until CCP buffs mining again. I don't care if it becomes a terrible profession again, but I do care that CCP is giving in to stupid things like forum tantrums from people that basically want pvp removed from highsec. Cheaper minerals doesn't mean just cheaper Catalysts/Tornadoes. It also means cheaper supers. He knows this, and I'm pretty sure with most Goons and other CFC members like me, he's against further proliferation of supercaps. EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
|
Knight Cabbage
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 06:00:00 -
[1961] - Quote
It seems like the goons and like-wise minded "PVP"-players are quite mad that CCP foiled their attempt to dictate the direction of the game by a little ship balancing.
Giving their gloating on the endless miner whine threads after the extension of the hulkageddon bounties, I find this quite amusing. |
Pipa Porto
571
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 06:01:00 -
[1962] - Quote
Knight Cabbage wrote:It seems like the goons and like-wise minded "PVP"-players are quite mad that CCP foiled their attempt to dictate the direction of the game by a little ship balancing.
Giving their gloating on the endless miner whine treads after the extention of the hulkageddon bounties, I find this quite amusing.
The new Hulk's gonna top out at 22k EHP now. I think we'll get some delicious tears from the Mining Forum Warrior community once it goes live. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Octoven
Four Pillar Production Dragehund
3
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 06:07:00 -
[1963] - Quote
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? |
Herr Hammer Draken
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
54
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 06:09:00 -
[1964] - 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. |
Knight Cabbage
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 06:12:00 -
[1965] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Knight Cabbage wrote:It seems like the goons and like-wise minded "PVP"-players are quite mad that CCP foiled their attempt to dictate the direction of the game by a little ship balancing.
Giving their gloating on the endless miner whine treads after the extention of the hulkageddon bounties, I find this quite amusing. The new Hulk's gonna top out at 22k EHP now. I think we'll get some delicious tears from the Mining Forum Warrior community once it goes live.
Wouldn't bet on this one. Skiff and Mack cannot be ganked for profit and their yield don't look so bad. They address to main point miners complained about - that the "PVP"-players could dictate others their playstyle.
Anyways, these numbers aren't fixed yet, who knows what will make it into the game eventually. |
Asuka Solo
Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises
1576
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 06:23:00 -
[1966] - Quote
Almost 100 pages of griefer tears.
Awesome. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
452
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 06:26:00 -
[1967] - Quote
Asuka Solo wrote:Almost 100 pages of griefer tears.
Awesome. Please point out an example of such tears. EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1744
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 06:30:00 -
[1968] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:La Nariz wrote:
Making something easier attracts more people to the profession which means more minerals will be being mined. More minerals being mined means more supply available which drives cost down. I never took an econ class and even I know that when somethings more common it generally gets cheaper.
... and how is this a bad thing? Because what will happen is mining will become the worst profession again and then all the miners will throw forum tantrums again until CCP buffs mining again. I don't care if it becomes a terrible profession again, but I do care that CCP is giving in to stupid things like forum tantrums from people that basically want pvp removed from highsec.
Not to rain on your parade, but mining is still the worst profession...
Even worse than PI, I calculated I have made about 46.6M per hour with it. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1744
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 06:32:00 -
[1969] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:
That's true of a Stabber in a Level 2 as well. (Level 2 would be the roughly equivalent income).
Right Click > Dock takes 2-4s. Can you not hold it that long?
I have done thousands of missions, what you say is simply a lie. L3 can do that, L2 won't kill any vaguely fitted stabber expecially if it's not sitting idle at the center of the spawns. If it's sitting AFK in the mission "because you had to go to the bathroom" it sure will die.
Nah. These days it's even hard to die in a L4, you really have to actively go out to something like Mordus Headhunters and then go AFK in the middle of the rats. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Marconus Orion
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
363
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 07:05:00 -
[1970] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Asuka Solo wrote:Almost 100 pages of griefer tears.
Awesome. Please point out an example of such tears. You did read the OP yes? |
|
Pipa Porto
571
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 07:07:00 -
[1971] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:
That's true of a Stabber in a Level 2 as well. (Level 2 would be the roughly equivalent income).
Right Click > Dock takes 2-4s. Can you not hold it that long?
I have done thousands of missions, what you say is simply a lie. L3 can do that, L2 won't kill any vaguely fitted stabber expecially if it's not sitting idle at the center of the spawns. If it's sitting AFK in the mission "because you had to go to the bathroom" it sure will die. Nah. These days it's even hard to die in a L4, you really have to actively go out to something like Mordus Headhunters and then go AFK in the middle of the rats.
Are we still talking Stabber, or have you wandered off into a different ship? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1744
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 07:16:00 -
[1972] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:
That's true of a Stabber in a Level 2 as well. (Level 2 would be the roughly equivalent income).
Right Click > Dock takes 2-4s. Can you not hold it that long?
I have done thousands of missions, what you say is simply a lie. L3 can do that, L2 won't kill any vaguely fitted stabber expecially if it's not sitting idle at the center of the spawns. If it's sitting AFK in the mission "because you had to go to the bathroom" it sure will die. Nah. These days it's even hard to die in a L4, you really have to actively go out to something like Mordus Headhunters and then go AFK in the middle of the rats. Are we still talking Stabber, or have you wandered off into a different ship?
I don't pretend I write good English but the analogy is pretty straigthforward. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
758
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 07:20:00 -
[1973] - Quote
Octoven wrote: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? A 50-dollar steel mallet destroys a $300,000 Ferrari. A 10-million-dollar torpedo boat destroys a billion-dollar cruise ship. A few tens of billions of dollars spent on developing a nuclear weapons program can wipe out a trillion-dollar nation.
It's much easier to destroy than to create. Establishing parity between the costs of production and destruction is exactly the thing that an open-ended game like EVE does not need. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
baltec1
Bat Country
1732
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 07:20:00 -
[1974] - Quote
Octoven wrote: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?
120 mil spent on ganking a miner put you deep into loss to the tune of around 100 mil.
One of the reasons why its important is because this is the only risk a miner will ever face in high sec. |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
89
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 07:21:00 -
[1975] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:La Nariz wrote:Because what will happen is mining will become the worst profession again and then all the miners will throw forum tantrums again until CCP buffs mining again. I don't care if it becomes a terrible profession again, but I do care that CCP is giving in to stupid things like forum tantrums from people that basically want pvp removed from highsec. Cheaper minerals doesn't mean just cheaper Catalysts/Tornadoes. It also means cheaper supers. He knows this, and I'm pretty sure with most Goons and other CFC members like me, he's against further proliferation of supercaps.
Completely agree, EVE does not need more super caps. Goonwaffe is now recruiting feel free to message me in game for information about joining! |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
312
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 07:25:00 -
[1976] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Octoven wrote: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? A 50-dollar steel mallet destroys a $300,000 Ferrari. A 10-million-dollar torpedo boat destroys a billion-dollar cruise ship. A few tens of billions of dollars spent on developing a nuclear weapons program can wipe out a trillion-dollar nation. It's much easier to destroy than to create. Establishing parity between the costs of production and destruction is exactly the thing that an open-ended game like EVE does not need.
your analogies are wrong because neither of those things happen in 30 seconds. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
585
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 07:26:00 -
[1977] - Quote
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? I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
585
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 07:27:00 -
[1978] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:Octoven wrote: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? A 50-dollar steel mallet destroys a $300,000 Ferrari. A 10-million-dollar torpedo boat destroys a billion-dollar cruise ship. A few tens of billions of dollars spent on developing a nuclear weapons program can wipe out a trillion-dollar nation. It's much easier to destroy than to create. Establishing parity between the costs of production and destruction is exactly the thing that an open-ended game like EVE does not need. your analogies are wrong because neither of those things happen in 30 seconds.
What about pregnancy. A child can cost hundred of thousands of dollars, and all it took was $5 dollars of beer. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Suvari Khashour
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 07:30:00 -
[1979] - Quote
This is going to be freaking hillarious, i can't wait for the next 'hulkageddon'
we'll have to have a killboard just for miners, with prizes to the miner with the most confirmed kills
suicide ganking will become suicide spanking...
seriously, im thinking of trading in my Hulk for a Skiff, just so i can go mine ore in the closest belt to Jita.. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1744
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 07:31:00 -
[1980] - Quote
rodyas wrote:
What about pregnancy. A child can cost hundred of thousands of dollars, and all it took was $5 dollars of beer.
New mechanic: suicide bang. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
758
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 07:33:00 -
[1981] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:A 50-dollar steel mallet destroys a $300,000 Ferrari. A 10-million-dollar torpedo boat destroys a billion-dollar cruise ship. A few tens of billions of dollars spent on developing a nuclear weapons program can wipe out a trillion-dollar nation.
It's much easier to destroy than to create. Establishing parity between the costs of production and destruction is exactly the thing that an open-ended game like EVE does not need. your analogies are wrong because neither of those things happen in 30 seconds. Tell you what: you provide the car, I'll provide the mallet, and then we'll have ourselves a good old-fashioned scientific experiment. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Halcyon Ingenium
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
146
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 07:36:00 -
[1982] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Asuka Solo wrote:Almost 100 pages of griefer tears.
Awesome. Please point out an example of such tears.
Summary of OP.
They say that in learning the game Go, it is best to lose your first 50 games as soon as possible. This is because Go is complex, and the only way you will start to get an idea of strategy and play is by first sucking and failing as hard as you can. So...In EVE, it is best to get your first 50 deaths by combat as soon as possible. |
Pipa Porto
572
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 07:39:00 -
[1983] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:Octoven wrote: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? A 50-dollar steel mallet destroys a $300,000 Ferrari. A 10-million-dollar torpedo boat destroys a billion-dollar cruise ship. A few tens of billions of dollars spent on developing a nuclear weapons program can wipe out a trillion-dollar nation. It's much easier to destroy than to create. Establishing parity between the costs of production and destruction is exactly the thing that an open-ended game like EVE does not need. your analogies are wrong because neither of those things happen in 30 seconds.
You're right. Torpedo Travel time is much less than 30s. A Nuke's drop time is much less than 30s. A Sledgehammer will cause Tens of thousands of dollars in Damage in 30s. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
312
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 07:41:00 -
[1984] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Dave stark wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:Octoven wrote: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? A 50-dollar steel mallet destroys a $300,000 Ferrari. A 10-million-dollar torpedo boat destroys a billion-dollar cruise ship. A few tens of billions of dollars spent on developing a nuclear weapons program can wipe out a trillion-dollar nation. It's much easier to destroy than to create. Establishing parity between the costs of production and destruction is exactly the thing that an open-ended game like EVE does not need. your analogies are wrong because neither of those things happen in 30 seconds. You're right. Torpedo Travel time is much less than 30s. A Nuke's drop time is much less than 30s. A Sledgehammer will cause Tens of thousands of dollars in Damage in 30s.
thousands of dollars of damage is not destroying some thing. -.- Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Pipa Porto
572
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 07:43:00 -
[1985] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Dave stark wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:Octoven wrote: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? A 50-dollar steel mallet destroys a $300,000 Ferrari. A 10-million-dollar torpedo boat destroys a billion-dollar cruise ship. A few tens of billions of dollars spent on developing a nuclear weapons program can wipe out a trillion-dollar nation. It's much easier to destroy than to create. Establishing parity between the costs of production and destruction is exactly the thing that an open-ended game like EVE does not need. your analogies are wrong because neither of those things happen in 30 seconds. You're right. Torpedo Travel time is much less than 30s. A Nuke's drop time is much less than 30s. A Sledgehammer will cause Tens of thousands of dollars in Damage in 30s. thousands of dollars of damage is not destroying some thing. -.-
Actually, with the right placement, you can destroy the engine in about 30s with a Sledgehammer. That means it can't drive, which I'd call destroyed.
And again, the Nuke and Torp are much faster than 30s. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
312
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 07:49:00 -
[1986] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:
Actually, with the right placement, you can destroy the engine in about 30s with a Sledgehammer. That means it can't drive, which I'd call destroyed.
And again, the Nuke and Torp are much faster than 30s.
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. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
baltec1
Bat Country
1732
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 08:01:00 -
[1987] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:
Actually, with the right placement, you can destroy the engine in about 30s with a Sledgehammer. That means it can't drive, which I'd call destroyed.
And again, the Nuke and Torp are much faster than 30s.
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.
Fleet line sheild ships have to give up all their utility slots to survive. Armour tanking cargoships have to give up cargo mods to tank. Sniper ships have togive up their tank ect ect. Miners are far from being alone in making these choices. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
312
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 08:06:00 -
[1988] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dave stark wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:
Actually, with the right placement, you can destroy the engine in about 30s with a Sledgehammer. That means it can't drive, which I'd call destroyed.
And again, the Nuke and Torp are much faster than 30s.
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. Fleet line sheild ships have to give up all their mids to survive. Armour tanking cargoships have to give up cargo mods to tank. Sniper ships have togive up their tank ect ect. Miners are far from being alone in making these choices.
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. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
759
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 08:10:00 -
[1989] - Quote
Dave stark wrote: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. DPS is DPS. Shooting a barge with a Catalyst that does 500 DPS is no different than shooting a faction battleship with a Catalyst that does 500 DPS. Both will take the same amount of damage from the Catalyst. The only difference is that the faction battleship pilot is more likely to not be ignorant in relation to the shooty aspects of this game, and fit his ship in a manner than would prevent a single 500 DPS Catalyst from destroying his ship.
Miners have always been able to do this as well; they simply chose not to.
Dave stark wrote:*shrug* i don't know. That about sums it up. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
312
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 08:16:00 -
[1990] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Dave stark wrote: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. DPS is DPS. Shooting a barge with a Catalyst that does 500 DPS is no different than shooting a faction battleship with a Catalyst that does 500 DPS. Both will take the same amount of damage from the Catalyst. The only difference is that the faction battleship pilot is more likely to not be ignorant in relation to the shooty aspects of this game, and fit his ship in a manner than would prevent a single 500 DPS Catalyst from destroying his ship. Miners have always been able to do this as well; they simply chose not to. Dave stark wrote:*shrug* i don't know. That about sums it up.
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. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
759
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 08:19:00 -
[1991] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:Dave stark wrote: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. DPS is DPS. Shooting a barge with a Catalyst that does 500 DPS is no different than shooting a faction battleship with a Catalyst that does 500 DPS. Both will take the same amount of damage from the Catalyst. The only difference is that the faction battleship pilot is more likely to not be ignorant in relation to the shooty aspects of this game, and fit his ship in a manner than would prevent a single 500 DPS Catalyst from destroying his ship. Miners have always been able to do this as well; they simply chose not to. Dave stark wrote:*shrug* i don't know. That about sums it up. 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. Quoting this just so you can't edit it out later. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
312
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 08:23:00 -
[1992] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Dave stark wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:Dave stark wrote: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. DPS is DPS. Shooting a barge with a Catalyst that does 500 DPS is no different than shooting a faction battleship with a Catalyst that does 500 DPS. Both will take the same amount of damage from the Catalyst. The only difference is that the faction battleship pilot is more likely to not be ignorant in relation to the shooty aspects of this game, and fit his ship in a manner than would prevent a single 500 DPS Catalyst from destroying his ship. Miners have always been able to do this as well; they simply chose not to. Dave stark wrote:*shrug* i don't know. That about sums it up. 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. Quoting this just so you can't edit it out later.
why would i? nothing i've said is incorrect. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
127
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 08:24:00 -
[1993] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Miners have always been able to do this as well; they simply chose not to.
WTB Retriever with T2 heavy missile launchers. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1745
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 08:27:00 -
[1994] - Quote
I wonder what will happen when CCP will proceed with Tiericide rebalancing far more "important" ships like nerfing Drakes, neutering Tengus and whatever easy mode is out there.
Will the forums hold or will they drown in the salty liquids? Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
March rabbit
R.I.P. Legion Red Alliance
218
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 08:31:00 -
[1995] - Quote
posting in 100500th thread: "i hate miners"
completely new theme! |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
759
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 08:31:00 -
[1996] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:Miners have always been able to do this as well; they simply chose not to. WTB Retriever with T2 heavy missile launchers. I'd like capital artillery on my Machariel as well.Of course, that will never happen, but my point remains that all ships capable of fitting modules can trade off role efficiency for defense.
March rabbit wrote:posting in 100500th thread: "i hate miners" This is completely new theme! We don't hate miners; we simply can't bring ourselves to sympathize with the stupid ones. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
2530
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 08:35:00 -
[1997] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:I wonder what will happen when CCP will proceed with Tiericide rebalancing far more "important" ships like nerfing Drakes, neutering Tengus and whatever easy mode is out there.
Will the forums hold or will they drown in the salty liquids?
There will be tears, but I'm not sure how much or what kind. The planned drake change looks like a welcome buff to me and CCP said they want all T3s to be more like the Tengu, so it'll propably end up being mostly a buff too. If things go as planned, most of those tears are going to be tears of happiness. |
March rabbit
R.I.P. Legion Red Alliance
218
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 08:44:00 -
[1998] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:March rabbit wrote:posting in 100500th thread: "i hate miners" This is completely new theme! We don't hate miners; we simply can't bring ourselves to sympathize with the stupid ones. there is nothing to be proud of when you CANNOT something. Only ability to do something makes you respected by others. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
759
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 08:59:00 -
[1999] - Quote
March rabbit wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:March rabbit wrote:posting in 100500th thread: "i hate miners" This is completely new theme! We don't hate miners; we simply can't bring ourselves to sympathize with the stupid ones. there is nothing to be proud of when you CANNOT something. Only ability to do something makes you respected by others. Should I not be proud of my inability to hate people of a specific race, or my inability to kill a person in cold blood for no specific reason? How about my inability to be a child molester? (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
314
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 09:02:00 -
[2000] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:March rabbit wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:March rabbit wrote:posting in 100500th thread: "i hate miners" This is completely new theme! We don't hate miners; we simply can't bring ourselves to sympathize with the stupid ones. there is nothing to be proud of when you CANNOT something. Only ability to do something makes you respected by others. Should I not be proud of my inability to hate people of a specific race, or my inability to kill a person in cold blood for no specific reason? How about my inability to be a child molester?
it's more commendable to be able to do some thing bad, and choose not to do it rather than not doing it because you can't. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
128
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 09:07:00 -
[2001] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:We don't hate miners; we simply can't bring ourselves to sympathize with the stupid ones.
"Miners are stupid because they fit strip miners instead of 48000mm artillery"
Tell us how you can do it then we probably fit our mining ships like that. |
Patrakele
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
72
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 09:07:00 -
[2002] - Quote
Love this thread. I bought extra tanks just to store the tears for later. Scrooge had a pool made out of money, I'll have a pool made out of tears. |
The D1ngo
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
36
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 09:07:00 -
[2003] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:March rabbit wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:March rabbit wrote:posting in 100500th thread: "i hate miners" This is completely new theme! We don't hate miners; we simply can't bring ourselves to sympathize with the stupid ones. there is nothing to be proud of when you CANNOT something. Only ability to do something makes you respected by others. Should I not be proud of my inability to hate people of a specific race, or my inability to kill a person in cold blood for no specific reason? How about my inability to be a child molester?
Noob!
|
Pipa Porto
573
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 09:16:00 -
[2004] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:We don't hate miners; we simply can't bring ourselves to sympathize with the stupid ones. "Miners are stupid because they fit strip miners instead of 48000mm artillery" Tell us how you can do it then we probably fit our mining ships like that.
No, Miners are stupid because they cba to fit a dang tank or fly their ships to avoid ganks.
Even if it were true that they can't fit enough tank to survive a profitable gank in .5 (it's not), there's no reason they can't head to safer space where the cost to gank them hovers around the cost of the ship. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
128
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 09:23:00 -
[2005] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:No, Miners are stupid because they cba to fit a dang tank or fly their ships to avoid ganks.
Even if it were true that they can't fit enough tank to survive a profitable gank in .5 (it's not), there's no reason they can't head to safer space where the cost to gank them hovers around the cost of the ship.
Answer the question.
Do you actually think 20 T2 fit Catalysts is neede in 1.0 space? How do you fit turrets/launcher to mining barges/exhumers? |
Pipa Porto
573
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 09:31:00 -
[2006] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:No, Miners are stupid because they cba to fit a dang tank or fly their ships to avoid ganks.
Even if it were true that they can't fit enough tank to survive a profitable gank in .5 (it's not), there's no reason they can't head to safer space where the cost to gank them hovers around the cost of the ship. Answer the question. Do you actually think 20 T2 fit Catalysts is needed in 1.0 space? How do you fit turrets/launcher to mining barges/exhumers?
Where did I say you could? Where did anyone say you could. The only reason you think someone said that is because you never learned how to figure out antecedents. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
128
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 09:33:00 -
[2007] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Where did I say you could? Where did anyone say you could. The only reason you think someone said that is because you never learned how to figure out antecedents.
Ever heard of "the best defense is a good offense"? |
Pipa Porto
573
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 09:34:00 -
[2008] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Where did I say you could? Where did anyone say you could. The only reason you think someone said that is because you never learned how to figure out antecedents. Ever heard of "the best defense is a good offense"?
Yep. Ever heard of "safety in numbers"? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
128
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 09:43:00 -
[2009] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Ever heard of "safety in numbers"?
Ever heard of "more dps in groups"? |
Hypercake Mix
Magical Rainbow Bakery
5
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 09:44:00 -
[2010] - Quote
'Grats everyone on this thread making it past 100 pages!
I doubt new miners find out that they need a 30k+ EHP tank until they're deep into mining skills first. In-game tutorials and such really only tell them about belt rats, which hit as hard as kittens. Even when they do find out, they have a whole week of buying and training skills before they can actually fit a decent tank. They're sure to hear about the amazing mining yield of the Hulk before hearing about needing that tank too.
Oh, did we all somehow overlook that fitting a tank involves awareness of needing said tank and requires points in fitting and tanking skills?
Sigh. I remember back when you needed to **** someone off to get ganked.
Then again, this is EVE. What they don't know powers our one-button bacon machines.
With the barge changes, I guess Mining can stay in the list of beginner career choices. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country
1736
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 09:53:00 -
[2011] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Ever heard of "safety in numbers"? Ever heard of "more dps in groups"?
Thats why you fit a tank. |
Asuka Solo
Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises
1578
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 09:55:00 -
[2012] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:We don't hate miners; we simply can't bring ourselves to sympathize with the stupid ones. "Miners are stupid because they fit strip miners instead of 48000mm artillery" Tell us how you can do it then we probably fit our mining ships like that. No, Miners are stupid because they cba to fit a dang tank or fly their ships to avoid ganks. Even if it were true that they can't fit enough tank to survive a profitable gank in .5 (it's not), there's no reason they can't head to safer space where the cost to gank them hovers around the cost of the ship.
Allow me to impart unto you this amazingly useful advise, handed down from generations of jihaddists who ran on the tears of hisec bears for the better half of a decade on forum topics whining about jihadding, only slightly adapted:
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 probably 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.
I've always wanted to say those things to whiny jihaddists.
The large, silent majority of the Eve community on the other hand, will try to not lose any sleep over this absolutely positive and long overdue change. It'll be hard, but somebody has to do it.
:D
|
Khanh'rhh
1645
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 09:58:00 -
[2013] - Quote
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. - "Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930's |
Pipa Porto
573
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 09:59:00 -
[2014] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Ever heard of "safety in numbers"? Ever heard of "more dps in groups"?
X Miners. 1 Tornado 2 volleying Catalysts as they GCC.
Safety. In Numbers. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
314
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 10:01:00 -
[2015] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Ever heard of "safety in numbers"? Ever heard of "more dps in groups"? Thats why you fit a tank.
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?
to fit a tank to a hulk you have to give up all of your non-high slots. you either end up relying on hull buffer with a damage control, or you have to give up a low for a power core thingy to fit a substantial shield tank.
a drake can easily get a substantial tank and still fit a rack of ballistic controls. a hulk can't fit a shield tank and even half the amount of mining upgrades a drake could fit in ballistic controls.
some thing needs to change whether it's a straight up ehp buff or a fitting upgrade. the current "tank your exhumer" thing is complete bullshit. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
314
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 10:02:00 -
[2016] - 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,
aaand i stopped reading there because we're talking about dps not ehp. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Pipa Porto
573
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 10:04:00 -
[2017] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:baltec1 wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Ever heard of "safety in numbers"? Ever heard of "more dps in groups"? Thats why you fit a tank. 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? to fit a tank to a hulk you have to give up all of your non-high slots. you either end up relying on hull buffer with a damage control, or you have to give up a low for a power core thingy to fit a substantial shield tank. a drake can easily get a substantial tank and still fit a rack of ballistic controls. a hulk can't fit a shield tank and even half the amount of mining upgrades a drake could fit in ballistic controls. some thing needs to change whether it's a straight up ehp buff or a fitting upgrade. the current "tank your exhumer" thing is complete bullshit.
Fit a Midslot/Rigslot Tank and MLUs and mine in 1.0space and you'll be fine.
The Special Snowflake brick tank is required only to counter a special snowflake team of many T1 Dessies in .5 space. Anywhere else, you can fit a smaller tank and still be unprofitable. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
128
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 10:07:00 -
[2018] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Thats why you fit a tank.
I prefer to fit my PVE ships for dps instead of max tank. Just enough tank that I can survive initial dps.
Pipa Porto wrote:Fit a Midslot/Rigslot Tank and MLUs and mine in 1.0space and you'll be fine.
For small payment I could do that. I'm not going to throw that suitcase out if I don't get payed. That needs effort, you know. |
Herr Hammer Draken
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
55
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 10:11:00 -
[2019] - 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. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
314
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 10:12:00 -
[2020] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Dave stark wrote:baltec1 wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Ever heard of "safety in numbers"? Ever heard of "more dps in groups"? Thats why you fit a tank. 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? to fit a tank to a hulk you have to give up all of your non-high slots. you either end up relying on hull buffer with a damage control, or you have to give up a low for a power core thingy to fit a substantial shield tank. a drake can easily get a substantial tank and still fit a rack of ballistic controls. a hulk can't fit a shield tank and even half the amount of mining upgrades a drake could fit in ballistic controls. some thing needs to change whether it's a straight up ehp buff or a fitting upgrade. the current "tank your exhumer" thing is complete bullshit. Fit a Midslot/Rigslot Tank and MLUs and mine in 1.0space and you'll be fine. The Special Snowflake brick tank is required only to counter a special snowflake team of many T1 Dessies in .5 space. Anywhere else, you can fit a smaller tank and still be unprofitable.
once you fit a t2 invuln and passive em hardener you're out of cpu with 2 spare mids. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country
1736
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 10:13:00 -
[2021] - Quote
Asuka Solo wrote:
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
We do stay alighned to escape if we kil the target in time to drag concord with us to a planet. We will bring more DPS ifyou are worth it EHP on a gank boat is as usefull as a chocolate fire guard Wardecs are still broken We had an intel channel for the ice interdictions We did set our standing for miner "protectors" We did set our overviews for ganking miners We do stay docked till concord get bored We will move to lowsec just as soon as the miners do We call these roaming gangs We also call these roaming gangs
|
Rashmika Clavain
Shadows Of The Federation Drunk 'n' Disorderly
15
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 10:15:00 -
[2022] - Quote
Asuka Solo wrote: 2) Stay aligned. Maybe you could gank somebody and warp off before concord gets you, if you have the skill
...not much point as if you go GCC in 0.5+, then you must lose your ship to Concorde.
:shrug: |
baltec1
Bat Country
1736
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 10:16:00 -
[2023] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:baltec1 wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Ever heard of "safety in numbers"? Ever heard of "more dps in groups"? Thats why you fit a tank. 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?
Intercepters, any hauler with expensive cargo, front line fleet armour ships, heavy tackle ectect. The intercepters dont even get to tank themselves if they wantto be usefull. |
Pipa Porto
573
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 10:21:00 -
[2024] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Pipa Porto wrote: Fit a Midslot/Rigslot Tank and MLUs and mine in 1.0space and you'll be fine.
The Special Snowflake brick tank is required only to counter a special snowflake team of many T1 Dessies in .5 space. Anywhere else, you can fit a smaller tank and still be unprofitable.
once you fit a t2 invuln and passive em hardener you're out of cpu with 2 spare mids.
If only there were some way to increase your CPU without using a Low slot...
What, you say there is?
Enough tank to require 2 Nados in 1.0
[Hulk, Hisec Mininh]
Mining Laser Upgrade II Mining Laser Upgrade II
Small F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Limited Adaptive Invulnerability Field I Limited Adaptive Invulnerability Field I Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
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 Processor Overclocking Unit I Medium Processor Overclocking Unit I
EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Major Bibi
9
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 10:21:00 -
[2025] - Quote
woow i never seen a thread grow so fast
I am still convinced that some of you gankers are just crying about the fact that ganking became suddenly so much harder for you
Well i have good news for you guys , there still will be plenty of people around who have no idea about the exhumer buff so you still will have plenty of targets for you
Apparantly only a relative large group of players never bother reading the forums or any devblog
so stop crying about it |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
314
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 10:22:00 -
[2026] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dave stark wrote:baltec1 wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Ever heard of "safety in numbers"? Ever heard of "more dps in groups"? Thats why you fit a tank. 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? Intercepters, any hauler with expensive cargo, front line fleet armour ships, heavy tackle ectect. The intercepters dont even get to tank themselves if they wantto be usefull.
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. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
128
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 10:26:00 -
[2027] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:front line fleet armour ships
Only armor tanking ships used in fleets are Hellcats aka arty Abaddons. I wouldn't call those "front line fleet armour ships". |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
314
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 10:27:00 -
[2028] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Dave stark wrote:Pipa Porto wrote: Fit a Midslot/Rigslot Tank and MLUs and mine in 1.0space and you'll be fine.
The Special Snowflake brick tank is required only to counter a special snowflake team of many T1 Dessies in .5 space. Anywhere else, you can fit a smaller tank and still be unprofitable.
once you fit a t2 invuln and passive em hardener you're out of cpu with 2 spare mids. If only there were some way to increase your CPU without using a Low slot... What, you say there is? Enough tank to require 2 Nados in 1.0 [Hulk, Hisec Mininh] Mining Laser Upgrade II Mining Laser Upgrade II Small F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Limited Adaptive Invulnerability Field I Limited Adaptive Invulnerability Field I Adaptive Invulnerability Field II 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 Processor Overclocking Unit I Medium Processor Overclocking Unit I
good point; forgot about those rigs. and now we have to give up a rig slot to mine ice the ehp buffs are totally justified.
Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
baltec1
Bat Country
1736
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 10:33:00 -
[2029] - Quote
Dave stark wrote: 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.
Speed tanking tends to stop working when you end up in web/neut/scram/rocket/light missile/light drone range.
Also armour industrials will warp much faster than an orca. |
Pipa Porto
573
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 10:35:00 -
[2030] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:
good point; forgot about those rigs. and now we have to give up a rig slot to mine ice the ehp buffs are totally justified.
Nope. Because now you have the Skiff. If you're worried about suicide ganking, you use the Skiff. The Mack and Hulk are for other situations where you're not worried about it. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
128
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 10:36:00 -
[2031] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Dave stark wrote:
good point; forgot about those rigs. and now we have to give up a rig slot to mine ice the ehp buffs are totally justified.
Nope. Because now you have the Skiff. If you're worried about suicide ganking, you use the Skiff. The Mack and Hulk are for other situations where you're not worried about it.
So now Mack is fleet ship too? |
baltec1
Bat Country
1736
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 10:37:00 -
[2032] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote: So now Mack is fleet ship too?
Nope, just not as good as the skiff. |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1201
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 10:38:00 -
[2033] - Quote
how is this thread over 100 pages?
jeez guys My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
Pipa Porto
574
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 10:38:00 -
[2034] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Dave stark wrote:
good point; forgot about those rigs. and now we have to give up a rig slot to mine ice the ehp buffs are totally justified.
Nope. Because now you have the Skiff. If you're worried about suicide ganking, you use the Skiff. The Mack and Hulk are for other situations where you're not worried about it. So now Mack is fleet ship too?
Nope it's a Solo ship. It's not just an AFK ship. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
128
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 10:41:00 -
[2035] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Dave stark wrote:
good point; forgot about those rigs. and now we have to give up a rig slot to mine ice the ehp buffs are totally justified.
Nope. Because now you have the Skiff. If you're worried about suicide ganking, you use the Skiff. The Mack and Hulk are for other situations where you're not worried about it. So now Mack is fleet ship too? Nope it's a Solo ship. It's not just an AFK ship.
Now it's solo ship meant for AFK'ing in fleet? |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
314
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 10:42:00 -
[2036] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Dave stark wrote:
good point; forgot about those rigs. and now we have to give up a rig slot to mine ice the ehp buffs are totally justified.
Nope. Because now you have the Skiff. If you're worried about suicide ganking, you use the Skiff. The Mack and Hulk are for other situations where you're not worried about it.
just because it's not a tank ship shouldn't mean it can't fit a tank. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1201
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 10:43:00 -
[2037] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:just because it's not a tank ship shouldn't mean it can't fit a tank.
Go look up the tier 3 battlecruisers
just TRY and fit a tank to those
You can try, but its a fairly pointless exercise My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
128
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 10:45:00 -
[2038] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:Dave stark wrote:just because it's not a tank ship shouldn't mean it can't fit a tank. Go look up the tier 3 battlecruisers just TRY and fit a tank to those You can try, but its a fairly pointless exercise edit - waitwaitwait.... im not beign drawn into this therad again you almost had me
Try Talos with ASB... |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
315
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 10:45:00 -
[2039] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:Dave stark wrote:just because it's not a tank ship shouldn't mean it can't fit a tank. Go look up the tier 3 battlecruisers just TRY and fit a tank to those You can try, but its a fairly pointless exercise edit - waitwaitwait.... im not being drawn into this thread again you almost had me
and when i can fit a new type of strip miner to my hulk with a 1000m3 yield, i'll gladly give up my tank on my hulk. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
baltec1
Bat Country
1736
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 10:46:00 -
[2040] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:
just because it's not a tank ship shouldn't mean it can't fit a tank.
Problem with tis argument is that it can fit a tank. |
|
Tobiaz
Spacerats
673
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 10:46:00 -
[2041] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Zagdul wrote:Gone are the days where EVE is a dangerous place. I seem to have missed the part when they made all player ships immune to damage. 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.
It damn well SHOULD be profitable!!!
High risk of getting ganked is pretty much the ONLY balancing factor for flying no-tank-all-yield mining barges. Instead of having to choose between low-risk and profitability, you're now simply handing the miners both. *facepalm*
And what's up with all the miners cheering for this? With all the stupid/greedy/lazy miners being weeded out by gankers, the smarter 'third pig' miners are making a LOT more money. Perhaps you should stop being so stubborn on trying to be piggie #1 and #2, complaining about wolves. Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
315
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 10:47:00 -
[2042] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dave stark wrote:
just because it's not a tank ship shouldn't mean it can't fit a tank.
Problem with tis argument is that it can fit a tank.
except it can't without both rigs, which is exactly the point. when mining ice you can't fit the tank. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
759
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 10:47:00 -
[2043] - Quote
Major Bibi wrote:I am still convinced that some of you gankers are just crying about the fact that ganking became suddenly so much harder for you Not harder, just requires more people; the difficulty level remains the same. CCP wants to nerf ganking through exclusion, because the only other way to do it would be through a high-sec aggression nerf, which they want to gradually build up to, instead of dumping it on us in one go. Expect this to come sometime in 2014. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
315
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 10:48:00 -
[2044] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Zagdul wrote:Gone are the days where EVE is a dangerous place. I seem to have missed the part when they made all player ships immune to damage. 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. It damn well SHOULD be profitable!!! High risk of getting ganked is pretty much the ONLY balancing factor for flying no-tank-all-yield mining barges. Instead of having to choose between low-risk and profitability, you're now simply handing the miners both. *facepalm* And what's up with all the miners cheering for this? With all the stupid/greedy/lazy miners being weeded out by gankers, the smarter 'third pig' miners are making a LOT more money. Perhaps you should stop being so stubborn on trying to be piggie #1 and #2, complaining about wolves.
you aren't stopped from ganking miners. you're just going to have to actually incur a loss to do so. just like you have to incur a loss to gank a freighter.
the difference is a freighter can carry enough cargo to make it worth your while; a hulk doesn't. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
baltec1
Bat Country
1736
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 10:49:00 -
[2045] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:
except it can't without both rigs, which is exactly the point. when mining ice you can't fit the tank.
No, when mining ice to it fullest you must fit a smaller tank. If you want the best safety get a skiff. |
Pipa Porto
574
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 10:50:00 -
[2046] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Dave stark wrote:
good point; forgot about those rigs. and now we have to give up a rig slot to mine ice the ehp buffs are totally justified.
Nope. Because now you have the Skiff. If you're worried about suicide ganking, you use the Skiff. The Mack and Hulk are for other situations where you're not worried about it. just because it's not a tank ship shouldn't mean it can't fit a tank.
There are 3 factors in a mining ship.
Yield Cargo Tank
After a certain amount, Tank doesn't matter because you become expensive to gank.
The current SISI Mack is over that number, so the Skiff's tank is irrelevant. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
315
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 10:51:00 -
[2047] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dave stark wrote:
except it can't without both rigs, which is exactly the point. when mining ice you can't fit the tank.
No, when mining ice to it fullest you must fit a smaller tank. If you want the best safety get a skiff.
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? Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Cloned S0ul
Blood Fanatics
171
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 10:52:00 -
[2048] - Quote
Posting in epic whine therad because of barges
Best tears harvest times ever. Teemo for president. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
315
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 10:52:00 -
[2049] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Dave stark wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Dave stark wrote:
good point; forgot about those rigs. and now we have to give up a rig slot to mine ice the ehp buffs are totally justified.
Nope. Because now you have the Skiff. If you're worried about suicide ganking, you use the Skiff. The Mack and Hulk are for other situations where you're not worried about it. just because it's not a tank ship shouldn't mean it can't fit a tank. There are 3 factors in a mining ship. Yield Cargo Tank After a certain amount, Tank doesn't matter because you become expensive to gank. The current SISI Mack is over that number, so the Skiff's tank is irrelevant.
no, there are 2. cargo has been removed from that equation since the dawn of time with jetcans and now with ore bays.
great so ccp have failed at balancing the ships; how does that relate to actually being able to fit a tank to a ship to begin with? Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
561
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 10:53:00 -
[2050] - Quote
103 barrels of ganker tears, I'd say this must be a good year !! -that stuff's gonna be hot ! brb |
|
baltec1
Bat Country
1736
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 10:55:00 -
[2051] - Quote
Dave stark wrote: 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?
Thats because barges are not combat ships. They are only for mining and thus, fit differently to combat ships. Problem with miners is that they think that they should get the max yeild and still be able to have a good tank. No other ship can do this so why should miners? |
baltec1
Bat Country
1736
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 10:57:00 -
[2052] - Quote
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:103 barrels of ganker tears, I'd say this must be a good year !! -that stuff's gonna be hot !
Gankers are quite happy with the changes to the barges, its the miners who are whining because we can still gank them for profit if they fail to fit a tank or pick the skiff. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
128
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 10:58:00 -
[2053] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Thats because barges are not combat ships. They are only for mining and thus, fit differently to combat ships. Problem with miners is that they think that they should get the max yeild and still be able to have a good tank. No other ship can do this so why should miners?
And you can stop me from using ceptor as hauler or missioning in recon? |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
315
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 10:58:00 -
[2054] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dave stark wrote: 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?
Thats because barges are not combat ships. They are only for mining and thus, fit differently to combat ships. Problem with miners is that they think that they should get the max yeild and still be able to have a good tank. No other ship can do this so why should miners?
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. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
340
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 11:01:00 -
[2055] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Asuka Solo wrote:Almost 100 pages of griefer tears.
Awesome. Please point out an example of such tears. Start at Page 1 with Post #1. Go from there.
|
Pipa Porto
574
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 11:03:00 -
[2056] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:baltec1 wrote:Thats because barges are not combat ships. They are only for mining and thus, fit differently to combat ships. Problem with miners is that they think that they should get the max yeild and still be able to have a good tank. No other ship can do this so why should miners? And you can stop me from using ceptor as hauler or missioning in recon?
Of course we can't stop you, but we can gank you if you do. Ceptors and Recons who aren't paying attention are really easy to gank (especially since your Recon will have to be active tanked). EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
561
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 11:04:00 -
[2057] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:103 barrels of ganker tears, I'd say this must be a good year !! -that stuff's gonna be hot ! Gankers are quite happy with the changes to the barges, its the miners who are whining because we can still gank them for profit if they fail to fit a tank or pick the skiff.
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.
brb |
baltec1
Bat Country
1736
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 11:05:00 -
[2058] - Quote
Dave stark wrote: 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.
You can shoot them because they are a ship and this is EVE.
[Hulk, Impossible mids] Mining Laser Upgrade II Mining Laser Upgrade II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field I Small F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Upgraded EM Ward Amplifier I Rock-Scanning Sensor Array I
Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal I Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal I Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Yep, impossible |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
128
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 11:06:00 -
[2059] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:baltec1 wrote:Thats because barges are not combat ships. They are only for mining and thus, fit differently to combat ships. Problem with miners is that they think that they should get the max yeild and still be able to have a good tank. No other ship can do this so why should miners? And you can stop me from using ceptor as hauler or missioning in recon? Of course we can't stop you, but we can gank you if you do. Ceptors and Recons who aren't paying attention are really easy to gank (especially since your Recon will have to be active tanked).
And because of that Pilgrim is such a terrible all-in-one exploration ship...
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Pilgrim#Excellent_at_Solo_Exploration |
baltec1
Bat Country
1738
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 11:07:00 -
[2060] - Quote
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
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.
Oh yes, the stupids will cry and I look forwards to them ramming into my skiff when the changes go live. |
|
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
315
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 11:07:00 -
[2061] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dave stark wrote: 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.
You can shoot them because they are a ship and this is EVE. [Hulk, Impossible mids] Mining Laser Upgrade II Mining Laser Upgrade II Adaptive Invulnerability Field I Small F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Upgraded EM Ward Amplifier I Rock-Scanning Sensor Array I Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal I Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal I Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Yep, impossible
i can't even be bothered to pyfa that to see how much ehp it has, besides it's almost lunch time. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
baltec1
Bat Country
1738
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 11:09:00 -
[2062] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:
i can't even be bothered to pyfa that to see how much ehp it has, besides it's almost lunch time.
Enough to laugh at 4 catalysts in 0.7 space. |
TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc Elysian Empire
173
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 11:10:00 -
[2063] - Quote
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, greyscales awful ideas for crimewatch, etc. |
baltec1
Bat Country
1738
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 11:11:00 -
[2064] - Quote
TheGunslinger42 wrote: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.
Gotta start somewhere. |
OmniBeton
OmniBeton Metatech
13
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 11:13:00 -
[2065] - Quote
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 ! |
Pipa Porto
574
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 11:13:00 -
[2066] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:baltec1 wrote:Thats because barges are not combat ships. They are only for mining and thus, fit differently to combat ships. Problem with miners is that they think that they should get the max yeild and still be able to have a good tank. No other ship can do this so why should miners? And you can stop me from using ceptor as hauler or missioning in recon? Of course we can't stop you, but we can gank you if you do. Ceptors and Recons who aren't paying attention are really easy to gank (especially since your Recon will have to be active tanked). And because of that Pilgrim is such a terrible all-in-one exploration ship...
AFK Exploration Pilgrims in a site* are pretty easy to gank. Just like AFK Mining ships. If you're ATK and flying it properly, a mining barge will be safe, just like an ATK Pilgrim.
*The situation that Miners put themselves in. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
128
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 11:16:00 -
[2067] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:AFK Exploration Pilgrims in a site* are pretty easy to gank. Just like AFK Mining ships. If you're ATK and flying it properly, a mining barge will be safe, just like an ATK Pilgrim.
I've been AFK many times in my Pilgrim. In safe spot, cloaked... I've been AFK in covops during war and war targets in same system. In safe spot, cloaked...
And they keep whining about how I don't know what PvP means... |
baltec1
Bat Country
1738
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 11:17:00 -
[2068] - Quote
OmniBeton wrote: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 !
We have. |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
561
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 11:17:00 -
[2069] - Quote
TheGunslinger42 wrote: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, greyscales awful ideas for crimewatch, etc.
I'd like to see those hardcore crybabies move on to show how important they are and how fast eve would die. Please do it, stop doing your jelly bad kid who stop breathing to get some attention, act like real men do and move on, show you are able to take decisions instead of moaning and bitching.
!!!!! brb |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
55
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 11:21:00 -
[2070] - Quote
I really dont understand why anyone would fly a skiff (to mine in, lots of comedy PVP possibilities though) or fit tanking mods after these changes - the only purpose of tank on a mining ship is, realistically, to deter suicide gankers and that simply wont be necessary anymore after the changes go live. |
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
128
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 11:24:00 -
[2071] - Quote
Lallante wrote:I really dont understand why anyone would fly a skiff (to mine in, lots of comedy PVP possibilities though) or fit tanking mods after these changes - the only purpose of tank on a mining ship is, realistically, to deter suicide gankers and that simply wont be necessary anymore after the changes go live.
You can be sure about that I'll use one during next Hulkageddon. Just to annoy these whiney gankers. Yes, gankers... I'll do it just for you. |
TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc Elysian Empire
173
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 11:24:00 -
[2072] - Quote
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:TheGunslinger42 wrote: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, greyscales awful ideas for crimewatch, etc. I'd like to see those hardcore crybabies move on to show how important they are and how fast eve would die. Please do it, stop doing your jelly bad kid who stop breathing to get some attention, act like real men do and move on, show you are able to take decisions instead of moaning and bitching. !!!!!
Except it isn't a case of that kind of player leaving and eve dying, it's more of a slow gradual shift in the type of player. Some of the more pvp-driven types may leave, but more wowcrowd will move in if enough hand-holding changes are implemented. EVE will survive, it'll just be different.
As for the barges - they did need rebalancing, the main issue was that they were all pretty much useless compared to the hulk. Giving the others a bit of a boost or specialties is a good idea, but the amount all the barges have been buffed is utterly silly. As have been some of the crimewatch ideas like making you a global criminal that anyone can shoot if you dare to do something as minor as steal one trit from a can, or the invulnerable remote logis... but Failwatch is another thread entirely though. |
Pipa Porto
575
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 11:46:00 -
[2073] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:AFK Exploration Pilgrims in a site* are pretty easy to gank. Just like AFK Mining ships. If you're ATK and flying it properly, a mining barge will be safe, just like an ATK Pilgrim. I've been AFK many times in my Pilgrim. In safe spot, cloaked... I've been AFK in covops during war and war targets in same system. In safe spot, cloaked... And they keep whining about how I don't know what PvP means...
Made much Isk while Cloaked?
You're comparing Mining AFK to Doing nothing AFK.
Mining AFK is to Being in an Exploration Site, shooting at rats AFK (Income, Risk) as Being Cloaked AFK is to being AFK in a station in a Barge (No Income, No Risk) EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
128
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 12:07:00 -
[2074] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Being Cloaked AFK is to being AFK in a station in a Barge (No Income, No Risk)
There's a risk when you are in safe spot and cloaked. People can still find you. |
baltec1
Bat Country
1739
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 12:10:00 -
[2075] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Being Cloaked AFK is to being AFK in a station in a Barge (No Income, No Risk) There's a risk when you are in safe spot and cloaked. People can still find you.
They also stand about the same chance of having a meteorite hit them in the gonads. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
128
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 12:15:00 -
[2076] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Being Cloaked AFK is to being AFK in a station in a Barge (No Income, No Risk) There's a risk when you are in safe spot and cloaked. People can still find you. They also stand about the same chance of having a meteorite hit them in the gonads.
So? It's not my job to make their fun easier. It's still PvP. |
Jerick Ludhowe
Toxic Waste Industries
118
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 12:52:00 -
[2077] - Quote
I'm must say that the barges have too much ehp in this new iteration. First, they are reaching heavily tanked BC levels of ehp. This is rather silly for game play and also rather unimmersive. Now I agree with soundwave that things were busted and suicide ganking was getting somewhat silly however I think this has gone a bit too far.... I think we need to scale back some of these hp increases by a little bit. Barges with 80k+ ehp is worse for eve than barges easily popped by a couple thrashers. |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
93
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 13:08:00 -
[2078] - Quote
rodyas wrote: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?
No, everyone has some degree of risk aversion and those things are pretty much the thing not to lose so it'll just mean more people logged out in super caps. Goonwaffe is now recruiting feel free to message me in game for information about joining! |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
128
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 13:15:00 -
[2079] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:rodyas wrote: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? No, everyone has some degree of risk aversion and those things are pretty much the thing not to lose so it'll just mean more people logged out in super caps.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZDME4zZdMQ |
Shalua Rui
FEROX AQUILA
3
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 13:18:00 -
[2080] - Quote
Ok... let's pretend for one second that the practice of "suicide ganking" isn't the completly invantile attempt of a bored part of the community, to give a giant middle finger to the systems of a game they should have stopped playing long ago...
... and let's think about what logical reactions this kind of incidents would provoke in game lore terms. Aside from a complete, military lockdown of Jita, ORE R&D departments would most probably work non stop to make their ships more resilient, so their customers could protect themselfes better from those terrorist attacks.
That's my logical conclusion, atleast... |
|
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
93
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 13:22:00 -
[2081] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:baltec1 wrote:Dave stark wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:
Actually, with the right placement, you can destroy the engine in about 30s with a Sledgehammer. That means it can't drive, which I'd call destroyed.
And again, the Nuke and Torp are much faster than 30s.
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. Fleet line sheild ships have to give up all their mids to survive. Armour tanking cargoships have to give up cargo mods to tank. Sniper ships have togive up their tank ect ect. Miners are far from being alone in making these choices. 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.
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
Goonwaffe is now recruiting feel free to message me in game for information about joining! |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1500
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 13:40:00 -
[2082] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:La Nariz wrote:rodyas wrote: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? No, everyone has some degree of risk aversion and those things are pretty much the thing not to lose so it'll just mean more people logged out in super caps. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZDME4zZdMQ
why do publords keep linking that video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAB6UxUo-rc EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
129
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 13:48:00 -
[2083] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAB6UxUo-rc
Nice, Drakes killing supers. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
760
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 13:55:00 -
[2084] - Quote
OmniBeton wrote: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 ! We've been doing that after every single change that has been made in favor of high-sec safety. There have been numerous CONCORD buffs, security status nerfs, war declaration nerfs, etc. etc. throughout the years. Meanwhile, the only way [most] miners adapted was by whining about the newest flavor-of-the-month threat that emerged after the previous one was "patched up."
TheGunslinger42 wrote: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, greyscales awful ideas for crimewatch, etc. Unfortunately, I agree with this 100%. CCP has tasted a moderate degree of success and now wants WoW in space, and we're not the WoW in space demographic. I've been an active player for over eight years, and I often think about how stunningly casual this game is becoming. Tens, if not hundreds of changes that have boosted safety (not just in high-sec, but in places like null as well), while changes that boosted the element of danger can be counted on one hand, with fingers to spare. Things really picked up the pace when the Privateers were nerfed into oblivion. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1501
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 13:55:00 -
[2085] - Quote
i understand that you're a hisec hulk miner with ~opinions~
but please don't think that your opinions based on evenews24 articles are worth anything EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Danny Diamonds
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 13:58:00 -
[2086] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Asuka Solo wrote:Almost 100 pages of griefer tears.
Awesome. Please point out an example of such tears.
There is easily 25 posts in the first few pages of this thread where gankers and gank supporters are crying about the proposed changes. How could you miss them? |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
760
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 14:04:00 -
[2087] - Quote
Danny Diamonds wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Asuka Solo wrote:Almost 100 pages of griefer tears.
Awesome. Please point out an example of such tears. There is easily 25 posts in the first few pages of this thread where gankers and gank supporters are crying about the proposed changes. How could you miss them? Even if the gankers are indeed crying about the changes, the people who so helpfully point it out seem to overlook the decade of crying they themselves have done about anything and everyone that has impeded their ability to mission/mine/circlejerk in peace. It's basically a case of the pot calling the kettle a severely derogatory racial epithet. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Smohq Anmirorz
State War Academy Caldari State
28
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 14:07:00 -
[2088] - Quote
Major Bibi wrote:woow i never seen a thread grow so fast
I am still convinced that some of you gankers are just crying about the fact that ganking became suddenly so much harder for you
Well i have good news for you guys , there still will be plenty of people around who have no idea about the exhumer buff so you still will have plenty of targets for you
Apparantly only a relative large group of players never bother reading the forums or any devblog
so stop crying about it
I keep seeing comments about how fast this thread has grown. It is only because of comment #60. I saw that and knew right away this was the forum storm of the year.
From comment #60:
"Suicide ganking wasn't designed to be profitable" CCP Soundwave
If you shout at the top of your lungs, you might hear yourself over the incredibly loud discussion going on here. |
Danny Diamonds
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 14:10:00 -
[2089] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:103 barrels of ganker tears, I'd say this must be a good year !! -that stuff's gonna be hot ! Gankers are quite happy with the changes to the barges, its the miners who are whining because we can still gank them for profit if they fail to fit a tank or pick the skiff.
What?! |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1501
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 14:11:00 -
[2090] - Quote
Smohq Anmirorz wrote:I keep seeing comments about how fast this thread has grown. It is only because of comment #60. I saw that and knew right away this was the forum storm of the year.
From comment #60:
"Suicide ganking wasn't designed to be profitable" CCP Soundwave
If you shout at the top of your lungs, you might hear yourself over the incredibly loud discussion going on here.
soundwave can say anything he wants to try to put some fluff around the fact that they're screwing the risk/reward balance of the game for the n+1st time
i'm really not sure if he's trying to convince us or himself when he says "well you'll still be able to shoot people in hisec so it's still risky to be there even though we're doing everything we can to discourage it heh!" EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
129
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 14:11:00 -
[2091] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Even if the gankers are indeed crying about the changes, the people who so helpfully point it out seem to overlook the decade of crying they themselves have done about anything and everyone that has impeded their ability to mission/mine/circlejerk in peace. It's basically a case of the pot calling the kettle a severely derogatory racial epithet.
Nobody is forcing you to play... |
Werst Dendenahzees
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
102
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 14:16:00 -
[2092] - Quote
Shalua Rui wrote:Ok... let's pretend for one second that the practice of "suicide ganking" isn't the completly invantile attempt of a bored part of the community, to give a giant middle finger to the systems of a game they should have stopped playing long ago...
... and let's think about what logical reactions this kind of incidents would provoke in game lore terms. Aside from a complete, military lockdown of Jita, ORE R&D departments would most probably work non stop to make their ships more resilient, so their customers could protect themselfes better from those terrorist attacks.
That's my logical conclusion, atleast...
Why would they?
Why would the Caldari lock down Jita? Burning capsuleers ships in Jita is good for business. Why would ORE make more resilient ships? They profited from Hulkageddon. All those miners had to replace their exhumers.
Roleplay cuts both ways. |
Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy Black Sun Alliance
307
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 14:22:00 -
[2093] - Quote
Sort of disapointed in ccp for reducing the hulk shield back another 500.. the way it was it didn't even have as much EHP as a T1 battlecrusier... not it's less than half... for a T2 cruiser of any type this seem short sighted. [IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG] |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1501
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 14:23:00 -
[2094] - Quote
Barbara Nichole wrote:Sort of disapointed in ccp for reducing the hulk shield back another 500.. the way it was it didn't even have as much EHP as a T1 battlecrusier... not it's less than half... for a T2 cruiser of any type this seem short sighted.
maybe the miners should fit these things called "shield extenders" and "hardeners" instead of having a tank given to them on a silver platter
sorry if you can't make such tough choices like "15% more yield or 300% better tank" EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Shalua Rui
FEROX AQUILA
8
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 14:25:00 -
[2095] - Quote
Werst Dendenahzees wrote:Why would they?
Why would the Caldari lock down Jita? Burning capsuleers ships in Jita is good for business. Why would ORE make more resilient ships? They profited from Hulkageddon. All those miners had to replace their exhumers.
Roleplay cuts both ways.
You might think so, hu...
Well, make a real world comparison then: What do you think how many mining companies would go out of business when terrorists would start attacking them specifically and in force... what would that do to international industry? Material shortages, sky rocketing prices on anything manufactured out of metal, you get the picture.
In game terms: Sure, ORE would sell more ships in the short run, but if it kept going, they would run out of materials to MAKE these new ships, resulting in higher prices, and before long, the miners wouldn't be able to by the increasingly expensive ships... |
Werst Dendenahzees
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
102
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 14:26:00 -
[2096] - Quote
Shalua Rui wrote:Werst Dendenahzees wrote:Why would they?
Why would the Caldari lock down Jita? Burning capsuleers ships in Jita is good for business. Why would ORE make more resilient ships? They profited from Hulkageddon. All those miners had to replace their exhumers.
Roleplay cuts both ways. You might think so, hu... Well, make a real world comparison then: What do you think how many mining companies would go out of business when terrorists would start attacking them specifically and in force... what would that do to international industry? Material shortages, sky rocketing prices on anything manufactured out of metal, you get the picture. In game terms: Sure, ORE would sell more ships in the short run, but if it kept going, they would run out of materials to MAKE these new ships, resulting in higher prices, and before long, the miners wouldn't be able to by the increasingly expensive ships...
The difference being that New Eden is an hilarious crapsack world of rampant capitalism. |
Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy Black Sun Alliance
307
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 14:28:00 -
[2097] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Smohq Anmirorz wrote:I keep seeing comments about how fast this thread has grown. It is only because of comment #60. I saw that and knew right away this was the forum storm of the year.
From comment #60:
"Suicide ganking wasn't designed to be profitable" CCP Soundwave
If you shout at the top of your lungs, you might hear yourself over the incredibly loud discussion going on here. soundwave can say anything he wants to try to put some fluff around the fact that they're screwing the risk/reward balance of the game for the n+1st time i'm really not sure if he's trying to convince us or himself when he says "well you'll still be able to shoot people in hisec so it's still risky to be there even though we're doing everything we can to discourage it heh!"
hogwash, this change was long overdue.. and the risk for reward has been out of wack in the favor of combat null sec for too long .. concidering especially that for years we've been hearing from the same people crying now that high sec is not safe, then they proved it.. So when can we expect that reward nerf to be lifted? never ? Well then the new improvement to barges seems very fair. [IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG] |
Werst Dendenahzees
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
102
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 14:29:00 -
[2098] - Quote
Read the chronicles, hardwirings and popular sodas are made out of people.
Ayn Rand would be proud. |
Werst Dendenahzees
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
102
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 14:30:00 -
[2099] - Quote
Barbara Nichole wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Smohq Anmirorz wrote:I keep seeing comments about how fast this thread has grown. It is only because of comment #60. I saw that and knew right away this was the forum storm of the year.
From comment #60:
"Suicide ganking wasn't designed to be profitable" CCP Soundwave
If you shout at the top of your lungs, you might hear yourself over the incredibly loud discussion going on here. soundwave can say anything he wants to try to put some fluff around the fact that they're screwing the risk/reward balance of the game for the n+1st time i'm really not sure if he's trying to convince us or himself when he says "well you'll still be able to shoot people in hisec so it's still risky to be there even though we're doing everything we can to discourage it heh!" hogwash, this change was long overdue.. and the risk for reward has been out of wack in the favor of combat null sec for too long .. concidering especially that for years we've been hearing from the same people crying now that high sec is not safe, then they proved it.. So when can we expect that reward nerf to be lifted? never ? Well then the new improvement to barges seems very fair.
Are you even in Nullsec? There's no real money to be had compared to running level 4 missions forever, unless you rat in a carrier. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
129
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 14:40:00 -
[2100] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:maybe the miners should fit these things called "shield extenders" and "hardeners" instead of having a tank given to them on a silver platter
sorry if you can't make such tough choices like "15% more yield or 300% better tank"
What kind of tank you would suggest?
This fit has 22k EHP with current stats on SiSi.
[Hulk, Tank Fit]
Damage Control II Micro Auxiliary Power Core II
Medium F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Limited Adaptive Invulnerability Field I
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 Ancillary Current Router I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I |
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
761
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 14:42:00 -
[2101] - Quote
Shalua Rui wrote:You might think so, hu...
Well, make a real world comparison then: What do you think how many mining companies would go out of business when terrorists would start attacking them specifically and in force... what would that do to international industry? Material shortages, sky rocketing prices on anything manufactured out of metal, you get the picture. Unlike that of real life, EVE's economy exists solely because the window gets broken over and over again. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Shalua Rui
FEROX AQUILA
9
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 14:50:00 -
[2102] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Unlike that of real life, EVE's economy exists solely because the window gets broken over and over again.
Ok, true, that's one reason why I always thought ALL ships should need maintainance and fuel... oh well.^^ |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1501
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 14:52:00 -
[2103] - Quote
Barbara Nichole wrote:hogwash, this change was long overdue.. and the risk for reward has been out of wack in the favor of combat null sec for too long .. concidering especially that for years we've been hearing from the same people crying now that high sec is not safe, then they proved it..
lmao
man i'm glad we don't have to deal with suicide ganks in "combat null-sec," we only have to deal with bubbles, bombs, hotdrops and the threat of losing space
suicide ganks are where it gets ~real~, there's no way to kill a 2k ehp catalyst before it kills you EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
129
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 14:53:00 -
[2104] - Quote
Werst Dendenahzees wrote:Are you even in Nullsec? There's no real money to be had compared to running level 4 missions forever, unless you rat in a carrier.
I've heard you can get 60M/hr ratting. Plus officer spawns... Can be solo'd too. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
761
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 14:57:00 -
[2105] - Quote
Shalua Rui wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:Unlike that of real life, EVE's economy exists solely because the window gets broken over and over again. Ok, true, that's one reason why I always thought ALL ships should need maintainance and fuel... oh well.^^ Well, I'm glad you agree with that, because a lot of people don't. Those people view pvpers as an unwanted scourge that hurts their assumed capability for limitless innovation in this game, instead of seeing them as saviors who give their activities of choices the meager meanings they have. In the best case scenario, they just wish that we'd all leave to null and have ourselves some honoUrable pvp death matches so that the demand for the crap they produce doesn't diminish.
They want to profit, but they don't want to be liable for some of the risk that gives industry its purpose. It's these people who are responsible for the type of changes CCP has been implementing lately. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
stoicfaux
1346
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 14:57:00 -
[2106] - Quote
Meh, relying on CCP to buff, nerf and otherwise pick sides in the gankers versus miners drama is bad design. Defending or killing miners really should be up to the players. IMO, CCP should have used the CrimeWatch overhaul to fix the ganking problem, specifically by making the criminal flag permanent. If you want to gank someone, go for it, but don't be surprised if the rest of the community/faction hunts you down, sanctions you, revokes your docking privileges, and denies access to station services for being such a twit.
You can tell me what is and isn't Truth when you pry the tinfoil from my cold, lifeless head.
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1501
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 14:57:00 -
[2107] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Werst Dendenahzees wrote:Are you even in Nullsec? There's no real money to be had compared to running level 4 missions forever, unless you rat in a carrier. I've heard you can get 60M/hr ratting. Plus officer spawns... Can be solo'd too.
yeah because everyone gets an officer spawn
60m/hr ratting is nothing compared to grinding the incursion equivalent of l2 missions for 120m/hr EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1501
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 14:58:00 -
[2108] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Meh, relying on CCP to buff, nerf and otherwise pick sides in the gankers versus miners drama is bad design. Defending or killing miners really should be up to the players. IMO, CCP should have used the CrimeWatch overhaul fix the ganking problem, specifically by making the criminal flag permanent. If you want to gank someone, go for it, but don't be surprised if the rest of the community/faction hunts you down, sanctions you, revokes your docking privileges, and denies access to station services for being such a twit.
hahaha get out
let me familiarize you with how sec status works
or i'll just rephrase your dumb ideas: "please make hisec 100% risk-free" EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
130
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 14:59:00 -
[2109] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:60m/hr ratting is nothing compared to grinding the incursion equivalent of l2 missions for 120m/hr
Even if you blitz L4s you can't get 120M/hr. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
761
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:00:00 -
[2110] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Meh, relying on CCP to buff, nerf and otherwise pick sides in the gankers versus miners drama is bad design. Defending or killing miners really should be up to the players. IMO, CCP should have used the CrimeWatch overhaul fix the ganking problem, specifically by making the criminal flag permanent. If you want to gank someone, go for it, but don't be surprised if the rest of the community/faction hunts you down, sanctions you, revokes your docking privileges, and denies access to station services for being such a twit.
Tradable kill rights would accomplish the exact same thing. As far as permanent crime flags, a few barge ganks will already put you below -5, making you a free target for anyone, anywhere. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1501
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:01:00 -
[2111] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:60m/hr ratting is nothing compared to grinding the incursion equivalent of l2 missions for 120m/hr Even if you blitz L4s you can't get 120M/hr.
running vanguards with a non-horrible fleet gets you that, if not more, with ease
and there's literally no risk because even if dudes in blackbirds start suicide jamming logis, CCP will just nerf suicide ECM EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
130
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:02:00 -
[2112] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:or i'll just rephrase your dumb ideas: "please make hisec 100% risk-free"
Says someone who wants Concord and station/gate guns removed from hisec. |
Danny Diamonds
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:02:00 -
[2113] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Meh, relying on CCP to buff, nerf and otherwise pick sides in the gankers versus miners drama is bad design. Defending or killing miners really should be up to the players. IMO, CCP should have used the CrimeWatch overhaul to fix the ganking problem, specifically by making the criminal flag permanent. If you want to gank someone, go for it, but don't be surprised if the rest of the community/faction hunts you down, sanctions you, revokes your docking privileges, and denies access to station services for being such a twit.
I agree that some form of accountability for actions would have a great impact on the game. Seems that CCP prefers to let scum be scum with the only penalty being that you have to be able to factor in the loss of a catalyst.
SEC rating is not properly enforced. |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1211
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:03:00 -
[2114] - Quote
Skippermonkey 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). Well, as long as you get the balance right i dont think anybody can seriously complain... As it stands, we have cause for concern. Just one example - Why should an Exhumer get a greater shield resists per level bonus than a HIC? edit - its as if the stats have been dreamed up by a DEV thats been suicide ganked on his alt account one too many times So, did anyone answer this question regarding Exhumer resists vs HIC resists i posed the other day?
I'd really like to know My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
Shalua Rui
FEROX AQUILA
11
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:03:00 -
[2115] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:They want to profit, but they don't want to be liable for some of the risk that gives industry its purpose. It's these people who are responsible for the type of changes CCP has been implementing lately.
Maybe that's part of the reason, true.
PvP is an integral part of EVE and one of the few games where it actually makes sense and has impact... still doesn't mean that I am ok with suicide ganking sprees like hulkageddon, though. |
Danny Diamonds
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:04:00 -
[2116] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:60m/hr ratting is nothing compared to grinding the incursion equivalent of l2 missions for 120m/hr Even if you blitz L4s you can't get 120M/hr. running vanguards with a non-horrible fleet gets you that, if not more, with ease and there's literally no risk because even if dudes in blackbirds start suicide jamming logis, CCP will just nerf suicide ECM
No. Not even close. At least not with any measure of consistency. One hour, you may land 100mil, but the next three may make 20 million total. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1501
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:04:00 -
[2117] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:or i'll just rephrase your dumb ideas: "please make hisec 100% risk-free" Says someone who wants Concord and station/gate guns removed from hisec.
"oh man i won't have NPCs fight my battles for me, THE HORROR" EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1751
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:04:00 -
[2118] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:March rabbit wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:March rabbit wrote:posting in 100500th thread: "i hate miners" This is completely new theme! We don't hate miners; we simply can't bring ourselves to sympathize with the stupid ones. there is nothing to be proud of when you CANNOT something. Only ability to do something makes you respected by others. Should I not be proud of my inability to hate people of a specific race, or my inability to kill a person in cold blood for no specific reason? How about my inability to be a child molester? it's more commendable to be able to do some thing bad, and choose not to do it rather than not doing it because you can't.
Beware you are just saying one of the greatest blasphemies in the current trash "I will do everything unless prevented to" culture. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Freezehunter
249
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:05:00 -
[2119] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Zagdul wrote:Gone are the days where EVE is a dangerous place. I seem to have missed the part when they made all player ships immune to damage. 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.
Really?
Is that why you put ASB in the game and allowed battlecruiser sized ships to fit dual XL ASBs that can tank 1600 DPS for about 8 minutes? Inappropriate signature, CCP Phantom. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1502
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:06:00 -
[2120] - Quote
Danny Diamonds wrote:No. Not even close. At least not with any measure of consistency. One hour, you may land 100mil, but the next three may make 20 million total.
maybe you should run more than a couple of sites in those three hours EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
130
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:06:00 -
[2121] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:"oh man i won't have NPCs fight my battles for me, THE HORROR"
Like tanking Concord is very difficult... L2P.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnjK5EVsIfI |
Freezehunter
249
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:09:00 -
[2122] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Werst Dendenahzees wrote:Are you even in Nullsec? There's no real money to be had compared to running level 4 missions forever, unless you rat in a carrier. I've heard you can get 60M/hr ratting. Plus officer spawns... Can be solo'd too.
That is the biggest load of bullshit I've ever heard.
Back when I lived in Nullsec I could make 400mil-1.5 bil from running a single Sanctum.
If you did anomalies and escalations you could get rich FAST.
If you only make 60 mil per hour in 0.0 you are doing it VERY wrong. Inappropriate signature, CCP Phantom. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
761
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:11:00 -
[2123] - Quote
Danny Diamonds wrote:SEC rating is not properly enforced. Then enforce it. You're allowed to shoot any -5 or lower character you see. Go to a suicide-gank-heavy system, and sit in the belts with alpha boats/logistics/booster links for the miners.
Or are you saying you want NPCs to enforce it for you? (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1502
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:11:00 -
[2124] - Quote
how do you function?
concord instapops you, whether you're in a frigate or titan (yes, people have tested it with a titan on sisi)
there's no way to tank it
there's no way to evade it
and even if you do manage to get away with your ship, that's considered an exploit and gets you banned
get out with your "let me show you these 6 year old videos to prove my point" posts EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1502
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:11:00 -
[2125] - Quote
Freezehunter wrote:That is the biggest load of bullshit I've ever heard.
Back when I lived in Nullsec I could make 400mil-1.5 bil from running a single Sanctum.
If you did anomalies and escalations you could get rich FAST.
If you only make 60 mil per hour in 0.0 you are doing it VERY wrong.
sorry bro they nerfed sanctums before they added incursions
let me tell you all about how much more lively it made nullsec EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1751
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:12:00 -
[2126] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote: The Special Snowflake brick tank is required only to counter a special snowflake team of many T1 Dessies in .5 space. Anywhere else, you can fit a smaller tank and still be unprofitable.
Many T1 dessies is not a special snowflake at all.
2-3 of them is what every non rookie ganker use in 0.7 and below. Usually they don't use more as they seem to get bored and scale up to bigger hulls past 5 catalysts. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1502
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:14:00 -
[2127] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote: The Special Snowflake brick tank is required only to counter a special snowflake team of many T1 Dessies in .5 space. Anywhere else, you can fit a smaller tank and still be unprofitable.
Many T1 dessies is not a special snowflake at all. 2-3 of them is what every non rookie ganker use in 0.7 and below. Usually they don't use more as they seem to get bored and scale up to bigger hulls past 5 catalysts.
and generally they're not going to bother with a hulk that tanks 50k ehp from blasters because, you see, it tanks 50k ehp from blasters, and 66k if you have the hardeners preheated and fire them on when catalysts land EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Freezehunter
249
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:17:00 -
[2128] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Freezehunter wrote:That is the biggest load of bullshit I've ever heard.
Back when I lived in Nullsec I could make 400mil-1.5 bil from running a single Sanctum.
If you did anomalies and escalations you could get rich FAST.
If you only make 60 mil per hour in 0.0 you are doing it VERY wrong. sorry bro they nerfed sanctums before they added incursions let me tell you all about how much more lively it made nullsec
Well ****, my point just went to hell.
Thanks for letting me know, 'cause I didn't know that. Inappropriate signature, CCP Phantom. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1751
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:18:00 -
[2129] - Quote
Major Bibi wrote:woow i never seen a thread grow so fast
I am still convinced that some of you gankers are just crying about the fact that ganking became suddenly so much harder for you
Actually it's not even so much harder. They re-nerfed some ships. The objective is to make Hulks sensibly worse than now (I would not trade my current Hulks for the post patch ones even if they paid me to) and the "AFK friendly Mack" down to "if you scratch your nose for a minute you'll see yourself in clone station" again.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
93
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:19:00 -
[2130] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:Skippermonkey 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). Well, as long as you get the balance right i dont think anybody can seriously complain... As it stands, we have cause for concern. Just one example - Why should an Exhumer get a greater shield resists per level bonus than a HIC? edit - its as if the stats have been dreamed up by a DEV thats been suicide ganked on his alt account one too many times So, did anyone answer this question regarding Exhumer resists vs HIC resists i posed the other day? I'd really like to know
I'd like to know this as well. Goonwaffe is now recruiting feel free to message me in game for information about joining! |
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
130
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:22:00 -
[2131] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:Skippermonkey wrote:Skippermonkey 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). Well, as long as you get the balance right i dont think anybody can seriously complain... As it stands, we have cause for concern. Just one example - Why should an Exhumer get a greater shield resists per level bonus than a HIC? edit - its as if the stats have been dreamed up by a DEV thats been suicide ganked on his alt account one too many times So, did anyone answer this question regarding Exhumer resists vs HIC resists i posed the other day? I'd really like to know I'd like to know this as well.
All Exhumers have T1 resists on SiSi. |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1211
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:25:00 -
[2132] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:La Nariz wrote:Skippermonkey wrote:Skippermonkey 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). Well, as long as you get the balance right i dont think anybody can seriously complain... As it stands, we have cause for concern. Just one example - Why should an Exhumer get a greater shield resists per level bonus than a HIC? edit - its as if the stats have been dreamed up by a DEV thats been suicide ganked on his alt account one too many times So, did anyone answer this question regarding Exhumer resists vs HIC resists i posed the other day? I'd really like to know I'd like to know this as well. All Exhumers have T1 resists on SiSi.
I remember it being stated they get a 7.5% bonus to shield resists per level, is this still in place? My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1506
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:27:00 -
[2133] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:This fit has 22k EHP with current stats on SiSi.
eve's fitting window bases EHP on the lowest resist
and your EM resist is nothing stellar, not that it matters because catalysts, the current FOTM hulk ganking ships, don't deal EM damage EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Carola Kessler
Lost Sisters Of New Eden Freelancer Coalition
36
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:30:00 -
[2134] - Quote
actually it seems Exhumer resists are lowered from 7,5% per skill level to somewhat like 5%, after had a short convo on SIngularity with CCP Goliath, he said it maybe cause of a bug or some miscalculating in the formula happened in the latest patch, current patch doesn't seem to have this adressed, so we need to wait until the responsible Designer Dev is back and had a look at it.
friendly greets
Carola Kessler |
stoicfaux
1346
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:31:00 -
[2135] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:stoicfaux wrote:Meh, relying on CCP to buff, nerf and otherwise pick sides in the gankers versus miners drama is bad design. Defending or killing miners really should be up to the players. IMO, CCP should have used the CrimeWatch overhaul fix the ganking problem, specifically by making the criminal flag permanent. If you want to gank someone, go for it, but don't be surprised if the rest of the community/faction hunts you down, sanctions you, revokes your docking privileges, and denies access to station services for being such a twit.
Tradable kill rights would accomplish the exact same thing. As far as permanent crime flags, a few barge ganks will already put you below -5, making you a free target for anyone, anywhere. It shouldn't take multiple crimes to get you below -5. And ratting up sec status shouldn't absolve one of the crimes. CONCORD may have a short memory, but players don't.
Tradable kill rights don't go far enough, IMO. Teamwork aka community aka public action should be the primary factor in making high-sec safe. And that only works if everyone is allowed to be part of the neighborhood criminal watch. This having to watch a known criminal repeat their crimes over and over is just too reminiscent of some US court systems.
And in case it wasn't obvious, CONCORD should have a diminished role.
You can tell me what is and isn't Truth when you pry the tinfoil from my cold, lifeless head.
|
Smohq Anmirorz
State War Academy Caldari State
28
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:31:00 -
[2136] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Dave stark wrote:
it's more commendable to be able to do some thing bad, and choose not to do it rather than not doing it because you can't.
Beware you are just saying one of the greatest blasphemies in the current trash "I will do everything unless prevented to" culture.
That's not what that says. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
130
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:31:00 -
[2137] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:I remember it being stated they get a 7.5% bonus to shield resists per level, is this still in place?
5% and base resists are T1.
So that's nowhere near T2 ships. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1751
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:33:00 -
[2138] - Quote
Werst Dendenahzees wrote:
The difference being that New Eden is an hilarious crapsack world of rampant capitalism.
Rampant capitalism clearly forbids keeping their own operative units functional against enemies. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
762
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:36:00 -
[2139] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:It shouldn't take multiple crimes to get you below -5. And ratting up sec status shouldn't absolve one of the crimes. CONCORD may have a short memory, but players don't.
Tradable kill rights don't go far enough, IMO. Teamwork aka community aka public action should be the primary factor in making high-sec safe. And that only works if everyone is allowed to be part of the neighborhood criminal watch. This having to watch a known criminal repeat their crimes over and over is just too reminiscent of some US court systems.
And in case it wasn't obvious, CONCORD should have a diminished role. Okay, well, I'm happy we agree that only players should have the sole responsibility to police other players.
As far as the multiple crimes thing goes, that's irrelevant to a ganker anyway. It is, however, not irrelevant to a noobie making a mistake, and/or a person having no other alternative to take revenge against someone who has really aggrieved him (unless wars/NPC corps are fixed). A single gank not immediately setting you permanently flashy is simply decent game design.
The ratting thing I agree with as well. Let me buy my way out, just like I can in real life. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1752
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:36:00 -
[2140] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:As far as permanent crime flags, a few barge ganks will already put you below -5, making you a free target for anyone, anywhere.
You mean, for the couple of seconds before you have warped back to a safe spot?
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1506
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:38:00 -
[2141] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:As far as permanent crime flags, a few barge ganks will already put you below -5, making you a free target for anyone, anywhere. You mean, for the couple of seconds before you have warped back to a safe spot?
yeah you can't simply hide in a safespot while -5
you also can't cloak
let me tell you about "faction police" EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Werst Dendenahzees
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
102
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:39:00 -
[2142] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Werst Dendenahzees wrote:Are you even in Nullsec? There's no real money to be had compared to running level 4 missions forever, unless you rat in a carrier. I've heard you can get 60M/hr ratting. Plus officer spawns... Can be solo'd too.
That would be with a carrier or very good tengu. Officer spawns cannot be soloed. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1752
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:39:00 -
[2143] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:60m/hr ratting is nothing compared to grinding the incursion equivalent of l2 missions for 120m/hr Even if you blitz L4s you can't get 120M/hr. running vanguards with a non-horrible fleet gets you that, if not more, with ease and there's literally no risk because even if dudes in blackbirds start suicide jamming logis, CCP will just nerf suicide ECM
Because of a certain sheet mentality, where once somebody has done a feat like this, then everybody and their mother will spam the same feat - in a massively industrialized way - till CCP have to stop it else the game becomes unplayable.
If only people would care to do stuff with moderation.... but no, if 1 did boomerang then 1000000000 will do boomerang, if 1 web scrambled then the next week 10000000 will web scramble. Surprised CCP nerfs that? Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1506
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:39:00 -
[2144] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Skippermonkey wrote:I remember it being stated they get a 7.5% bonus to shield resists per level, is this still in place? 5% and base resists are T1. So that's nowhere near T2 ships.
exhumers have always had t2 resists by virtue of, well, being t2 hulls EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Werst Dendenahzees
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
102
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:40:00 -
[2145] - Quote
Freezehunter wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Werst Dendenahzees wrote:Are you even in Nullsec? There's no real money to be had compared to running level 4 missions forever, unless you rat in a carrier. I've heard you can get 60M/hr ratting. Plus officer spawns... Can be solo'd too. That is the biggest load of bullshit I've ever heard. Back when I lived in Nullsec I could make 400mil-1.5 bil from running a single Sanctum. If you did anomalies and escalations you could get rich FAST. If you only make 60 mil per hour in 0.0 you are doing it VERY wrong.
Dear god I hope those two guys are trolls |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1752
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:41:00 -
[2146] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:
and even if you do manage to get away with your ship, that's considered an exploit and gets you banned
get out with your "let me show you these 6 year old videos to prove my point" posts
How many got banned for using boomerang and then getting out? Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1506
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:42:00 -
[2147] - Quote
Werst Dendenahzees wrote:Dear god I hope those two guys are trolls
freezehunter was simply not up to date on "CCP didn't like people making ISK in nullsec so they nerfed sanctums to the ground and nobody does them anymore" EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1752
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:43:00 -
[2148] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote: The Special Snowflake brick tank is required only to counter a special snowflake team of many T1 Dessies in .5 space. Anywhere else, you can fit a smaller tank and still be unprofitable.
Many T1 dessies is not a special snowflake at all. 2-3 of them is what every non rookie ganker use in 0.7 and below. Usually they don't use more as they seem to get bored and scale up to bigger hulls past 5 catalysts. and generally they're not going to bother with a hulk that tanks 50k ehp from blasters because, you see, it tanks 50k ehp from blasters, and 66k if you have the hardeners preheated and fire them on when catalysts land
They don't bother with that hulk because the best harassment you can impose on a guy using such a stupid setup is to let him live and be useless forever. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1506
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:43:00 -
[2149] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:How many got banned for using boomerang and then getting out?
anyone who did it after it was announced as an exploit, perhaps? EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1506
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:44:00 -
[2150] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:They don't bother with that hulk because the best harassment you can impose on a guy using such a ******** setup is to let him live and be useless forever.
yeah that worthless setup that mines 2213 m3/minute with orca bonuses and no implants and can survive 3 catalysts in 0.5
i'm sure all of the max-yield hulks laugh at him when they're dying every other day to solo catalysts in 0.7 because they totally have it all figured out EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
|
Werst Dendenahzees
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
102
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:44:00 -
[2151] - Quote
Werst Dendenahzees wrote:
Dear god I hope those two guys are trolls
To elaborate: Tanking Concord has been nerfed since 2006. You just can't.
And about nullsec income: 400mil from a Sanctum? That's about 10x too much. A Forsaken hub (9/10 anomaly) has maybe 25-30mil in bounties and 10m in loot and salvage. It takes an hour to run and salvage in a standard t2 drake/noctis. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1752
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:46:00 -
[2152] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:How many got banned for using boomerang and then getting out? anyone who did it after it was announced as an exploit, perhaps?
See the mentality I described above?
- "I will do whatever asinine till the guards stop me" (sadly now also prevalent in RL)
- "It is convenient to ignore that evading Concord was well forbidden well before boomerang got deemed as an exploit".
All those who did boomberang but then also evaded Concord (two separate acts) should all have been banned. But alas, they didn't. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1506
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:46:00 -
[2153] - Quote
Werst Dendenahzees wrote:Werst Dendenahzees wrote:
Dear god I hope those two guys are trolls
To elaborate: Tanking Concord has been nerfed since 2006. You just can't. And about nullsec income: 400mil from a Sanctum? That's about 10x too much. A Forsaken hub (9/10 anomaly) has maybe 25-30mil in bounties and 10m in loot and salvage. It takes an hour to run and salvage in a standard t2 drake/noctis.
people used to make mad money from sanctum running because the risk/reward of the game was pretty balanced
then CCP decided to nerf sanctums and introduce incursions which brought pre-nerf sanctum level income to the safety of hisec EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Werst Dendenahzees
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
102
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:47:00 -
[2154] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:How many got banned for using boomerang and then getting out? anyone who did it after it was announced as an exploit, perhaps? See the mentality I described above? - "I will do whatever asinine till the guards stop me" (sadly now also prevalent in RL) - "It is convenient to ignore that evading Concord was well forbidden well before boomerang got deemed as an exploit". All those who did boomberang but then also evaded Concord (two separate acts) should all have been banned. But alas, they didn't.
Technically speaking Boomerangs didn't evade concord. They eventually died to concord. They just delayed it. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1752
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:48:00 -
[2155] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:They don't bother with that hulk because the best harassment you can impose on a guy using such a ******** setup is to let him live and be useless forever. yeah that worthless setup that mines 2213 m3/minute with orca bonuses and no implants and can survive 3 catalysts in 0.5 i'm sure all of the max-yield hulks laugh at him when they're dying every other day to solo catalysts in 0.7 because they totally have it all figured out
They die maybe once every 3 weeks and only if they play AFK, don't delude yourself. In the mean time they make a substantial higher income than the guy sitting silly in his overtanked coffin and it covers possible losses. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1506
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:48:00 -
[2156] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:See the mentality I described above?
- "I will do whatever asinine till the guards stop me" (sadly now also prevalent in RL)
- "It is convenient to ignore that evading Concord was well forbidden well before boomerang got deemed as an exploit".
All those who did boomberang but then also evaded Concord (two separate acts) should all have been banned. But alas, they didn't.
the only thing considered "evading concord" is killing something and keeping your ship
boomerang tornadoes were eventually blown up by concord, but the idea that you can kill a freighter with one tornado is just silly EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
130
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:48:00 -
[2157] - Quote
Werst Dendenahzees wrote:Officer spawns cannot be soloed.
Mute audio... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3yFf9MDP_M
Richard Desturned wrote:exhumers have always had t2 resists by virtue of, well, being t2 hulls
Go to SiSi and check yourself if you don't believe.
1) Dowload: http://community.eveonline.com/download/?s=singularity 2) Log in 3) ??? 4) Profit! |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1752
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:49:00 -
[2158] - Quote
Werst Dendenahzees wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:How many got banned for using boomerang and then getting out? anyone who did it after it was announced as an exploit, perhaps? See the mentality I described above? - "I will do whatever asinine till the guards stop me" (sadly now also prevalent in RL) - "It is convenient to ignore that evading Concord was well forbidden well before boomerang got deemed as an exploit". All those who did boomberang but then also evaded Concord (two separate acts) should all have been banned. But alas, they didn't. Technically speaking Boomerangs didn't evade concord. They eventually died to concord. They just delayed it.
No, a guy explicitly did experiments (that he promptly posted on GD!) at how he could perma evade Concord even on an Oracle.
After 15 minutes Concord just stopped chasing him iirc. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1506
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:49:00 -
[2159] - Quote
Dec 20, 2010 EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
knobber Jobbler
196
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:50:00 -
[2160] - Quote
Freezehunter wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Werst Dendenahzees wrote:Are you even in Nullsec? There's no real money to be had compared to running level 4 missions forever, unless you rat in a carrier. I've heard you can get 60M/hr ratting. Plus officer spawns... Can be solo'd too. That is the biggest load of bullshit I've ever heard. Back when I lived in Nullsec I could make 400mil-1.5 bil from running a single Sanctum. If you did anomalies and escalations you could get rich FAST. If you only make 60 mil per hour in 0.0 you are doing it VERY wrong.
Doesn't work like that any more. CCP is killing off nullsec. They've gone back to making it easier to make money in high sec level 4's or even Incursions.
I'm actually really disappointed in what CCP is doing, null sec is the only part of this game with anything content generating going on in it and they're continually either reducing the ISK generating aspects of it, adding in new mechanics which affect alliance level money generation without adding in member level money generation or adding in industry to null sec.
Nothing is made out in null apart from capitals. That has to change. Null has to be attracting people, not a 1 way ticket to bankruptcy. |
|
TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc Elysian Empire
174
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:52:00 -
[2161] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Meh, relying on CCP to buff, nerf and otherwise pick sides in the gankers versus miners drama is bad design. Defending or killing miners really should be up to the players. IMO, CCP should have used the CrimeWatch overhaul to fix the ganking problem, specifically by making the criminal flag permanent. If you want to gank someone, go for it, but don't be surprised if the rest of the community/faction hunts you down, sanctions you, revokes your docking privileges, and denies access to station services for being such a twit.
Or lets just give those meanie head gankers a 30 day ban so you can mine in absolute safety
You're playing the wrong sodding game, mate |
Danny Diamonds
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:52:00 -
[2162] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Danny Diamonds wrote:SEC rating is not properly enforced. Then enforce it. You're allowed to shoot any -5 or lower character you see. Go to a suicide-gank-heavy system, and sit in the belts with alpha boats/logistics/booster links for the miners. Or are you saying you want NPCs to enforce it for you?
I never said that, nor implied it. Stop making **** up, troll.
-5 and lower are not the only ones ganking. Nice try though. SEC status is too easily changed. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1752
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:54:00 -
[2163] - Quote
knobber Jobbler wrote:Freezehunter wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Werst Dendenahzees wrote:Are you even in Nullsec? There's no real money to be had compared to running level 4 missions forever, unless you rat in a carrier. I've heard you can get 60M/hr ratting. Plus officer spawns... Can be solo'd too. That is the biggest load of bullshit I've ever heard. Back when I lived in Nullsec I could make 400mil-1.5 bil from running a single Sanctum. If you did anomalies and escalations you could get rich FAST. If you only make 60 mil per hour in 0.0 you are doing it VERY wrong. Doesn't work like that any more. CCP is killing off nullsec. They've gone back to making it easier to make money in high sec level 4's or even Incursions. I'm actually really disappointed in what CCP is doing, null sec is the only part of this game with anything content generating going on in it and they're continually either reducing the ISK generating aspects of it, adding in new mechanics which affect alliance level money generation without adding in member level money generation or adding in industry to null sec. Nothing is made out in null apart from capitals. That has to change. Null has to be attracting people, not a 1 way ticket to bankruptcy.
They shoud simply have made impossible to bot PvE in supercaps and similar other smart ideas. Be glad CCP are not surgeons when cutting nerfs, they'd remove your appendix live and with a rusti machete.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Werst Dendenahzees
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
102
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:55:00 -
[2164] - Quote
The current income ranking for shooting red crosses is something like
Wormholes > Incursions (highsec) > Pro ratting in a carrier/carrier assisted tengu(nullsec) > Pro level 4s in a pimped marauder (highsec) = Tengu ratting (nullsec) > Drake/belt ratting (nullsec) > Bad level 3-4s (highsec)
While the risk/effort is
Wormholes >= sov nullsec >>>>>>> level 4s and highsec incursions
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1506
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:55:00 -
[2165] - Quote
Danny Diamonds wrote:SEC status is too easily changed.
tell me how easy it is to raise sec status EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Werst Dendenahzees
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
102
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:56:00 -
[2166] - Quote
Keep linking stuff from 3 years ago, it's perfectly relevant and accurate. |
March rabbit
R.I.P. Legion Red Alliance
218
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:56:00 -
[2167] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Werst Dendenahzees wrote:Are you even in Nullsec? There's no real money to be had compared to running level 4 missions forever, unless you rat in a carrier. I've heard you can get 60M/hr ratting. Plus officer spawns... Can be solo'd too. yeah because everyone gets an officer spawn 60m/hr ratting is nothing compared to grinding the incursion equivalent of l2 missions for 120m/hr i have heard some alliance completely refunds ship losses of its members....
question is: if nullsec is so totally poor where did all that money came from? |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
130
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:56:00 -
[2168] - Quote
Werst Dendenahzees wrote:The current income ranking for shooting red crosses is something like
Wormholes > Incursions (highsec) > Pro ratting in a carrier/carrier assisted tengu(nullsec) > Pro level 4s in a pimped marauder (highsec) = Tengu ratting (nullsec) > Drake/belt ratting (nullsec) > Bad level 3-4s (highsec)
While the risk/effort is
Wormholes >= sov nullsec >>>>>>> level 4s and highsec incursions
So, you want W-space nerfed? |
Danny Diamonds
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:56:00 -
[2169] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Danny Diamonds wrote:SEC status is too easily changed. tell me how easy it is to raise sec status
Oh, sorry I forgot that Goons don't know how to raise SEC status, or how to recycle alts. Nullsec blinders are the best blinders. |
SavageBastard
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:56:00 -
[2170] - Quote
Freezehunter wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Werst Dendenahzees wrote:Are you even in Nullsec? There's no real money to be had compared to running level 4 missions forever, unless you rat in a carrier. I've heard you can get 60M/hr ratting. Plus officer spawns... Can be solo'd too. That is the biggest load of bullshit I've ever heard. Back when I lived in Nullsec I could make 400mil-1.5 bil from running a single Sanctum. If you did anomalies and escalations you could get rich FAST. If you only make 60 mil per hour in 0.0 you are doing it VERY wrong.
You "could" make. I "could" make 1.5 - 2 billion off a single blood plex if the right module dropped. I "could" make 10 billion off a single blood belt if the right modules dropped. In reality those drops are very rare and people make their modest isk/hour like anyone else.
You "could" make an intelligent, well informed post next time and wow us all. |
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1752
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:57:00 -
[2171] - Quote
Werst Dendenahzees wrote:The current income ranking for shooting red crosses is something like
Wormholes > Incursions (highsec) > Pro ratting in a carrier/carrier assisted tengu(nullsec) > Pro level 4s in a pimped marauder (highsec) = Tengu ratting (nullsec) > Drake/belt ratting (nullsec) > Bad level 3-4s (highsec)
While the risk/effort is
Wormholes >= NPC nullsec >>>>>>> sov nullsec > level 4s and highsec incursions
Fixed for you.
Yes I was one of those going to sheet in the L4 missioning systems in Stain, no way you can do it as easy and cause so much trouble by going in your blueball trenches. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1506
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:58:00 -
[2172] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:They shoud simply have made impossible to bot PvE in supercaps and similar other smart ideas.
hi
a supercarrier can only use fighters and fighterbombers, neither of which are particularly useful in anoms on their own, and a faction BS is cheaper and better overall for anoms than an SC
a titan can't lock more than 3 targets at one time, it deals less damage to rats even when it scores a perfect hit because of the sig-based turret damage penalty specific to titan hulls EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
762
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 15:58:00 -
[2173] - Quote
Danny Diamonds wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:Danny Diamonds wrote:SEC rating is not properly enforced. Then enforce it. You're allowed to shoot any -5 or lower character you see. Go to a suicide-gank-heavy system, and sit in the belts with alpha boats/logistics/booster links for the miners. Or are you saying you want NPCs to enforce it for you? I never said that, nor implied it. Stop making **** up, troll. -5 and lower are not the only ones ganking. Nice try though. SEC status is too easily changed. umad?
There's nothing wrong with characters above -5 doing ganks. It only becomes a problem when these characters are recycled. But then, you can do your own player-policing by petitioning them, since it's an offense that gets punished. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1211
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:00:00 -
[2174] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Skippermonkey wrote:I remember it being stated they get a 7.5% bonus to shield resists per level, is this still in place? 5% and base resists are T1. So that's nowhere near T2 ships.
Would you mind posting the current resist profile and ship bonuses to resists here for those of us not up with the latest SiSi build? My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1506
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:00:00 -
[2175] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Werst Dendenahzees wrote:The current income ranking for shooting red crosses is something like
Wormholes > Incursions (highsec) > Pro ratting in a carrier/carrier assisted tengu(nullsec) > Pro level 4s in a pimped marauder (highsec) = Tengu ratting (nullsec) > Drake/belt ratting (nullsec) > Bad level 3-4s (highsec)
While the risk/effort is
Wormholes >= NPC nullsec >>>>>>> sov nullsec > level 4s and highsec incursions
Fixed for you. Yes I was one of those going to sheet in the L4 missioning systems in Stain, no way you can do it as easy and cause so much trouble by going in your blueball trenches.
hi there has to be a reward for holding space
otherwise what is the point of holding space EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
130
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:01:00 -
[2176] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:There's nothing wrong with characters above -5 doing ganks. It only becomes a problem when these characters are recycled. But then, you can do your own player-policing by petitioning them, since it's an offense that gets punished.
If it's ganker or nullsec player doing it isn't. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1752
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:03:00 -
[2177] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:They shoud simply have made impossible to bot PvE in supercaps and similar other smart ideas. hi a supercarrier can only use fighters and fighterbombers, neither of which are particularly useful in anoms on their own, and a faction BS is cheaper and better overall for anoms than an SC a titan can't lock more than 3 targets at one time, it deals less damage to rats even when it scores a perfect hit because of the sig-based turret damage penalty specific to titan hulls
They clearly botted supercaps because these were bad and they wanted to give top expensive targets to neuts. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1137
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:04:00 -
[2178] - Quote
Werst Dendenahzees wrote:The current income ranking for shooting red crosses is something like
Wormholes > Incursions (highsec) > Pro ratting in a carrier/carrier assisted tengu(nullsec) > Pro level 4s in a pimped marauder (highsec) = Tengu ratting (nullsec) > Drake/belt ratting (nullsec) > Bad level 3-4s (highsec)
While the risk/effort is
Wormholes >= sov nullsec >>>>>>> level 4s and highsec incursions
So the solution to this would be...
Remove individual incursions in HS after 24 hours (no rewards if incomplete) removing farming (hint: I hate incursions, so am a 'lil biased).
Fix missions to make them a little more interactive providing an incentive to not just burn through them. Less rats (more hp/damage/bounties per rat) more randomness. Adding in some actual thought would be nice too. Maybe a puzzle or some actual choices (there are a few that give choices, and I like them more than the others). |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1506
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:05:00 -
[2179] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:They clearly botted supercaps because these were bad and they wanted to give top expensive targets to neuts.
you're talking about people botting with supercaps BEFORE CRUCIBLE NERFED SUPERCARRIERS EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
130
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:06:00 -
[2180] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:Would you mind posting the current resist profile and ship bonuses to resists here for those of us not up with the latest SiSi build?
You don't know what T1 resists are?
Hulk shields: 0/50/40/20
Hulk armor: 60/10/25/35
Shield resists are same for all exhumers and mining barges. |
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1507
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:06:00 -
[2181] - Quote
Danny Diamonds wrote:Oh, sorry I forgot that Goons don't know how to raise SEC status, or how to recycle alts. Nullsec blinders are the best blinders.
you can't recycle alts because you'll get banned fast
now, tell me the "easy" way of getting sec status up EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1752
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:07:00 -
[2182] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:. But then, you can do your own player-policing by petitioning them, since it's an offense that gets punished.
Unless the guy is so stupid to recicle some alt called like "James315" and call the next "James316" how exactly do you know the recycling occurred? Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1507
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:07:00 -
[2183] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Skippermonkey wrote:Would you mind posting the current resist profile and ship bonuses to resists here for those of us not up with the latest SiSi build? You don't know what T1 resists are? Hulk shields: 0/50/40/20 Hulk armor: 60/10/25/35
those aren't t1 resists hope this helps EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1507
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:08:00 -
[2184] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Unless the guy is so stupid to recicle some alt called like "James315" and call the next "James316" how exactly do you know the recycling occurred?
"oh look the guy who ganked me is now in doomheim"
believe it or not GMs can figure out the rest EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Werst Dendenahzees
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
102
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:09:00 -
[2185] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Werst Dendenahzees wrote:The current income ranking for shooting red crosses is something like
Wormholes > Incursions (highsec) > Pro ratting in a carrier/carrier assisted tengu(nullsec) > Pro level 4s in a pimped marauder (highsec) = Tengu ratting (nullsec) > Drake/belt ratting (nullsec) > Bad level 3-4s (highsec)
While the risk/effort is
Wormholes >= sov nullsec >>>>>>> level 4s and highsec incursions
So, you want W-space nerfed?
No, I want nullsec buffed. W-space is fine as is, because C4-5-6s are a terrible pain in the ass. Now, because of the general moon goo nerf, there is now no real income source in nullsec that justifies the logistics of maintaining sov space and the risk of being ganked at any goddamn second. It used to be that alliances in the north have technetium, and alliances in the south have huge amounts of renters (that is dumb nullsec carebears who pay billions in order to rat/bot a few more billions). Renters are dumb because getting people to pay you to play a ****** game for you is not a good mechanic. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
130
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:12:00 -
[2186] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Skippermonkey wrote:Would you mind posting the current resist profile and ship bonuses to resists here for those of us not up with the latest SiSi build? You don't know what T1 resists are? Hulk shields: 0/50/40/20 Hulk armor: 60/10/25/35 those aren't t1 resists hope this helps
Drake shields: 0/50/40/20
Afaik Drake is T1 hull. |
Werst Dendenahzees
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
102
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:14:00 -
[2187] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Skippermonkey wrote:Would you mind posting the current resist profile and ship bonuses to resists here for those of us not up with the latest SiSi build? You don't know what T1 resists are? Hulk shields: 0/50/40/20 Hulk armor: 60/10/25/35 those aren't t1 resists hope this helps Drake shields: 0/50/40/20 Afaik Drake is T1 hull.
It's a bit dishonest to pick a battlecruiser and one of the best natural T1 shield tanks in the game,wouldn't you agree? |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1752
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:14:00 -
[2188] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Werst Dendenahzees wrote:The current income ranking for shooting red crosses is something like
Wormholes > Incursions (highsec) > Pro ratting in a carrier/carrier assisted tengu(nullsec) > Pro level 4s in a pimped marauder (highsec) = Tengu ratting (nullsec) > Drake/belt ratting (nullsec) > Bad level 3-4s (highsec)
While the risk/effort is
Wormholes >= NPC nullsec >>>>>>> sov nullsec > level 4s and highsec incursions
Fixed for you. Yes I was one of those going to sheet in the L4 missioning systems in Stain, no way you can do it as easy and cause so much trouble by going in your blueball trenches. hi there has to be a reward for holding space otherwise what is the point of holding space
The typical 20-100 members NPC nullsec corp has to take fat risks just to dock at the NPC stations (perma double bubble and stuff), their subcaps and caps ops are certainly riskier than a fat ball ops with supercaps support and even at the individual level all you have to do is join your big alliance and attend some operation and be reimbursed for ship loss. Even if your NPC nullsec corp / alliance controls a couple of systems, 2 jumps away you and your 5 buddies are already in the middle of a cloud of neuts. It's not an optional small roam for fun in there, it's what you have to do to live.
Moreover for the smaller entities neither the reimbursement is so granted nor the ability to join an op or not.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1752
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:15:00 -
[2189] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Unless the guy is so stupid to recicle some alt called like "James315" and call the next "James316" how exactly do you know the recycling occurred? "oh look the guy who ganked me is now in doomheim" believe it or not GMs can figure out the rest
Because that guy is so dumb to recycle in your face innit? Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1508
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:16:00 -
[2190] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:The typical 20-100 members NPC nullsec corp has to take fat risks just to dock at the NPC stations (perma double bubble and stuff), their subcaps and caps ops are certainly riskier than a fat ball ops with supercaps support and even at the individual level all you have to do is join your big alliance and attend some operation and be reimbursed for ship loss. Even if your NPC nullsec corp / alliance controls a couple of systems, 2 jumps away you and your 5 buddies are already in the middle of a cloud of neuts. It's not an optional small roam for fun in there, it's what you have to do to live.
Moreover for the smaller entities neither the reimbursement is so granted nor the ability to join an op or not.
nullsec is for large empires, not for irrelevant 10-man corps EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1508
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:17:00 -
[2191] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Because that guy is so dumb to recycle in your face innit?
biomassing puts your character in a corp called doomheim
so yeah EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
baltec1
Bat Country
1740
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:17:00 -
[2192] - Quote
Danny Diamonds wrote:baltec1 wrote:Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:103 barrels of ganker tears, I'd say this must be a good year !! -that stuff's gonna be hot ! Gankers are quite happy with the changes to the barges, its the miners who are whining because we can still gank them for profit if they fail to fit a tank or pick the skiff. What?!
Look at it all. They tasted a victory over the only threat they will ever face in highsec and then saw it taken from them when CCP saw that the "evil gankers" were correct in that they went overboard on the tanks. Now we are back to miners pulling their hair out in a mist of rage that they will be forced to face conciquences for their bad choices. Miners can easily avoid being ganked and the barges will be in better shape with a roll for all of them.
I can see a lot of rage topic coming soon over why the hulk is worse at tanking than the skiff when this goes live and they will be met with nothing but laughter. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
130
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:17:00 -
[2193] - Quote
Werst Dendenahzees wrote:It's a bit dishonest to pick a battlecruiser and one of the best natural T1 shield tanks in the game,wouldn't you agree?
Does it matter? Pretty much every T1 hull has same shield resists. |
Werst Dendenahzees
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
102
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:18:00 -
[2194] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Werst Dendenahzees wrote:The current income ranking for shooting red crosses is something like
Wormholes > Incursions (highsec) > Pro ratting in a carrier/carrier assisted tengu(nullsec) > Pro level 4s in a pimped marauder (highsec) = Tengu ratting (nullsec) > Drake/belt ratting (nullsec) > Bad level 3-4s (highsec)
While the risk/effort is
Wormholes >= NPC nullsec >>>>>>> sov nullsec > level 4s and highsec incursions
Fixed for you. Yes I was one of those going to sheet in the L4 missioning systems in Stain, no way you can do it as easy and cause so much trouble by going in your blueball trenches. hi there has to be a reward for holding space otherwise what is the point of holding space The typical 20-100 members NPC nullsec corp has to take fat risks just to dock at the NPC stations (perma double bubble and stuff), their subcaps and caps ops are certainly riskier than a fat ball ops with supercaps support and even at the individual level all you have to do is join your big alliance and attend some operation and be reimbursed for ship loss. Even if your NPC nullsec corp / alliance controls a couple of systems, 2 jumps away you and your 5 buddies are already in the middle of a cloud of neuts. It's not an optional small roam for fun in there, it's what you have to do to live. Moreover for the smaller entities neither the reimbursement is so granted nor the ability to join an op or not.
hi
NPC null is not harder or more risky. Sov space can be dropped on from NPC space by any scrub with a cyno skiff and a titan. Sov stations can be bubbled. There are just less dumb docking games. Nullsec sov actually costs money to maintain (double digits billions per months) and untold man-hours of back-breaking logistics. If CCP doesn't want people to conquer space and live in it, they should just say so.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1752
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:22:00 -
[2195] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:The typical 20-100 members NPC nullsec corp has to take fat risks just to dock at the NPC stations (perma double bubble and stuff), their subcaps and caps ops are certainly riskier than a fat ball ops with supercaps support and even at the individual level all you have to do is join your big alliance and attend some operation and be reimbursed for ship loss. Even if your NPC nullsec corp / alliance controls a couple of systems, 2 jumps away you and your 5 buddies are already in the middle of a cloud of neuts. It's not an optional small roam for fun in there, it's what you have to do to live.
Moreover for the smaller entities neither the reimbursement is so granted nor the ability to join an op or not.
nullsec is for large empires, not for irrelevant 10-man corps
I have seen a much less elitist and self entitled attitude when I received SirMolle's alliance mails (yeah I even had the venture of seeing my corp joining them ). It's really true that you are going to be the new B(l)oB. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Werst Dendenahzees
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
102
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:23:00 -
[2196] - Quote
The difference between 0.0 guys and highsec whiners is that we also have highsec alts and thus know what happens there, while you are completely clueless about how sov space works. |
baltec1
Bat Country
1740
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:24:00 -
[2197] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
nullsec is for large empires, not for irrelevant 10-man corps
I have seen a much less elitist and self entitled attitude when I received SirMolle's alliance mails (yeah I even had the venture of seeing my corp joining them ). It's really true that you are going to be the new B(l)oB.[/quote]
Point out where he is wrong.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1752
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:24:00 -
[2198] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Because that guy is so dumb to recycle in your face innit? biomassing puts your character in a corp called doomheim so yeah
Sure, a guy going to biomass is so dumb to to do it the 5 minutes after he did a gank so his 512th victim will certainly check he went to doomheim, not 1-2 days later when nobody will even know he's online. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Werst Dendenahzees
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
102
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:26:00 -
[2199] - Quote
Biomassing would leave you losing your T2 catalyst skills. Ratting sec status is a painful experience, you need like 10 hours to make it back from a -3 or -4 to a manageable sec status that won't make you be shot on sight by faction police. |
Shalua Rui
FEROX AQUILA
13
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:28:00 -
[2200] - Quote
Werst Dendenahzees wrote:The difference between 0.0 guys and highsec whiners is that we also have highsec alts and thus know what happens there, while you are completely clueless about how sov space works.
Yea? Your point beeing? I am a highsec miner by choice and I played like that for years... why should I care? Further, why should I be forced to mind advanced self defense tactics to fend of suicide gankers and PvP griefers in an environment that is supposed to be save for people that prefer my playstyle?
If it tip my toes in 0.5 without watching my back and get gate/station camped, that's my own fault... but other then that? |
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1752
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:29:00 -
[2201] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:I have seen a much less elitist and self entitled attitude when I received SirMolle's alliance mails (yeah I even had the venture of seeing my corp joining them ). It's really true that you are going to be the new B(l)oB. Point out where he is wrong.
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. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Guttripper
State War Academy Caldari State
170
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:30:00 -
[2202] - Quote
With threads like this one, I am really surprised fights do not break out at the yearly fanfest... |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
130
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:30:00 -
[2203] - Quote
Werst Dendenahzees wrote:...
Herr Wilkus, what is T1 shield resist profile if it isn't 0/50/40/20? |
Werst Dendenahzees
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
102
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:32:00 -
[2204] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:baltec1 wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:I have seen a much less elitist and self entitled attitude when I received SirMolle's alliance mails (yeah I even had the venture of seeing my corp joining them ). It's really true that you are going to be the new B(l)oB. Point out where he is wrong. 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.
What, do you want every single one of us to have to clock 40 hours of work a week just to keep the privilege that is ratting for 40mil/hr in unsafe space? Of course the directors and logistics spergs do harder work than the line members. The point is that NPC null and highsec alliances don't even need anyone to do any of that work and don't need to foot 40 bil a month for sov bills because THEY DON'T EXIST.
Shalua Rui wrote:Werst Dendenahzees wrote:The difference between 0.0 guys and highsec whiners is that we also have highsec alts and thus know what happens there, while you are completely clueless about how sov space works. Yea? Your point beeing? I am a highsec miner by choice and I played like that for years... why should I care? Further, why should I be forced to mind advanced self defense tactics to fend of suicide gankers and PvP griefers in an environment that is supposed to be save for people that prefer my playstyle?
My point is people like you should stop commenting with blatantly false ideas such as ''you can tank concord'' or ''Nullsec is fine you can rat for a billion an hour in sanctums''. |
baltec1
Bat Country
1740
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:35:00 -
[2205] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:baltec1 wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:I have seen a much less elitist and self entitled attitude when I received SirMolle's alliance mails (yeah I even had the venture of seeing my corp joining them ). It's really true that you are going to be the new B(l)oB. Point out where he is wrong. 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.
He still isnt wrong. |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1211
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:36:00 -
[2206] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Skippermonkey wrote:Would you mind posting the current resist profile and ship bonuses to resists here for those of us not up with the latest SiSi build? You don't know what T1 resists are? Hulk shields: 0/50/40/20 Hulk armor: 60/10/25/35 Shield resists are same for all exhumers and mining barges. I find it peculiar that you act like t1 resists on a t2 ship is a normal thing?
plus - http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Hulk
you can check there for the current tranqulity hulk details, and it clearly has a t2 resist profile.
I hope this explains my apparent surprise that they lowered the resist profile
But... maybe you are doing it all wrong because to my eyes you are posting the resistance profile of a Covetor My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1509
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:37:00 -
[2207] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Sure, a guy going to biomass is so dumb to to do it the 5 minutes after he did a gank so his 512th victim will certainly check he went to doomheim, not 1-2 days later when nobody will even know he's online.
any of the other 511 victims can look him up and notice that he's in doomheim, you see EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1509
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:38:00 -
[2208] - Quote
Werst Dendenahzees wrote:NPC null is not harder or more risky. Sov space can be dropped on from NPC space by any scrub with a cyno skiff and a titan. Sov stations can be bubbled. There are just less dumb docking games. Nullsec sov actually costs money to maintain (double digits billions per months) and untold man-hours of back-breaking logistics. If CCP doesn't want people to conquer space and live in it, they should just say so.
he probably thinks that all of nullsec is cynojammed with 150km of bubbles on every gate EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1753
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:39:00 -
[2209] - Quote
Werst Dendenahzees wrote:Biomassing would leave you losing your T2 catalyst skills. Ratting sec status is a painful experience, you need like 10 hours to make it back from a -3 or -4 to a manageable sec status that won't make you be shot on sight by faction police.
Once I went to -9 dot something in 4 hours just for defending my corp POS in low sec. But then, I was on this character, which is not a "LOLhisecgankalt".
Why do gankers have LOLhisecgankalts?
Simple, because they are true carebears who cringe in fear at the thought a guy with kill rights could meet them while they are flying a freigther or undocking in a pimp ship to do a L4.
So they make "smart usage of game mechanics" and create LOLhisecgankalts and won't care about their sec at all.
These characters have some totally carebear characteristics:
- Cheap if any implants. No risk. - Completely circumvent any negative consequence of being -10, including Concord (won't attack them in capsule while they go to a Concord free safe spot anyway). - Completely circumvent any negative sec consequences (only used to reship, warp in and explode). - Low SP, can always biomass later. - Will literally never leave a station if not to insta warp to a safe spot, board a catalyst and then warp to a target. - Who cares about kill rights? Nobody will see the alt for longer than 10 seconds while you kill some random, then back to safety.
Miners are though heroes compared to cheesy LOLhisecgankalt players.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Werst Dendenahzees
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
104
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:42:00 -
[2210] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: flying a freigther or undocking in a pimp ship to do a L4.
Get it right, we do this on NPC alts with no kill rights or bad sec status. Goonswarm is perma wardecced by highsec camping corps. |
|
Shalua Rui
FEROX AQUILA
13
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:42:00 -
[2211] - Quote
Werst Dendenahzees wrote:My point is people like you should stop commenting with blatantly false ideas such as ''you can tank concord'' or ''Nullsec is fine you can rat for a billion an hour in sanctums''.
I didn't say that, did I? All I am saying is: Every playstyle has it's place in EVE... and highsec is for those whoe want to follow their trade (missions, mining, trading, etc.) in relative savety... you want to be a pirate or a corporate warlord? Great, go to lowsec/0.0 and get to it... I don't care. |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1211
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:42:00 -
[2212] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Why do gankers have LOLhisecgankalts? Because i like flying around hisec without being shot at by everything
I have a -10 toon that does a job and i do not plan on sending it to Doomheim anytime soon My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
Werst Dendenahzees
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
104
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:44:00 -
[2213] - Quote
Shalua Rui wrote:Werst Dendenahzees wrote:My point is people like you should stop commenting with blatantly false ideas such as ''you can tank concord'' or ''Nullsec is fine you can rat for a billion an hour in sanctums''. I didn't say that, did I? All I am saying is: Every playstyle has it's place in EVE... and highsec is for those who want to follow their trade (missions, mining, trading, etc.) in relative savety... you want to be a pirate or a corporate warlord? Great, go to lowsec/0.0 and get to it... I don't care.
My only point is that those playstyles (highsec missions and incursions) shouldn't have better or comparable incomes to playstyles who incorporate lots of risk and effort, such as nullsec and wormholes. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
456
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:45:00 -
[2214] - 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. Quoting for ******* truth. EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1753
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:46:00 -
[2215] - Quote
Werst Dendenahzees wrote:
What, do you want every single one of us to have to clock 40 hours of work a week just to keep the privilege that is ratting for 40mil/hr in unsafe space? Of course the directors and logistics spergs do harder work than the line members. The point is that NPC null and highsec alliances don't even need anyone to do any of that work and don't need to foot 40 bil a month for sov bills because THEY DON'T EXIST.
They don't reap the benefits either. Before joining a sov alliance, our 0.0 POSes did not spew billions of moon goo worth a month. Before joining a sov alliance we had no station in all but 1 system. Before joining a sov alliance we were in some lolbadtruesec. Before joining a sov alliance we did not have Titan bridges and similar. It was like "wait 1 week till next JF runs to take stuff to low sec or come by foot (passing in half of Goon space BTW).
Risk and reweard. You only show your risks and don't show your rewards while downplaying the others'. I have been in 1 NPC nullsec corp and 2 sov alliances (my other alts were in Initiative alliance) and I kind of know how it goes.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1511
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:46:00 -
[2216] - Quote
my main is -10
technically the 7th lowest sec status in goonwaffe, first being Hulk Basher, a good friend of mine EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1753
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:47:00 -
[2217] - Quote
Werst Dendenahzees wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: flying a freigther or undocking in a pimp ship to do a L4.
Get it right, we do this on NPC alts with no kill rights or bad sec status. Goonswarm is perma wardecced by highsec camping corps.
I was not referring to your particular case. Also, you are not special snowflakes, I was Logistics Officer in Dark Rising guess how many wardecs we had up at every given time? Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
261
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:48:00 -
[2218] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Skippermonkey wrote:Would you mind posting the current resist profile and ship bonuses to resists here for those of us not up with the latest SiSi build? You don't know what T1 resists are? Hulk shields: 0/50/40/20 Hulk armor: 60/10/25/35 Shield resists are same for all exhumers and mining barges. I find it peculiar that you act like t1 resists on a t2 ship is a normal thing? plus - http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Hulkyou can check there for the current tranqulity hulk details, and it clearly has a t2 resist profile. I hope this explains my apparent surprise that they lowered the resist profile But... maybe you are doing it all wrong because to my eyes you are posting the resistance profile of a Covetor I think it had been mentioned before that the echumers had been changed to T1 shield resists on sisi, so perhaps that explains the lack of surprise, but those shield resist values are current as of right now.
Current bonuses: 7.5% resist per mining barge lvl for all exhumers, 5% shield capacity/mining barge lvl for the Skiff/Procurer |
Werst Dendenahzees
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
104
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:48:00 -
[2219] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Werst Dendenahzees wrote:
What, do you want every single one of us to have to clock 40 hours of work a week just to keep the privilege that is ratting for 40mil/hr in unsafe space? Of course the directors and logistics spergs do harder work than the line members. The point is that NPC null and highsec alliances don't even need anyone to do any of that work and don't need to foot 40 bil a month for sov bills because THEY DON'T EXIST.
They don't reap the benefits either. Before joining a sov alliance, our 0.0 POSes did not spew billions of moon goo worth a month. Before joining a sov alliance we had no station in all but 1 system. Before joining a sov alliance we were in some lolbadtruesec. Before joining a sov alliance we did not have Titan bridges and similar. It was like "wait 1 week till next JF runs to take stuff to low sec or come by foot (passing in half of Goon space BTW). Risk and reweard. You only show your risks and don't show your rewards while downplaying the others'. I have been in 1 NPC nullsec corp and 2 sov alliances (my other alts were in Initiative alliance) and I kind of know how it goes.
hi
Lowsec and NPC null also have moons to mine. Moon mining is not linked to having sov. The good moons (technetium) are going to be nerfed to crap on august 8.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1753
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:50:00 -
[2220] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Why do gankers have LOLhisecgankalts? Because i like flying around hisec without being shot at by everything
And isn't this the epitome of carebearing? "I want to do all sorts of stuff but not suffer any of the consequences, in the Game Of Consequences".
How is it better than dumb miners refusing the consequences of AFK their zero tank Hulk? Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
|
malcovas Henderson
Smoking Minerals Syndicate Cannabis Legionis
109
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:50:00 -
[2221] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Sure, a guy going to biomass is so dumb to to do it the 5 minutes after he did a gank so his 512th victim will certainly check he went to doomheim, not 1-2 days later when nobody will even know he's online. any of the other 511 victims can look him up and notice that he's in doomheim, you see
I could be wrong, and sorry if I am, But faik the account gets banned, not the ip address. Making accounts for free is easy. and technically unlimited. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1511
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:52:00 -
[2222] - Quote
malcovas Henderson wrote:I could be wrong, and sorry if I am, But faik the account gets banned, not the ip address. Making accounts for free is easy. and technically unlimited.
not really, if you keep getting alt accounts banned for whatever reason i'm p sure they just ban all of your other accounts too EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1511
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:53:00 -
[2223] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:And isn't this the epitome of carebearing? "I want to do all sorts of stuff but not suffer any of the consequences, in the Game Of Consequences".
How is it better than dumb miners refusing the consequences of AFK their zero tank Hulk?
i'm pretty sure more people recycle alts to keep concord in belts than people recycling good gank alts
the more you know EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
130
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:54:00 -
[2224] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:I find it peculiar that you act like t1 resists on a t2 ship is a normal thing? plus - http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Hulkyou can check there for the current tranqulity hulk details, and it clearly has a t2 resist profile. I hope this explains my apparent surprise that they lowered the resist profile But... maybe you are doing it all wrong because to my eyes you are posting the resistance profile of a Covetor
http://koti.mbnet.fi/raid/ExeFile%202012-07-30%2019-44-01-43.jpg |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
468
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:54:00 -
[2225] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Because that guy is so dumb to recycle in your face innit? biomassing puts your character in a corp called doomheim so yeah
LOL. I did not know that.
I seriously thought all the players in Doomheim were just insufferable whiners who were raging about getting their barges ganked and quitting all the time.
But those are biomassed chars - awesome. Good way to find out of the rage is genuine or just the online equivalent of cutting yourself. |
Shalua Rui
FEROX AQUILA
13
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:58:00 -
[2226] - Quote
Werst Dendenahzees wrote:My only point is that those playstyles (highsec missions and incursions) shouldn't have better or comparable incomes to playstyles who incorporate lots of risk and effort, such as nullsec and wormholes.
Ok, sorry... but your aren't SERIOUSLY playing the FAIRNESS card on me now, are you? As far as I am concerned, I make the money I make by providing you with the materials to build the weapons and ships you people use to gank people like me... figurably speaking... and you are talking about even scales?
Kinda ironic.^^ |
malcovas Henderson
Smoking Minerals Syndicate Cannabis Legionis
109
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:58:00 -
[2227] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:malcovas Henderson wrote:I could be wrong, and sorry if I am, But faik the account gets banned, not the ip address. Making accounts for free is easy. and technically unlimited. not really, if you keep getting alt accounts banned for whatever reason i'm p sure they just ban all of your other accounts too
That would be an assumption. A pretty fair one i must admit, but still an assumption. Only because of family members playing differently, would be brought into the ban hammer range could stop this from happenning.It still means that a ganker has an unlimited amount of biomassable ganking pilots at his disposal.
o7 |
Danny Diamonds
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:58:00 -
[2228] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:And isn't this the epitome of carebearing? "I want to do all sorts of stuff but not suffer any of the consequences, in the Game Of Consequences".
How is it better than dumb miners refusing the consequences of AFK their zero tank Hulk? i'm pretty sure more people recycle alts to keep concord in belts than people recycling good gank alts the more you know
Fabrication. Stop. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1753
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:59:00 -
[2229] - Quote
Werst Dendenahzees wrote:Shalua Rui wrote:Werst Dendenahzees wrote:My point is people like you should stop commenting with blatantly false ideas such as ''you can tank concord'' or ''Nullsec is fine you can rat for a billion an hour in sanctums''. I didn't say that, did I? All I am saying is: Every playstyle has it's place in EVE... and highsec is for those who want to follow their trade (missions, mining, trading, etc.) in relative savety... you want to be a pirate or a corporate warlord? Great, go to lowsec/0.0 and get to it... I don't care. My only point is that those playstyles (highsec missions and incursions) shouldn't have better or comparable incomes to playstyles who incorporate lots of risk and effort, such as nullsec and wormholes.
I have never understood this myself (find my old threads about the need to nerf L4 income on the mission forums...).
But I have to say this now:
- Mining is pure demand vs offer, a non ISK faucet exactly like Technetium, people pay what they believe their work is worth for. So mining shouldn't be nerfed.
- L4 have finally been nerfed enough times that they are OK. Only L4 blitzing should receive a sledgehammer.
- Hi sec anoms net stuff that is not a ISK faucet, so once again we are in the "demand vs offer" domain.
- Trading is once again, demand vs offer and it's competitive PvP (with potential losses well outstripping ships PvP. I know, I put 30B at stake on the markets, not some puny 200M).
Incursions have been nerfed enough that now I see them routinely empty.
Nullsec on the other side is not exactly "poor". What's poor is the lack of minimal "comfort" features like decent industry slots, decently close clone stations, decent refining. Plus life just sucks (had to do it for months) if your corp lives at a POS with no station in system.
I have a feeling that nullsec could use a moderate boost to individual income but an huge boost to what I wrote in the paragraph above.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1211
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 16:59:00 -
[2230] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Skippermonkey wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Why do gankers have LOLhisecgankalts? Because i like flying around hisec without being shot at by everything And isn't this the epitome of carebearing? "I want to do all sorts of stuff but not suffer any of the consequences, in the Game Of Consequences". Not at all, I am well aware of the consequences, and i deal with them on the character that i earn them on. My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1753
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 17:00:00 -
[2231] - Quote
Werst Dendenahzees wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Werst Dendenahzees wrote:
What, do you want every single one of us to have to clock 40 hours of work a week just to keep the privilege that is ratting for 40mil/hr in unsafe space? Of course the directors and logistics spergs do harder work than the line members. The point is that NPC null and highsec alliances don't even need anyone to do any of that work and don't need to foot 40 bil a month for sov bills because THEY DON'T EXIST.
They don't reap the benefits either. Before joining a sov alliance, our 0.0 POSes did not spew billions of moon goo worth a month. Before joining a sov alliance we had no station in all but 1 system. Before joining a sov alliance we were in some lolbadtruesec. Before joining a sov alliance we did not have Titan bridges and similar. It was like "wait 1 week till next JF runs to take stuff to low sec or come by foot (passing in half of Goon space BTW). Risk and reweard. You only show your risks and don't show your rewards while downplaying the others'. I have been in 1 NPC nullsec corp and 2 sov alliances (my other alts were in Initiative alliance) and I kind of know how it goes. hi Lowsec and NPC null also have moons to mine. Moon mining is not linked to having sov. The good moons (technetium) are going to be nerfed to crap on august 8.
Yes we had Cobalt and atmospheric gases. That made us rich. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Guttripper
State War Academy Caldari State
170
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 17:00:00 -
[2232] - Quote
Werst Dendenahzees wrote:The good moons (technetium) are going to be nerfed to crap on august 8.
Not to divert this ~wonderful~ thread off track, but I thought the whole moon mining aspect was something The Mittani wanted to have "fixed" since he and apparently many others saw as broken...? Add how many posts over time from members of Goons claiming to have billions upon billions of ISK freely lying around, "good moons ... nerfed to crap" should not be an issue, yes? |
Werst Dendenahzees
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
104
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 17:01:00 -
[2233] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
I have a feeling that nullsec could use a moderate boost to individual income but an huge boost to what I wrote in the paragraph above.
Then, we basically agree. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1753
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 17:01:00 -
[2234] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:malcovas Henderson wrote:I could be wrong, and sorry if I am, But faik the account gets banned, not the ip address. Making accounts for free is easy. and technically unlimited. not really, if you keep getting alt accounts banned for whatever reason i'm p sure they just ban all of your other accounts too
Mostly if not only for botting and / or RMTing. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Werst Dendenahzees
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
104
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 17:02:00 -
[2235] - Quote
Guttripper wrote:Werst Dendenahzees wrote:The good moons (technetium) are going to be nerfed to crap on august 8. Not to divert this ~wonderful~ thread off track, but I thought the whole moon mining aspect was something The Mittani wanted to have "fixed" since he and apparently many others saw as broken...? Add how many posts over time from members of Goons claiming to have billions upon billions of ISK freely lying around, "good moons ... nerfed to crap" should not be an issue, yes?
Yes, it is something we wanted, but CCP has just taken it out without replacing it with another form of (weaker) taxable income. Thus, it sucks. An optimized alliance today would simply not have sov. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1753
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 17:03:00 -
[2236] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:And isn't this the epitome of carebearing? "I want to do all sorts of stuff but not suffer any of the consequences, in the Game Of Consequences".
How is it better than dumb miners refusing the consequences of AFK their zero tank Hulk? i'm pretty sure more people recycle alts to keep concord in belts than people recycling good gank alts the more you know
No, because (since I have seen it done a lot), you shoot 1 ship, get a tiny sec loss and then have a full day to recover it by just killing the rats hitting on the mining ship. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1753
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 17:05:00 -
[2237] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Skippermonkey wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Why do gankers have LOLhisecgankalts? Because i like flying around hisec without being shot at by everything And isn't this the epitome of carebearing? "I want to do all sorts of stuff but not suffer any of the consequences, in the Game Of Consequences". Not at all, I am well aware of the consequences, and i deal with them on the character that i earn them on.
What consequence do you endure by pod warping from station to Orca, reshipping, going in blowing and insta warping to safe again? Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1753
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 17:06:00 -
[2238] - Quote
Werst Dendenahzees wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
I have a feeling that nullsec could use a moderate boost to individual income but an huge boost to what I wrote in the paragraph above.
Then, we basically agree.
Sure, if you just paused a second the parade about how though is to be in sov nullsec and tralala and would sit to a table and talk about the dry topics.
Werst Dendenahzees wrote: Yes, it is something we wanted, but CCP has just taken it out without replacing it with another form of (weaker) taxable income. Thus, it sucks. An optimized alliance today would simply not have sov.
Isn't it a bit too early to get out doom prophecies? We don't even know the final coefficients and you know that Alchemy won't kill it (Alchemy is engineered to be worth 0 below a certain minimum thresold anyway).
Edit: sure, gone are the days of 200k a piece, but then 200k a piece was the very reason why CCP got out the nerf hammer. It used to be <= 100k and no one thought it was worthless. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1211
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 17:11:00 -
[2239] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:What consequence do you endure by pod warping from station to Orca, reshipping, going in blowing and insta warping to safe again? Well, if thats how you think its done, why dont you scan down the POD in space and come kill me?
Negative ten toons are flashy red and able to be shot at by anyone, thats the consequence
deal with it My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
Werst Dendenahzees
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
105
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 17:11:00 -
[2240] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Werst Dendenahzees wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
I have a feeling that nullsec could use a moderate boost to individual income but an huge boost to what I wrote in the paragraph above.
Then, we basically agree. Sure, if you just paused a second the parade about how though is to be in sov nullsec and tralala and would sit to a table and talk about the dry topics. Werst Dendenahzees wrote: Yes, it is something we wanted, but CCP has just taken it out without replacing it with another form of (weaker) taxable income. Thus, it sucks. An optimized alliance today would simply not have sov.
Isn't it a bit too early to get out doom prophecies? We don't even know the final coefficients and you know that Alchemy won't kill it (Alchemy is engineered to be worth 0 below a certain minimum thresold anyway).
See Weaselior's calculator https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqcVTxvQXiL3dHJXYXcwejAtemZ2MlVxQkhWSnVfRGc#gid=0
|
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
130
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 17:12:00 -
[2241] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:What consequence do you endure by pod warping from station to Orca, reshipping, going in blowing and insta warping to safe again? Well, if thats how you think its done, why dont you scan down the POD in space and come kill me? Negative ten toons are flashy red and able to be shot at by anyone, thats the consequence deal with it
If they are in a ship. Shooting the pod isn't allowed. |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1211
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 17:16:00 -
[2242] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Skippermonkey wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:What consequence do you endure by pod warping from station to Orca, reshipping, going in blowing and insta warping to safe again? Well, if thats how you think its done, why dont you scan down the POD in space and come kill me? Negative ten toons are flashy red and able to be shot at by anyone, thats the consequence deal with it If they are in a ship. Shooting the pod isn't allowed.
-10's in a pod can be shot on sight My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
Guttripper
State War Academy Caldari State
170
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 17:16:00 -
[2243] - Quote
Werst Dendenahzees wrote:Yes, it is something we wanted, but CCP has just taken it out without replacing it with another form of (weaker) taxable income. Thus, it sucks. An optimized alliance today would simply not have sov.
Ahhh, so CCP basically half-assed it again...?
I saw the notices of the changes, but since I am not directly involved in moon mining, I did not keep up-to-date over the changes. Initially, it seemed (to me) that you quote was a complaint from loosing billions upon billions in revenue and only gaining millions upon billions. But if the whole aspect was gutted without anything suitable as a replacement - something a bit more "balanced" over the gaming universe, then I can understand the frustration.
My apologies if you might have taken offense at my words. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1753
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 17:18:00 -
[2244] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:What consequence do you endure by pod warping from station to Orca, reshipping, going in blowing and insta warping to safe again? Well, if thats how you think its done, why dont you scan down the POD in space and come kill me? Negative ten toons are flashy red and able to be shot at by anyone, thats the consequence deal with it
I don't think you sit a capsule in the same spot forever. Also, the flashy red is cute but for personal experience (deal with it indeed), you'll land at 100km off my ship to kill somebody, it's not so easy to catch you in the handful of seconds before you are done.
Even if you land at optimal, it's not easy, it involves SEBO and to pay SUPER attention for hours (it's not like you put a sign with your activity hours). It's easy to lose attention after 2 hours of nothing, it's not like real combat where you know stuff happens soon. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1211
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 17:20:00 -
[2245] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:it's not like real combat where you know stuff happens soon. You dont seem to be dealing with it very well My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
130
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 17:24:00 -
[2246] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:-10's in a pod can be shot on sight
In lowsec/nullsec. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1753
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 17:32:00 -
[2247] - Quote
Werst Dendenahzees wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Werst Dendenahzees wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
I have a feeling that nullsec could use a moderate boost to individual income but an huge boost to what I wrote in the paragraph above.
Then, we basically agree. Sure, if you just paused a second the parade about how though is to be in sov nullsec and tralala and would sit to a table and talk about the dry topics. Werst Dendenahzees wrote: Yes, it is something we wanted, but CCP has just taken it out without replacing it with another form of (weaker) taxable income. Thus, it sucks. An optimized alliance today would simply not have sov.
Isn't it a bit too early to get out doom prophecies? We don't even know the final coefficients and you know that Alchemy won't kill it (Alchemy is engineered to be worth 0 below a certain minimum thresold anyway). See Weaselior's calculator https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqcVTxvQXiL3dHJXYXcwejAtemZ2MlVxQkhWSnVfRGc#gid=0
I have seen it, it makes certain assumptions that we can't know if they'll become real until they happen. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1753
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 17:35:00 -
[2248] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:it's not like real combat where you know stuff happens soon. You dont seem to be dealing with it very well
I am not going to sit in a belt for 8 hours awaiting for the next Buddha to come. What for anyway? To kill a 2M ship that was mean to explode anyway and (since I don't use cheesy alts to circumvent consequences) get kill rights on me? Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1211
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 17:45:00 -
[2249] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:I am not going to sit in a belt for 8 hours awaiting for the next Buddha to come. What for anyway? To kill a 2M ship that was mean to explode anyway and (since I don't use cheesy alts to circumvent consequences) get kill rights on me? I'm not circumventing any consequences by doing that.
Are you saying every activity you do in EVE Online you do with the same character? My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1511
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 17:46:00 -
[2250] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:I am not going to sit in a belt for 8 hours awaiting for the next Buddha to come. What for anyway? To kill a 2M ship that was mean to explode anyway and (since I don't use cheesy alts to circumvent consequences) get kill rights on me?
hi
you shoot it when it gets a GCC and it won't get kill rights EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
|
Istyn
Tactical Knightmare
119
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 17:48:00 -
[2251] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Skippermonkey wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:What consequence do you endure by pod warping from station to Orca, reshipping, going in blowing and insta warping to safe again? Well, if thats how you think its done, why dont you scan down the POD in space and come kill me? Negative ten toons are flashy red and able to be shot at by anyone, thats the consequence deal with it If they are in a ship. Shooting the pod isn't allowed.
Shooting the pod of a guy with GCC isn't allowed.
Shooting the pod of a guy with -5 or lower sec status is.
The confusion arises because the overview changed from 'flashy red' for outlaw to solid red ala those who are GCC or have aggressed you, and then CCP decided to make it so that GCC pods were still showing as solid red for a while, making people think they were outlaws and therefore poddable. |
Soundwave Plays Diablo
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
70
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 17:50:00 -
[2252] - Quote
Danny Diamonds wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:And isn't this the epitome of carebearing? "I want to do all sorts of stuff but not suffer any of the consequences, in the Game Of Consequences".
How is it better than dumb miners refusing the consequences of AFK their zero tank Hulk? i'm pretty sure more people recycle alts to keep concord in belts than people recycling good gank alts the more you know Fabrication. Stop.
FFS you just make a DEDICATED ganking alt. Only FP attack you when you are -10, not concord. Its not against the rules, or very difficult at all, to evade the faction cronies. Just concord.
Any miners making alts to call concord will be reported.
|
Istyn
Tactical Knightmare
119
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 17:51:00 -
[2253] - Quote
Oh, worth also mentioning you can shoot a pod of a guy who aggresses you and doesn't have outlaw sec status, but will go GCC and take a sec hit once he explodes. It's a weird mechanic. |
Zyress
The Fabulous Thunderbirds
131
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 17:54:00 -
[2254] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Wall of tears.
Where did the bad miner touch you |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1511
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 17:55:00 -
[2255] - Quote
Istyn wrote:Oh, worth also mentioning you can shoot a pod of a guy who aggresses you and doesn't have outlaw sec status, but will go GCC and take a sec hit once he explodes. It's a weird mechanic.
you can legally kill pods if they're wartargets or have outlaw (-5 and below) sec status EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1511
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 17:57:00 -
[2256] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Skippermonkey wrote:-10's in a pod can be shot on sight In lowsec/nullsec.
and hisec
please stop saying things that are entirely untrue, feel free to test this on sisi
outlaw pods have been legal targets since ever EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1142
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 17:58:00 -
[2257] - Quote
Soundwave Plays Diablo wrote:Danny Diamonds wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:And isn't this the epitome of carebearing? "I want to do all sorts of stuff but not suffer any of the consequences, in the Game Of Consequences".
How is it better than dumb miners refusing the consequences of AFK their zero tank Hulk? i'm pretty sure more people recycle alts to keep concord in belts than people recycling good gank alts the more you know Fabrication. Stop. FFS you just make a DEDICATED ganking alt. Only FP attack you when you are -10, not concord. Its not against the rules, or very difficult at all, to evade the faction cronies. Just concord. Any miners making alts to call concord will be reported. There is nothing wrong with an alt to call concord (unless CCP has decided that calling Concord is an exploit or something).
They just can't recycle it.
Hmmm, I have an empty alt spot... |
Istyn
Tactical Knightmare
119
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 17:59:00 -
[2258] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Istyn wrote:Oh, worth also mentioning you can shoot a pod of a guy who aggresses you and doesn't have outlaw sec status, but will go GCC and take a sec hit once he explodes. It's a weird mechanic. you can legally kill pods if they're wartargets or have outlaw (-5 and below) sec status
>: Ya I said that just above that post.
only i am awesome and hit reply instead of edit like a champ derp. |
Istyn
Tactical Knightmare
119
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 18:01:00 -
[2259] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:Soundwave Plays Diablo wrote:Danny Diamonds wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:And isn't this the epitome of carebearing? "I want to do all sorts of stuff but not suffer any of the consequences, in the Game Of Consequences".
How is it better than dumb miners refusing the consequences of AFK their zero tank Hulk? i'm pretty sure more people recycle alts to keep concord in belts than people recycling good gank alts the more you know Fabrication. Stop. FFS you just make a DEDICATED ganking alt. Only FP attack you when you are -10, not concord. Its not against the rules, or very difficult at all, to evade the faction cronies. Just concord. Any miners making alts to call concord will be reported. There is nothing wrong with an alt to call concord (unless CCP has decided that calling Concord is an exploit or something). They just can't recycle it. Hmmm, I have an empty alt spot...
Concord spawning is an exploit, at least according to the GMs I've spoken with. |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1142
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 18:03:00 -
[2260] - Quote
Istyn wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:.............
There is nothing wrong with an alt to call concord (unless CCP has decided that calling Concord is an exploit or something). They just can't recycle it. Hmmm, I have an empty alt spot...
Concord spawning is an exploit, at least according to the GMs I've spoken with.[/quote] Aye, and others have said it wasn't.
Just another issue that the GM's haven't come to a consensus on. |
|
Istyn
Tactical Knightmare
119
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 18:04:00 -
[2261] - Quote
I think it depends how you do it.
Whether you're just pulling them somewhere once (like, with your ganker, waiting the 15 minutes and then ganking) or continuously keeping them floating around your barge using a guy in an ibis. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
130
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 18:20:00 -
[2262] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:please stop saying things that are entirely untrue, feel free to test this on sisi
I don't have any negative friends.
Richard Desturned wrote:outlaw pods have been legal targets since ever
Stop lying. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1511
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 18:22:00 -
[2263] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:please stop saying things that are entirely untrue, feel free to test this on sisi I don't have any negative friends. Richard Desturned wrote:outlaw pods have been legal targets since ever Stop lying.
please stop trying to spread misinformation like that
you refuse to test it and you refuse to believe that you can shoot outlaw pods
believe it or not, you can, i'm sorry that you're terribly misinformed EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1144
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 18:22:00 -
[2264] - Quote
Istyn wrote:I think it depends how you do it.
Whether you're just pulling them somewhere once (like, with your ganker, waiting the 15 minutes and then ganking) or continuously keeping them floating around your barge using a guy in an ibis. This is moot, since the guy with the Ibis will only be able to get Concord into the belt once every 15 minutes. Otherwise, he will pull Concord to whatever station he comes from. |
Mallak Azaria
506
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 18:23:00 -
[2265] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:please stop saying things that are entirely untrue, feel free to test this on sisi I don't have any friends. Richard Desturned wrote:outlaw pods have been legal targets since ever Stop lying.
Do you even play this game?
Mining Barge buff: CCP-áhas acknowledged that miners in general-áare too stupid to make the correct fitting choices to make ganking them unprofitable. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
130
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 18:26:00 -
[2266] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:please stop trying to spread misinformation like that
you refuse to test it and you refuse to believe that you can shoot outlaw pods
believe it or not, you can, i'm sorry that you're terribly misinformed
You do realize that pvp outside of certain areas on SiSi isn't allowed?
Mallak Azaria wrote:Do you even play this game?
Yes. |
Mallak Azaria
506
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 18:28:00 -
[2267] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:Do you even play this game? Yes.
I doubt it. Even day 1 trial newbies know that you can shoot outlaw pods in highsec.
Mining Barge buff: CCP-áhas acknowledged that miners in general-áare too stupid to make the correct fitting choices to make ganking them unprofitable. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1755
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 18:28:00 -
[2268] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:I am not going to sit in a belt for 8 hours awaiting for the next Buddha to come. What for anyway? To kill a 2M ship that was mean to explode anyway and (since I don't use cheesy alts to circumvent consequences) get kill rights on me? hi you shoot it when it gets a GCC and it won't get kill rights
Am I going to pop him before he pops the other guy? Because that would be the reason to do that defense. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1144
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 18:30:00 -
[2269] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:I am not going to sit in a belt for 8 hours awaiting for the next Buddha to come. What for anyway? To kill a 2M ship that was mean to explode anyway and (since I don't use cheesy alts to circumvent consequences) get kill rights on me? hi you shoot it when it gets a GCC and it won't get kill rights Am I going to pop him before he pops the other guy? Because that would be the reason to do that defense. If it is a dessie, yes easy.
If it is a BC or BS... not likely. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1511
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 18:30:00 -
[2270] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:I am not going to sit in a belt for 8 hours awaiting for the next Buddha to come. What for anyway? To kill a 2M ship that was mean to explode anyway and (since I don't use cheesy alts to circumvent consequences) get kill rights on me? hi you shoot it when it gets a GCC and it won't get kill rights Am I going to pop him before he pops the other guy? Because that would be the reason to do that defense.
a catalyst has 4k ehp
figure out the rest yourself v0v EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1511
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 18:31:00 -
[2271] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:You do realize that pvp outside of certain areas on SiSi isn't allowed?
consensual pvp for testing purposes is allowed everywhere EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Mallak Azaria
506
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 18:31:00 -
[2272] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:I am not going to sit in a belt for 8 hours awaiting for the next Buddha to come. What for anyway? To kill a 2M ship that was mean to explode anyway and (since I don't use cheesy alts to circumvent consequences) get kill rights on me? hi you shoot it when it gets a GCC and it won't get kill rights Am I going to pop him before he pops the other guy? Because that would be the reason to do that defense.
If you can't alpha a destroyer, you're doing something wrong.
Mining Barge buff: CCP-áhas acknowledged that miners in general-áare too stupid to make the correct fitting choices to make ganking them unprofitable. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
130
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 18:45:00 -
[2273] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:consensual pvp for testing purposes is allowed everywhere
So, I have to wardec my alt to test it... I'm not CEO so I can't do that.
Mallak Azaria wrote:If you can't alpha a destroyer, you're doing something wrong.
800mm Repeating Artillery II would like to have word with you. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1511
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 18:46:00 -
[2274] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:If you can't alpha a destroyer, you're doing something wrong.
if only we had two cheapass battlecruiser hulls that can be fit to instalock and pop catalysts with high-alpha turrets
if only EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
288
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 18:46:00 -
[2275] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote: So, I have to wardec my alt to test it... I'm not CEO so I can't do that.
wrong |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1511
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 18:47:00 -
[2276] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:consensual pvp for testing purposes is allowed everywhere So, I have to wardec my alt to test it... I'm not CEO so I can't do that. Mallak Azaria wrote:If you can't alpha a destroyer, you're doing something wrong. 800mm Repeating Artillery II would like to have word with you.
pod yourself with that alt till it's -5 (doesn't take very long)
and no you don't use autocannons, it's called artillery EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
130
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 18:48:00 -
[2277] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:If you can't alpha a destroyer, you're doing something wrong.
if only we had two cheapass battlecruiser hulls that can be fit to instalock and pop catalysts with high-alpha turrets if only
One. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1511
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 18:50:00 -
[2278] - Quote
hurricane
tornado
once again, you are wrong EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
130
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 18:53:00 -
[2279] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:pod yourself with that alt till it's -5 (doesn't take very long)
I get kicked out from SiSi if I do that. And it takes a long time even if I pod character with 5.0 sec status. |
Istyn
Tactical Knightmare
119
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 18:54:00 -
[2280] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote:So here's the rules: * You can freely kill a pod if the pilot is an outlaw (below -5 sec status) * You can't kill a pod if the pilot just has a GCC. If you try, you'll get the non-suppressible "Are you sure? CONCORD will wtfpwn you if you do this" dialog This has always been the case
Normally someone with GCC will show up as red. What changed with Escalation was that we removed a special case in the UI that suppressed this red if they had GCC AND were in a pod. Now someone with GCC will always show up as red, regardless of their ship. However you will stil get punished if you kill a GCC pod BUT only if you click 'Yes' to the CONCORD question.
I do agree this can be a little confusing, and we're looking at adjusting it a little based on feedback such as this.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1208388#post1208388 |
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1511
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 18:54:00 -
[2281] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:pod yourself with that alt till it's -5 (doesn't take very long) I get kicked out from SiSi if I do that. And it takes a long time even if I pod character with 5.0 sec status.
no you do not, you'd have to be reported by the guy you podded
and well i don't think your alt is suddenly going to develop an independent consciousness and report you for podding outside of the designated systems EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
130
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 18:56:00 -
[2282] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:no you do not, you'd have to be reported by the guy you podded
and well i don't think your alt is suddenly going to develop an independent consciousness and report you for podding outside of the designated systems
It will show on logs. |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
292
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 18:58:00 -
[2283] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:no you do not, you'd have to be reported by the guy you podded
and well i don't think your alt is suddenly going to develop an independent consciousness and report you for podding outside of the designated systems It will show on logs. it's only against the rules to pod an unwilling person
they must petition complaining about it |
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
323
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 19:08:00 -
[2284] - Quote
Wow I cannot believe people like Jorma not only know nothing about game mechanics but refuse to listen to people who know what they are doing or test it himself.
As someone who has been popping pods and getting podded for 6 years, you have always been able to pod someone who is an outlaw in high sec space. GCC pods are not valid, only outlaws which are people below -5.0. Won't take more than 10 mins to test this on Sisi. I don't need to test it because I podded some poor afk outlaw pod in high sec 3 days ago.
GCC pods should be valid targets to everyone but I assume that's because it would require effort on CCPs part. Giving exhumers +10k base ehp (or whatever it is) is really, really, REALLY tough work. Phew, I'm getting tired just thinking about it, better take a well deserved vacation after this CCP, that's some complicated in-depth finely tuned balancing there. Congrats. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1511
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 19:12:00 -
[2285] - Quote
Vaal Erit wrote:Wow I cannot believe people like Jorma not only know nothing about game mechanics but refuse to listen to people who know what they are doing or test it himself.
As someone who has been popping pods and getting podded for 6 years, you have always been able to pod someone who is an outlaw in high sec space. GCC pods are not valid, only outlaws which are people below -5.0. Won't take more than 10 mins to test this on Sisi. I don't need to test it because I podded some poor afk outlaw pod in high sec 3 days ago.
GCC pods should be valid targets to everyone but I assume that's because it would require effort on CCPs part. Giving exhumers +10k base ehp (or whatever it is) is really, really, REALLY tough work. Phew, I'm getting tired just thinking about it, better take a well deserved vacation after this CCP, that's some complicated in-depth finely tuned balancing there. Congrats.
it doesn't take long to reach -5 if you do a lot of ganking EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1755
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 19:18:00 -
[2286] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:I am not going to sit in a belt for 8 hours awaiting for the next Buddha to come. What for anyway? To kill a 2M ship that was mean to explode anyway and (since I don't use cheesy alts to circumvent consequences) get kill rights on me? hi you shoot it when it gets a GCC and it won't get kill rights Am I going to pop him before he pops the other guy? Because that would be the reason to do that defense. a catalyst has 4k ehp figure out the rest yourself v0v
Are you implying I should use an arty boat? Because their tracking woes against something that comes in and shoots. All anti-gank fittings that I have seen posted had ACs and those don't instashot 4k. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1512
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 19:19:00 -
[2287] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Are you implying I should use an arty boat? Because their tracking woes against something that comes in and shoots. All anti-gank fittings that I have seen posted had ACs and those don't instashot 4k.
Tracking Enhancer II EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1755
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 19:20:00 -
[2288] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:If you can't alpha a destroyer, you're doing something wrong.
if only we had two cheapass battlecruiser hulls that can be fit to instalock and pop catalysts with high-alpha turrets if only
I tried a 'cane and guess what, the other guy still managed to kill the mack. Oh sure, I should involve a blueball like you do with remote SEBO, maybe why not an interceptor and whatever. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1755
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 19:20:00 -
[2289] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Are you implying I should use an arty boat? Because their tracking woes against something that comes in and shoots. All anti-gank fittings that I have seen posted had ACs and those don't instashot 4k. Tracking Enhancer II
I always fit 2... Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Sarik Olecar
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
9
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 19:21:00 -
[2290] - Quote
Gratz on +100 pages guyz! This thread has provided me with many laughs while I AFK ice mine in an untanked mack... |
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1512
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 19:21:00 -
[2291] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:I tried a 'cane and guess what, the other guy still managed to kill the mack. Oh sure, I should involve a blueball like you do with remote SEBO, maybe why not an interceptor and whatever.
"I can't work out a fitting for a t1 battlecruiser"
EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Pipa Porto
577
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 19:21:00 -
[2292] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Being Cloaked AFK is to being AFK in a station in a Barge (No Income, No Risk) There's a risk when you are in safe spot and cloaked. People can still find you.
Even if that were true (it's not), you are still trying to compare Cloaking AFK in a Safespot to Mining AFK in a Belt.
It's simply not a valid comparison.
An Exploration Curse AFK in an Exploration pocket is as easy to kill as a Hulk sitting AFK in a belt. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
292
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 19:21:00 -
[2293] - Quote
you can easily kill a catalyst before it kills the target |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1512
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 19:21:00 -
[2294] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:I always fit 2...
try a third EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
JamesCLK
Lone Star Exploration Lone Star Partners
192
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 19:21:00 -
[2295] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Are you implying I should use an arty boat? Because their tracking woes against something that comes in and shoots. All anti-gank fittings that I have seen posted had ACs and those don't instashot 4k. Tracking Enhancer II
Tracking Computer II, Tracking Script <3 |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1512
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 19:23:00 -
[2296] - Quote
JamesCLK wrote:Tracking Computer II, Tracking Script <3
an instacane does not use tracking computers EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Pipa Porto
577
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 19:24:00 -
[2297] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:maybe the miners should fit these things called "shield extenders" and "hardeners" instead of having a tank given to them on a silver platter
sorry if you can't make such tough choices like "15% more yield or 300% better tank" What kind of tank you would suggest? This fit has 22k EHP with current stats on SiSi. [Hulk, Tank Fit] Damage Control II Micro Auxiliary Power Core II Medium F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Limited Adaptive Invulnerability Field I 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 Ancillary Current Router I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
The "Buy a Skiff" tank. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1755
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 19:24:00 -
[2298] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:I tried a 'cane and guess what, the other guy still managed to kill the mack. Oh sure, I should involve a blueball like you do with remote SEBO, maybe why not an interceptor and whatever. "I can't work out a fitting for a t1 battlecruiser"
Oh show me the fitting able to lock and kill a ganker after he went GCC (half are not -5 status) and before he pops a random mack. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1512
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 19:25:00 -
[2299] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Oh show me the fitting able to lock and kill a ganker after he went GCC (half are not -5 status) and before he pops a random mack.
hint: "medium targeting system subcontroller I" 2nd hint: "sensor booster II" EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
456
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 19:26:00 -
[2300] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:no you do not, you'd have to be reported by the guy you podded
and well i don't think your alt is suddenly going to develop an independent consciousness and report you for podding outside of the designated systems It will show on logs. Please leave the thread, the grownups are talking. EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
|
Pipa Porto
577
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 19:30:00 -
[2301] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote: The Special Snowflake brick tank is required only to counter a special snowflake team of many T1 Dessies in .5 space. Anywhere else, you can fit a smaller tank and still be unprofitable.
Many T1 dessies is not a special snowflake at all. 2-3 of them is what every non rookie ganker use in 0.7 and below. Usually they don't use more as they seem to get bored and scale up to bigger hulls past 5 catalysts.
You have to drop down to low meta (inc the Magstabs) to keep it cheap enough to field enough to profit off of a brick tanked Hulk in .5
Also, you need more than the normal amount, which means you need to gather a bunch more people. Or, instead of going after the hardest target available (who you'll probably break even on), you can go for the idiot next to him who hasn't fit a tank.
But the real reason it's a special snowflake situation is that there is no reason why you need to be mining in .5 space. Scord is found in 1.0 space too. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
261
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 19:31:00 -
[2302] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:maybe the miners should fit these things called "shield extenders" and "hardeners" instead of having a tank given to them on a silver platter
sorry if you can't make such tough choices like "15% more yield or 300% better tank" What kind of tank you would suggest? This fit has 22k EHP with current stats on SiSi. [Hulk, Tank Fit] Damage Control II Micro Auxiliary Power Core II Medium F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Limited Adaptive Invulnerability Field I 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 Ancillary Current Router I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I The "Buy a Skiff" tank. So if the don't buff the hulks tank we should have no issues with the changes? |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
562
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 19:41:00 -
[2303] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAB6UxUo-rc Nice, Drakes killing supers.
425mm canes are far more effective at it than drakes, just say'in brb |
Pipa Porto
578
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 19:43:00 -
[2304] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:please stop saying things that are entirely untrue, feel free to test this on sisi I don't have any negative friends. Richard Desturned wrote:outlaw pods have been legal targets since ever Stop lying.
Then try it on TQ. It is perfectly legal to shoot outlaws in pods in HS. You don't go GCC, you don't get CONCORDed, and you don't lose Sec Status. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
562
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 19:43:00 -
[2305] - Quote
Vaal Erit wrote:Wow I cannot believe people like Jorma not only know nothing about game mechanics but refuse to listen to people who know what they are doing or test it himself.
As someone who has been popping pods and getting podded for 6 years, you have always been able to pod someone who is an outlaw in high sec space. GCC pods are not valid, only outlaws which are people below -5.0. Won't take more than 10 mins to test this on Sisi. I don't need to test it because I podded some poor afk outlaw pod in high sec 3 days ago.
GCC pods should be valid targets to everyone but I assume that's because it would require effort on CCPs part. Giving exhumers +10k base ehp (or whatever it is) is really, really, REALLY tough work. Phew, I'm getting tired just thinking about it, better take a well deserved vacation after this CCP, that's some complicated in-depth finely tuned balancing there. Congrats.
Nice vacations (for everyone) bye brb |
JamesCLK
Lone Star Exploration Lone Star Partners
192
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 19:44:00 -
[2306] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:an instacane does not use tracking computers
I have no idea what I'm doing (you're right)!
[Hurricane, Instacane]
Counterbalanced Weapon Mounts I Counterbalanced Weapon Mounts I Counterbalanced Weapon Mounts I Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II
F-90 Positional Sensor Subroutines, Scan Resolution Script F-90 Positional Sensor Subroutines, Scan Resolution Script F-90 Positional Sensor Subroutines, Scan Resolution Script F-90 Positional Sensor Subroutines, Scan Resolution Script
[Empty High slot] [Empty High slot] 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M
Medium Projectile Collision Accelerator I Medium Targeting System Subcontroller I Medium Targeting System Subcontroller I
Locks a Catalyst in 1 second. A direct hit alphas an untanked Catalyst.
Can I have a gold star now? |
Pipa Porto
578
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 19:50:00 -
[2307] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Pipa Porto wrote: The "Buy a Skiff" tank.
So if the don't buff the hulks tank we should have no issues with the changes?
I like the idea behind the changes. Each Exhumer should have a role.
Right now, the Hulk with the new, lower tank is about fine. You gotta be ATK to keep it safe.
My problem is with the Mack and Skiff. Each takes too much of the other's role. The Skiff's not viable so long as the Mack is expensive to gank (something like 50-60k EHP available). And if that were fixed, the Mack would'nt be viable so long as the Skiff has a 17k m3 cargo.
Reduce the Mack's tank and Skiff's cargo, and you'll get an honest-to-god choice between the 3.
Hulk for when you're ATK with fleet support. Mack for when you're ATK with no fleet support. Skiff for when you cba to be ATK all the time to stay safe. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
261
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 19:54:00 -
[2308] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Pipa Porto wrote: The "Buy a Skiff" tank.
So if the don't buff the hulks tank we should have no issues with the changes? I like the idea behind the changes. Each Exhumer should have a role. Right now, the Hulk with the new, lower tank is about fine. You gotta be ATK to keep it safe. My problem is with the Mack and Skiff. Each takes too much of the other's role. The Skiff's not viable so long as the Mack is expensive to gank (something like 50-60k EHP available). And if that were fixed, the Mack would'nt be viable so long as the Skiff has a 17k m3 cargo. Reduce the Mack's tank and Skiff's cargo, and you'll get an honest-to-god choice between the 3. Hulk for when you're ATK with fleet support. Mack for when you're ATK with no fleet support. Skiff for when you cba to be ATK all the time to stay safe. Fair and reasonable. No complaints about that analysis. |
Pipa Porto
578
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 19:54:00 -
[2309] - Quote
JamesCLK wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:an instacane does not use tracking computers I have no idea what I'm doing (you're right)! Can I have a gold star now?
I prefer 425mm or 650s ACs on a Nado. Sure it takes 2 shots to kill a Catalyst, but you get a shot every 2 seconds and change (call it 3s). You'll end up killing more Catalysts over the course of the 20s gank. (3 instead of 2) EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1755
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 20:01:00 -
[2310] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote: But the real reason it's a special snowflake situation is that there is no reason why you need to be mining in .5 space. Scord is found in 1.0 space too.
Ice is not. Also go mine in 1.0 yourself and you'll find out you why nobody serious does it.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
|
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
562
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 20:04:00 -
[2311] - Quote
JamesCLK wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:an instacane does not use tracking computers I have no idea what I'm doing (you're right)! [Hurricane, Instacane] Counterbalanced Weapon Mounts I Counterbalanced Weapon Mounts I Counterbalanced Weapon Mounts I Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II F-90 Positional Sensor Subroutines, Scan Resolution Script F-90 Positional Sensor Subroutines, Scan Resolution Script F-90 Positional Sensor Subroutines, Scan Resolution Script F-90 Positional Sensor Subroutines, Scan Resolution Script [Empty High slot] [Empty High slot] 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M Medium Projectile Collision Accelerator I Medium Targeting System Subcontroller I Medium Targeting System Subcontroller I Locks a Catalyst in 1 second. A direct hit alphas an untanked Catalyst. Can I have a gold star now?
I can instantly murder bombers/dictors and assault frigs with something a little different than yours but still 1450 scan res
brb |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1755
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 20:11:00 -
[2312] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:JamesCLK wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:an instacane does not use tracking computers I have no idea what I'm doing (you're right)! Can I have a gold star now? I prefer 425mm or 650s ACs on a Nado. Sure it takes 2 shots to kill a Catalyst, but you get a shot every 2 seconds and change (call it 3s). You'll end up killing more Catalysts over the course of the 20s gank. (3 instead of 2)
That's why I was saying I have not seen anti-gank arty setups in the posts above.
Anyway this is another arty setup, volley = 3886 in ideal conditions, DPS = 425 at 23km even without good transversal (it's not like gankers will align nicely for you to kill them easy). Unlike the above, this setup won't entice gankers to just come suicide the 'cane. Ofc feel free to replace survival mods with more scan res.
[Hurricane, Instacane] Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II Damage Control II
Sensor Booster II, Scan Resolution Script Sensor Booster II, Scan Resolution Script Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Large Shield Extender II
720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M Salvager II Small Tractor Beam II
Medium Targeting System Subcontroller I Medium Targeting System Subcontroller I Medium Projectile Metastasis Adjuster I
Hobgoblin II x5 (of course it's not for the gankers, just to kill rats) Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Pipa Porto
578
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 20:19:00 -
[2313] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote: But the real reason it's a special snowflake situation is that there is no reason why you need to be mining in .5 space. Scord is found in 1.0 space too.
Ice is not. Also go mine in 1.0 yourself and you'll find out you why nobody serious does it.
Then be ATK.
Again, that Tank is the counter to a gank specifically designed to murder a tanked Hulk.
Put a Midslot/Rigslot/1 Low tank on a Hulk and people will go after softer targets instead of you. Midslot/Rigslot only tank will also probably keep you alive.
It's just not the "never profitable" protection of the total brick tank. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1755
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 20:24:00 -
[2314] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote: But the real reason it's a special snowflake situation is that there is no reason why you need to be mining in .5 space. Scord is found in 1.0 space too.
Ice is not. Also go mine in 1.0 yourself and you'll find out you why nobody serious does it. Then be ATK. Again, that Tank is the counter to a gank specifically designed to murder a tanked Hulk. Put a Midslot/Rigslot/1 Low tank on a Hulk and people will go after softer targets instead of you. Midslot/Rigslot only tank will also probably keep you alive. It's just not the "never profitable" protection of the total brick tank.
Even being ATK and with YOUR fitting I got a guy still managing to shoot *1* 'nado salvo on my experiment mack and quite hurt it.
Not even when playing in low sec you have to be ATK like an hawk like that, nor you are out for 8 hours in an universally warpable location when you go in low sec.
BTW how comes I can get a gank cane setup that sacrifices NOTHING (top tracking, 1.6s lock time, all T2 mods, 37k EHP without all V skills, high burst, 3 gyrostabs...) but if I want to fly a Mack I either forfeit 35% of yeld or have a pure sh!t zero tank? Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
9035
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 20:30:00 -
[2315] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Stuff about -10 and SiSi. That was hilarious, thanks for the laugh.
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
321
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 20:32:00 -
[2316] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:BTW how comes I can get a gank cane setup that sacrifices NOTHING (top tracking, best possible T2 turrets, 1.6s lock time, all T2 mods, 37k EHP without all V skills, high burst, 3 gyrostabs...) but if I want to fly a Mack I either forfeit 35% of yeld or have a pure sh!t zero tank and ofc all V skills?
nothing wrong with that; it's perfectly balanced. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Pipa Porto
578
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 20:35:00 -
[2317] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote: But the real reason it's a special snowflake situation is that there is no reason why you need to be mining in .5 space. Scord is found in 1.0 space too.
Ice is not. Also go mine in 1.0 yourself and you'll find out you why nobody serious does it. Then be ATK. Again, that Tank is the counter to a gank specifically designed to murder a tanked Hulk. Put a Midslot/Rigslot/1 Low tank on a Hulk and people will go after softer targets instead of you. Midslot/Rigslot only tank will also probably keep you alive. It's just not the "never profitable" protection of the total brick tank. Even being ATK and with YOUR fitting I got a guy still managing to shoot *1* 'nado salvo on my experiment mack and quite hurt it before it warped out (and it was aligned and full speed or else...). Not even when playing in low sec you have to be ATK like an hawk like that, nor you are out for 8 hours in an universally warpable location when you go in low sec. BTW how comes I can get a gank cane setup that sacrifices NOTHING (top tracking, best possible T2 turrets, 1.6s lock time, all T2 mods, 37k EHP without all V skills, high burst, 3 gyrostabs...) but if I want to fly a Mack I either forfeit 35% of yeld or have a pure sh!t zero tank and ofc all V skills?
Mining Ice in a Hulk is perfectly viable, if a little slow. And when I say ATK, I mean actually doing something, which means that your protection is not being there for him to salvo you. You warp out as he starts landing on grid, not after he starts locking you.
Anyway, have I ever said the Mack couldn't do with some love? I've only said that the New SISI mack has gotten too much love and because of that, it eclipses the New SISI Skiff. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
563
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 20:35:00 -
[2318] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:BTW how comes I can get a gank cane setup that sacrifices NOTHING (top tracking, best possible T2 turrets, 1.6s lock time, all T2 mods, 37k EHP without all V skills, high burst, 3 gyrostabs...) but if I want to fly a Mack I either forfeit 35% of yeld or have a pure sh!t zero tank and ofc all V skills? nothing wrong with that; it's perfectly balanced.
Without that all those elite pvp dudes would have some hard time undocking, don't even tell them they have free targets in null sec. brb |
Pipa Porto
578
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 20:38:00 -
[2319] - Quote
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:Dave stark wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:BTW how comes I can get a gank cane setup that sacrifices NOTHING (top tracking, best possible T2 turrets, 1.6s lock time, all T2 mods, 37k EHP without all V skills, high burst, 3 gyrostabs...) but if I want to fly a Mack I either forfeit 35% of yeld or have a pure sh!t zero tank and ofc all V skills? nothing wrong with that; it's perfectly balanced. Without that all those elite pvp dudes would have some hard time undocking, don't even tell them they have free targets in null sec.
Last night I had a Falcon decloak on me (I think accidentally) and then tried to crash a gate. He started jamming me on the way to the gate. He had a full rack of Multispecs and a pair of 220s in the Highs.
That's pretty much a free target. And a Free kill. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
130
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 20:38:00 -
[2320] - Quote
JamesCLK wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:an instacane does not use tracking computers I have no idea what I'm doing (you're right)! [Hurricane, Instacane] Counterbalanced Weapon Mounts I Counterbalanced Weapon Mounts I Counterbalanced Weapon Mounts I Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II F-90 Positional Sensor Subroutines, Scan Resolution Script F-90 Positional Sensor Subroutines, Scan Resolution Script F-90 Positional Sensor Subroutines, Scan Resolution Script F-90 Positional Sensor Subroutines, Scan Resolution Script [Empty High slot] [Empty High slot] 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M Medium Projectile Collision Accelerator I Medium Targeting System Subcontroller I Medium Targeting System Subcontroller I Locks a Catalyst in 1 second. A direct hit alphas an untanked Catalyst. Can I have a gold star now?
Not enough dps to destroy that Catalyst.
|
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1755
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 20:43:00 -
[2321] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:BTW how comes I can get a gank cane setup that sacrifices NOTHING (top tracking, best possible T2 turrets, 1.6s lock time, all T2 mods, 37k EHP without all V skills, high burst, 3 gyrostabs...) but if I want to fly a Mack I either forfeit 35% of yeld or have a pure sh!t zero tank and ofc all V skills? nothing wrong with that; it's perfectly balanced.
Might be balanced but I totally feel well in my combat ships (minmatar and caldari) while the mining ships feel big smelly cartons that are just poor and lacking.
Even the Orca is a great ship, mine got like 250k EHP without sacrificing but a little cargo, it can be reconfigured to carry a lot or be very tanked or use a MWD for quick warp...
it's just the mining ships that suck really hard balls.
And even then, I prefer today's Hulk vs the new version. I'll never fly it. Total removal of any flexibility (like it had a lot to begin with!). Nobody who is not a masochistic drone will use that piece of crap. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
321
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 20:44:00 -
[2322] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Mining Ice in a Hulk is perfectly viable, if a little slow. And when I say ATK, I mean actually doing something, which means that your protection is not being there for him to salvo you. You warp out as he starts landing on grid, not after he starts locking you.
Anyway, have I ever said the Mack couldn't do with some love? I've only said that the New SISI mack has gotten too much love and because of that, it eclipses the New SISI Skiff.
the problem is either the exhumers will eclipse the skiff or they will still be gank fodder. there's no middle ground. it'll be unprofitable to tank and the skiff will be redundant, or it will be profitable to gank and the rebalancing has failed. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1755
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 20:44:00 -
[2323] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:Dave stark wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:BTW how comes I can get a gank cane setup that sacrifices NOTHING (top tracking, best possible T2 turrets, 1.6s lock time, all T2 mods, 37k EHP without all V skills, high burst, 3 gyrostabs...) but if I want to fly a Mack I either forfeit 35% of yeld or have a pure sh!t zero tank and ofc all V skills? nothing wrong with that; it's perfectly balanced. Without that all those elite pvp dudes would have some hard time undocking, don't even tell them they have free targets in null sec. Last night I had a Falcon decloak on me (I think accidentally) and then tried to crash a gate. He started jamming me on the way to the gate. He had a full rack of Multispecs and a pair of 220s in the Highs. That's pretty much a free target. And a Free kill.
How can he use the gate if he aggressed you? Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Pipa Porto
578
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 20:46:00 -
[2324] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:JamesCLK wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:an instacane does not use tracking computers I have no idea what I'm doing (you're right)! [Hurricane, Instacane] Counterbalanced Weapon Mounts I Counterbalanced Weapon Mounts I Counterbalanced Weapon Mounts I Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II F-90 Positional Sensor Subroutines, Scan Resolution Script F-90 Positional Sensor Subroutines, Scan Resolution Script F-90 Positional Sensor Subroutines, Scan Resolution Script F-90 Positional Sensor Subroutines, Scan Resolution Script [Empty High slot] [Empty High slot] 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M Medium Projectile Collision Accelerator I Medium Targeting System Subcontroller I Medium Targeting System Subcontroller I Locks a Catalyst in 1 second. A direct hit alphas an untanked Catalyst. Can I have a gold star now? Not enough dps to destroy that Catalyst.
Yes it is.
RF EMP does 3879 damage per Volley. Suicide Catalyst has 3764 EHP vs EMP.
Do you get tired of being wrong every time you post? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Pipa Porto
578
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 20:47:00 -
[2325] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:Dave stark wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:BTW how comes I can get a gank cane setup that sacrifices NOTHING (top tracking, best possible T2 turrets, 1.6s lock time, all T2 mods, 37k EHP without all V skills, high burst, 3 gyrostabs...) but if I want to fly a Mack I either forfeit 35% of yeld or have a pure sh!t zero tank and ofc all V skills? nothing wrong with that; it's perfectly balanced. Without that all those elite pvp dudes would have some hard time undocking, don't even tell them they have free targets in null sec. Last night I had a Falcon decloak on me (I think accidentally) and then tried to crash a gate. He started jamming me on the way to the gate. He had a full rack of Multispecs and a pair of 220s in the Highs. That's pretty much a free target. And a Free kill. How can he use the gate if he aggressed you?
Like I said. Free target, Free kill. Silly Falcon. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
321
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 20:49:00 -
[2326] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Dave stark wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:BTW how comes I can get a gank cane setup that sacrifices NOTHING (top tracking, best possible T2 turrets, 1.6s lock time, all T2 mods, 37k EHP without all V skills, high burst, 3 gyrostabs...) but if I want to fly a Mack I either forfeit 35% of yeld or have a pure sh!t zero tank and ofc all V skills? nothing wrong with that; it's perfectly balanced. Might be balanced but I totally feel well in my combat ships (minmatar and caldari) while the mining ships feel big smelly cartons that are just poor and lacking. Even the Orca is a great ship, mine got like 250k EHP without sacrificing but a little cargo, it can be reconfigured to carry a lot or be very tanked or use a MWD for quick warp... it's just the mining ships that suck really hard balls. And even then, I prefer today's Hulk vs the new version. I'll never fly it. Total removal of any flexibility (like it had a lot to begin with!). Nobody who is not a masochistic drone will use that piece of crap.
agreed, the orca is amazing. easily my favourite ship in the game.
i'll use the new hulk, i just doubt i'll use it in high sec. assuming that 3% yield buff does indeed turn in to a 5% one i might use it in high sec... but with the higher ehp on the mack along with the lack of having to jetcan i'll probably go with the mack. oh right yeah, higher ehp and cargo and yield because you can't really use a max yield hulk without making yourself gank fodder...
the crown has just been passed and the rebalancing has failed somewhat imo.
Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Pipa Porto
578
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 20:53:00 -
[2327] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Mining Ice in a Hulk is perfectly viable, if a little slow. And when I say ATK, I mean actually doing something, which means that your protection is not being there for him to salvo you. You warp out as he starts landing on grid, not after he starts locking you.
Anyway, have I ever said the Mack couldn't do with some love? I've only said that the New SISI mack has gotten too much love and because of that, it eclipses the New SISI Skiff. the problem is either the exhumers will eclipse the skiff or they will still be gank fodder. there's no middle ground. it'll be unprofitable to tank and the skiff will be redundant, or it will be profitable to gank and the rebalancing has failed.
The Rebalancing is to give all 3 exhumers a role. Not to make them all not worth ganking.
Skiff: Worried about the threat of Ganking? Come here, me'boyo. Mackinaw: No friends to drive trucks for you, but ganking's the least of your concern? Yarr, over here, me'hearty. Hulk: Got friends and not worried about ganking? You're in the money, you're in the money.
See: Three ships, Three Roles. If you're worried about ganking but still want to fly one of the others, then you're gonna have to take active measures to protect yourself (defensive blappers, Logi, ECM, Alignment).
At the moment, on SISI, it's as follows: Skiff: What, are you stupid? Go use a Mack. Mackinaw: Set me off on an Ice belt and take a nap. You look tired. I'll still be here when you wake up. Probably not full, even. Hulk: Got friends and not worried about ganking? You're in the money, you're in the money.
The Hulk's fine. The Skiff and Mack are splitting the same Role, and the Mack is better at it. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Shalua Rui
FEROX AQUILA
18
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 20:56:00 -
[2328] - Quote
Couldn't have said it better, Pipa: Old barges = good riddance. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1755
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 21:02:00 -
[2329] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:At the moment, on SISI, it's as follows: Skiff: What, are you stupid? Go use a Mack. Mackinaw: Set me off on an Ice belt and take a nap. You look tired. I'll still be here when you wake up. Probably not full, even. Hulk: Got friends and not worried about ganking? You're in the money, you're in the money.
The Hulk's fine. The Skiff and Mack are splitting the same Role, and the Mack is better at it.
They have their roles:
Skiff: ungankable, you can just park it there and go away.
Mack: need some effort to kill but unlike on TQ, not every single monkey will be able to melt it just by sneezing in a random direction.
Hulk: lol why-ever-fly-unpracticable-cargo-and-stupidly-small-crystals-hold piece of paper?
You don't like the new Mack but I find the Hulk is in the worst state. It does not even mine as good as today's Hulk, it got FAR less cargo, FAR less space for crystals and in order to be the min maxed ship it won't certainly be known for its tank.
Utter bad piece of garbage they made. Just because now you have to stagger lasers (and roids of course will deplete and then you just broke your "rotation") and micro manage like a Starcraft 1 Korean player does not mean it got any better nor any more fun.
I'd have difficutly trading a today's Mack for a tomorrow's Hulk. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
130
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 21:21:00 -
[2330] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:RF EMP does 3879 damage per Volley. Suicide Catalyst has 3764 EHP vs EMP.
Only if you somehow get perfect shot. It's often only 2600-2800 per volley. |
|
Suddenly Forums ForumKings
Republic University Minmatar Republic
88
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 21:22:00 -
[2331] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: Hulk: lol why-ever-fly-unpracticable-cargo-and-stupidly-small-crystals-hold piece of paper?
There's this really cool thing called friends. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1755
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 21:26:00 -
[2332] - Quote
Suddenly Forums ForumKings wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: Hulk: lol why-ever-fly-unpracticable-cargo-and-stupidly-small-crystals-hold piece of paper?
There's this really cool thing called friends.
Yes I'll get friends to waste their day continuously emptying the minuscule hold for me and one of them will sit in a corner like a waiter for my gracious new crystals order. Read above, min maxed things need to be streamlined else they lose much of their viability in useless micromanagement (because it does not require any skill, it's just imposed burden). Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Mina Sebiestar
Mactabilis Simplex Cursus
74
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 21:26:00 -
[2333] - Quote
Tears..tear never changes...117 pages and counting.
Hi bears Null bears Griefers
keep em comin. |
Suddenly Forums ForumKings
Republic University Minmatar Republic
88
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 21:27:00 -
[2334] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Suddenly Forums ForumKings wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: Hulk: lol why-ever-fly-unpracticable-cargo-and-stupidly-small-crystals-hold piece of paper?
There's this really cool thing called friends. Yes I'll get friends to waste their day continuously emptying the minuscule hold for me and one of them will sit in a corner like a waiter for my gracious new crystals order. Read above, min maxed things need to be streamlined else they lose much of their viability in useless micromanagement (because it does not require any skill, it's just imposed burden).
So you're saying that you don't have friends. |
Sentamon
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
83
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 21:31:00 -
[2335] - Quote
Suddenly Forums ForumKings wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: Hulk: lol why-ever-fly-unpracticable-cargo-and-stupidly-small-crystals-hold piece of paper?
There's this really cool thing called friends.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJTBPdVpdMc ~ Professional Forum Alt -á~ |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1755
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 21:33:00 -
[2336] - Quote
Suddenly Forums ForumKings wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Suddenly Forums ForumKings wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: Hulk: lol why-ever-fly-unpracticable-cargo-and-stupidly-small-crystals-hold piece of paper?
There's this really cool thing called friends. Yes I'll get friends to waste their day continuously emptying the minuscule hold for me and one of them will sit in a corner like a waiter for my gracious new crystals order. Read above, min maxed things need to be streamlined else they lose much of their viability in useless micromanagement (because it does not require any skill, it's just imposed burden). So you're saying that you don't have friends.
I don't understand what "friends" would do. Not counting that 90% of those "fleets" are really just 1 guy multi boxing 5-6 Hulks and 1 Orca.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Shalua Rui
FEROX AQUILA
18
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 21:34:00 -
[2337] - Quote
Mina Sebiestar wrote:Tears..tear never changes...117 pages and counting.
Hi bears Null bears Griefers
keep em comin.
Ah... can't say anything, really... still stunned by your portrait.^^ |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
321
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 21:34:00 -
[2338] - Quote
Suddenly Forums ForumKings wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Suddenly Forums ForumKings wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: Hulk: lol why-ever-fly-unpracticable-cargo-and-stupidly-small-crystals-hold piece of paper?
There's this really cool thing called friends. Yes I'll get friends to waste their day continuously emptying the minuscule hold for me and one of them will sit in a corner like a waiter for my gracious new crystals order. Read above, min maxed things need to be streamlined else they lose much of their viability in useless micromanagement (because it does not require any skill, it's just imposed burden). So you're saying that you don't have friends.
even if he did it wouldn't matter. if your friends have half a brain they wouldn't want to spend the day constantly going back and forth with cargo holds full of crystals in addition to the stuff they're meant to be doing etc.
the simple fact is the new tiny cargo hold means you have additional pointless logistics for no reason; there was never an issue being able to carry 30 crystals before, so why have ccp decided to make it one? Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1755
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 21:38:00 -
[2339] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Suddenly Forums ForumKings wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Suddenly Forums ForumKings wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: Hulk: lol why-ever-fly-unpracticable-cargo-and-stupidly-small-crystals-hold piece of paper?
There's this really cool thing called friends. Yes I'll get friends to waste their day continuously emptying the minuscule hold for me and one of them will sit in a corner like a waiter for my gracious new crystals order. Read above, min maxed things need to be streamlined else they lose much of their viability in useless micromanagement (because it does not require any skill, it's just imposed burden). So you're saying that you don't have friends. even if he did it wouldn't matter. if your friends have half a brain they wouldn't want to spend the day constantly going back and forth with cargo holds full of crystals in addition to the stuff they're meant to be doing etc. the simple fact is the new tiny cargo hold means you have additional pointless logistics for no reason; there was never an issue being able to carry 30 crystals before, so why have ccp decided to make it one?
I actually have friends but because they are friends I am not going to make them my waiters and ore beotches! Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Pipa Porto
580
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 21:40:00 -
[2340] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:RF EMP does 3879 damage per Volley. Suicide Catalyst has 3764 EHP vs EMP. Only if you somehow get perfect shot. It's often only 2600-2800 per volley.
That's equally true of Catalysts and ganking Hulks. Why do Catalysts get the protection of "not always a perfect shot" and Hulks don't?
Oh, and there are better Cane fits for ganking GCC Catalysts. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
|
Pipa Porto
580
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 21:44:00 -
[2341] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:At the moment, on SISI, it's as follows: Skiff: What, are you stupid? Go use a Mack. Mackinaw: Set me off on an Ice belt and take a nap. You look tired. I'll still be here when you wake up. Probably not full, even. Hulk: Got friends and not worried about ganking? You're in the money, you're in the money.
The Hulk's fine. The Skiff and Mack are splitting the same Role, and the Mack is better at it. They have their roles: Skiff: ungankable, you can just park it there and go away. Mack: need some effort to kill but unlike on TQ, not every single monkey will be able to melt it just by sneezing in a random direction. Hulk: lol why-ever-fly-unpracticable-cargo-and-stupidly-small-crystals-hold piece of paper? You don't like the new Mack but I find the Hulk is in the worst state. It does not even mine as good as today's Hulk, it got FAR less cargo, FAR less space for crystals and in order to be the min maxed ship it won't certainly be known for its tank. Utter bad piece of garbage they made. Just because now you have to stagger lasers (and roids of course will deplete and then you just broke your "rotation") and micro manage like a Starcraft 1 Korean player does not mean it got any better nor any more fun. Ever wondered why in other games the "pure DPS, no utility classes" have few skills and easily spammed? Because they are the min max "yield" and made to do it effectively. Hulks grandiously lacks of that. I'd have difficutly trading a today's Mack for a tomorrow's Hulk.
The new SISI Hulk has a higher yield. 5% bonus from Exhumers instead of 3%. Even if it didn't, if you're in a fleet with hauler support (y'know, the situation it's designed for), the higher yield means it yields more than the other two. If you want a cargo hold because you don't have hauler support, use a Mackinaw (y'know, the ship designed for that situation).
Right now, on SISI, the Mack has enough EHP that it can't be profitably ganked even with MLUs (in fact, it would be fairly expensive to gank). That makes the Skiff worthless. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
468
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 21:49:00 -
[2342] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: Why do gankers have LOLhisecgankalts?
Simple, because they are true carebears who cringe in fear at the thought a guy with kill rights could meet them while they are flying a freigther or undocking in a pimp ship to do a L4.
So they make "smart usage of game mechanics" and create LOLhisecgankalts and won't care about their sec at all.
These characters have some totally carebear characteristics:
- Cheap if any implants. No risk. - Completely circumvent any negative consequence of being -10, including Concord (won't attack them in capsule while they go to a Concord free safe spot anyway). - Completely circumvent any negative sec consequences (only used to reship, warp in and explode). - Low SP, can always biomass later. - Will literally never leave a station if not to insta warp to a safe spot, board a catalyst and then warp to a target. - Who cares about kill rights? Nobody will see the alt for longer than 10 seconds while you kill some random, then back to safety.
What a load. While I can only speak for myself, I know for a fact that 'recycling' suicide alts is highly uncommon, and a massive waste. Why flush all that SP down the toilet for a few points of sec status?
-My main undocked all the time in a 2.5 B ISK Vargur to repair sec status, with literally dozens of extant Kill Rights. Miners don't really scare me, watching local takes very little effort, and ECM Drones took care of the odd lolambush attempt.
-10 Buck Futz has around 500M in implants. (5%s really helped optimize the Tornado for boomeranging, no need now tho)
-'Circumvent?' What are you talking about, those are the rules, we play by them like everyone else.
-Buck Futz is around 35M SP. (with 23M in Gunnery alone) 160 Billion in damage to miners. Why biomass such a work of art?
-Why keep him in station, when you can keep him in a high-sec POS, works much better.
-You don't need kill rights to shoot a -10, ship or pod - , dum dum.
What I find funny is all the idiots who get ganked - bring out their Drakes or Domis and start calling out to fight with your -10 alt.
Unfortunately, CCP doesn't really allow this to happen. I'd LOVE to be able to blow up these miner's ships, but Faction Navy mechanics totally prevent it. (ie, pirate say, lets fight! boards a Hurricane and mid fight, Navy shows up blows the **** out of you...)
Really, the entire 'Faction Navy attacks -10 ships in highsec' mechanic needs to go away in Crimewatch. Let -10 players roam in highsec, and players can attack if they wish. Might even allow for some interesting fights.
|
Urgg Boolean
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
191
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 21:50:00 -
[2343] - Quote
I did not read all 117 pages (as of a moment ago).
But :: HTFU.
I HTFU well before H5 cuz we were getting ganked so regularly.
Now it's your turn to HTFU.
Actually, CCP has given gankers more choices: 1) spend all your ISK fielding gank fit Machariels to take out the new mining barges just because you hate miners. 2) find the truly stupid miners who continue to deploy high yield Hulk fits in hi sec - it'll be a chance to show your excellent hunter skills. 3) go to lo sec/null and disrupt fleet mining ops all you want - gank them fleet fit Hulks - it'll be a welcome change of pace - don't use implants.
Either way, it's your choice; griefing, profits, or more griefing. The cost picture sure has changed. So HTFU. I did as a miner. Now it's your turn. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1517
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 21:56:00 -
[2344] - Quote
Urgg Boolean wrote:1) spend all your ISK fielding gank fit Machariels to take out the new mining barges just because you hate miners.
lmfao they'll just use more gank catalysts
and you'll be whining when your afk hulks keep
getting
ganked
because you don't know how to fit a tank, can't be bothered to actually be at your computer when you're playing a game rather than doing your laundry and expect the developers to give you everything on a silver platter EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Phill Esteen
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
89
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 21:58:00 -
[2345] - Quote
Urgg Boolean wrote:Actually, CCP has given gankers more choices: 1) spend all your ISK fielding gank fit Machariels to take out the new mining barges just because you hate miners. This is ridiculous.
Vindicators are much better. GÇô postum faex est GÇô-á
never forget
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1517
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 21:58:00 -
[2346] - Quote
look at the baddies in this thread who think that the game is balanced around cost lmao EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Mallak Azaria
510
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 22:01:00 -
[2347] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:JamesCLK wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:an instacane does not use tracking computers I have no idea what I'm doing (you're right)! [Hurricane, Instacane] Counterbalanced Weapon Mounts I Counterbalanced Weapon Mounts I Counterbalanced Weapon Mounts I Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II F-90 Positional Sensor Subroutines, Scan Resolution Script F-90 Positional Sensor Subroutines, Scan Resolution Script F-90 Positional Sensor Subroutines, Scan Resolution Script F-90 Positional Sensor Subroutines, Scan Resolution Script [Empty High slot] [Empty High slot] 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M Medium Projectile Collision Accelerator I Medium Targeting System Subcontroller I Medium Targeting System Subcontroller I Locks a Catalyst in 1 second. A direct hit alphas an untanked Catalyst. Can I have a gold star now? Not enough dps to destroy that Catalyst.
Try this.
Mining Barge buff: CCP-áhas acknowledged that miners in general-áare too stupid to make the correct fitting choices to make ganking them unprofitable. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1517
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 22:04:00 -
[2348] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:JamesCLK wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:an instacane does not use tracking computers I have no idea what I'm doing (you're right)! Can I have a gold star now? I prefer 425mm or 650s ACs on a Nado. Sure it takes 2 shots to kill a Catalyst, but you get a shot every 2 seconds and change (call it 3s). You'll end up killing more Catalysts over the course of the 20s gank. (3 instead of 2) That's why I was saying I have not seen anti-gank arty setups in the posts above. Anyway this is another arty setup, volley = 3886 in ideal conditions, DPS = 425 at 23km even without good transversal (it's not like gankers will align nicely for you to kill them easy). Unlike the above, this setup won't entice gankers to just come suicide the 'cane. Ofc feel free to replace survival mods with more scan res. [Hurricane, Instacane] Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II Damage Control II Sensor Booster II, Scan Resolution Script Sensor Booster II, Scan Resolution Script Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Large Shield Extender II 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M 720mm Howitzer Artillery II, Republic Fleet Phased Plasma M Salvager II Small Tractor Beam II Medium Targeting System Subcontroller I Medium Targeting System Subcontroller I Medium Projectile Metastasis Adjuster I Hobgoblin II x5 (of course it's not for the gankers, just to kill rats)
Of course the above is just a testament at how a combat ship is super-flexible, can still have 37K EHP *without* all V skills, super fast lock and big burst. No need for exotic implants or whatever odd crap as well. All flexibility and power that mining ships don't have.
so yeah you haven't figured out ship fittings beyond the "swiss army knife" school of pubbie fittings EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Korsiri
Mousetrap Building Inc.
60
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 22:11:00 -
[2349] - Quote
/yawn
tell us another bedtime story daddy |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1755
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 22:14:00 -
[2350] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:RF EMP does 3879 damage per Volley. Suicide Catalyst has 3764 EHP vs EMP. Only if you somehow get perfect shot. It's often only 2600-2800 per volley. That's equally true of Catalysts and ganking Hulks. Why do Catalysts get the protection of "not always a perfect shot" and Hulks don't? Oh, and there are better Cane fits for ganking GCC Catalysts.
Hulks are 99% stationary and big targets. Arty setups damage drops heavily with a smidge of transversal, when I engage anything at > 80 transversal I know it will get a lot (not just 5% less) damage. It's why when the CFC guy suggested an arty cane I objected against it.
Also, catalysts unless in high enough sec, sometimes have enough spare time to pod the mining ship pilot, this is how much of an hardship they have to endure.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1755
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 22:20:00 -
[2351] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote: The new SISI Hulk has a higher yield. 5% bonus from Exhumers instead of 3%. Even if it didn't, if you're in a fleet with hauler support (y'know, the situation it's designed for), the higher yield means it yields more than the other two. If you want a cargo hold because you don't have hauler support, use a Mackinaw (y'know, the ship designed for that situation).
Right now, on SISI, the Mack has enough EHP that it can't be profitably ganked even with MLUs (in fact, it would be fairly expensive to gank). That makes the Skiff worthless.
No, unlike in your dreams, mining fleets tend to have an Orca or 2 not haulers that won't be able to unload minerals fast enough before the Orcas are full. Mining fleets - expecially multi Orca ones - tend to be cross corporation as well, so the pilots not in the Orca's corp can't take anything from the Orcas including crystals.
And once again, if Hulk is the streamlined min maxer then it should be easier to streamline it than the other ships. As of now it's actually easier to streamline the other 2 ships than the Hulk.
Even the lack of cargo hold goes in the way, when the Orca goes to unload they won't have the room to hold the stuff until the Orca is back. A current Mack (not Sisi, even today's Macks) has enough hold for that.
SiSi Hulk is a step down for practical mining, not a step up. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Pipa Porto
582
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 22:24:00 -
[2352] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:RF EMP does 3879 damage per Volley. Suicide Catalyst has 3764 EHP vs EMP. Only if you somehow get perfect shot. It's often only 2600-2800 per volley. That's equally true of Catalysts and ganking Hulks. Why do Catalysts get the protection of "not always a perfect shot" and Hulks don't? Oh, and there are better Cane fits for ganking GCC Catalysts. Hulks are 99% stationary and big targets. Arty setups damage drops heavily with a smidge of transversal, when I engage anything at > 80 transversal I know it will get a lot (not just 5% less) damage. It's why when the CFC guy suggested an arty cane I objected against it. Also, catalysts unless in high enough sec, sometimes have enough spare time to pod the mining ship pilot, this is how much of an hardship they have to endure.
Hulks could easily simply Orbit the roid they're mining. Would make ganking them a lot harder.
Any time I've ganked, I've had time to land, get my group on the Hulk at ~300m, stop our ships, then BAM. That's all because the Hulk never moves. Not one inch. You still don't get full perfect damage (which is what you need to solo an untanked Hulk with a Meta Catalyst). We sit still throughout the gank to maximize our DPS. If we started moving, our DPS would drop too.
Anyway, I prefer the AC Nado, like I said. I just object to Jorma putting up a double standard. You don't get to assume the Hulk gets 100% damage applied to it, but the Catalyst doesn't (and if you're at the right range, you'll get enough). EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1517
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 22:24:00 -
[2353] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Mining fleets - expecially multi Orca ones - tend to be cross corporation as well, so the pilots not in the Orca's corp can't take anything from the Orcas including crystals
why do miners feel that they need to all be in their personal tax dodging corps EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Bootleg Jack
Potters Field
211
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 22:27:00 -
[2354] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Marconus Orion wrote:Oh he mad. But is he wrong? Nope. Fitted properly, a Hulk cannot be profitably suicide ganked.
Fixed, you can still kill hulks if you leave high sec...
I'm an American, English is my second language... |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
130
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 22:27:00 -
[2355] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:That's equally true of Catalysts and ganking Hulks. Why do Catalysts get the protection of "not always a perfect shot" and Hulks don't?
Oh, and there are better Cane fits for ganking GCC Catalysts.
Catalyst can orbit hulk @ 2 km/s and still hit perfectly. When you try to hit that Catalyst with artillery you have very low chance to hit perfectly. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
468
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 22:28:00 -
[2356] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Mining fleets - expecially multi Orca ones - tend to be cross corporation as well, so the pilots not in the Orca's corp can't take anything from the Orcas including crystals why do miners feel that they need to all be in their personal tax dodging corps
And why won't they stay in them when they get wardecced? I don't get it.
I thought wardecs were supposed to allow this kind of thing.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1757
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 22:29:00 -
[2357] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:
What a load. While I can only speak for myself, I know for a fact that 'recycling' suicide alts is highly uncommon, and a massive waste. Why flush all that SP down the toilet for a few points of sec status?
I was not the one who brought the recycling thing. I just stated how anyone with some brain cells can biomass with some smarts without being caught.
Herr Wilkus wrote: -My main undocked all the time in a 2.5 B ISK Vargur to repair sec status, with literally dozens of extant Kill Rights. Miners don't really scare me, watching local takes very little effort, and ECM Drones took care of the odd lolambush attempt.
What fear should you have, when those you kill have probably zero SP in any kind of weaponry?
Herr Wilkus wrote: -10 Buck Futz has around 500M in implants. (5%s really helped optimize the Tornado for boomeranging, no need now tho)
You are one of few, since I am there to see some gankers getting podded (till 3 months ago I "co-operated" with an defender merc corp) they resulted implant-less or had some +2 and similar.
Herr Wilkus wrote: -'Circumvent?' What are you talking about, those are the rules, we play by them like everyone else.
-Why keep him in station, when you can keep him in a high-sec POS, works much better.
Circumvent the consequences of doing it on your main. Again, you might be the 1% who does not care, but all the others are scared wussies who use low SP dedicated alts and hide their main.
About POS: most gankers don't do that. They hop around systems.
Herr Wilkus wrote: -You don't need kill rights to shoot a -10, ship or pod - , dum dum.
Did I say it was needed? No. I only said that getting kill rights on the ganker is pointless as he'll quickly get in, unload, warp away.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Pipa Porto
582
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 22:29:00 -
[2358] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote: The new SISI Hulk has a higher yield. 5% bonus from Exhumers instead of 3%. Even if it didn't, if you're in a fleet with hauler support (y'know, the situation it's designed for), the higher yield means it yields more than the other two. If you want a cargo hold because you don't have hauler support, use a Mackinaw (y'know, the ship designed for that situation).
Right now, on SISI, the Mack has enough EHP that it can't be profitably ganked even with MLUs (in fact, it would be fairly expensive to gank). That makes the Skiff worthless.
No, unlike in your dreams, mining fleets tend to have an Orca or 2 not haulers that won't be able to unload minerals fast enough before the Orcas are full. Mining fleets - expecially multi Orca ones - tend to be cross corporation as well, so the pilots not in the Orca's corp can't take anything from the Orcas including crystals. And once again, if Hulk is the streamlined min maxer then it should be easier to streamline it than the other ships. As of now it's actually easier to streamline the other 2 ships than the Hulk. Even the lack of cargo hold goes in the way, when the Orca goes to unload they won't have the room to hold the stuff until the Orca is back. A current Mack (not Sisi, even today's Macks) has enough hold for that. SiSi Hulk is a step down for practical mining, not a step up.
Ok, you know what an Orca is? It's a giant hauler. I said "Hauler Support," not necessarily Itty V support.
The cross corporation issue is easy. Drop a jetcan. Fill it with crystals. Done.
Use Jetcans to buffer if you have a Solo Orca doing hauling for you. A Hulk will not fill a jetcan in the time it takes an Orca to dock, empty, warp back. (Even if it did, Hulks can make around 1 jetcan per Cycle, and they don't mine 1 Jetcan of Ore per cycle). EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1757
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 22:33:00 -
[2359] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote: so yeah you haven't figured out ship fittings beyond the "swiss army knife" school of pubbie fittings
Sorry, I don't have dedicated teams to find out how to exploit the various parts of the game.
Ofc you won't spit such godly fitting to show off the mere mortals, right?
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Of course the above is just a testament at how a combat ship is super-flexible, can still have 37K EHP *without* all V skills, super fast lock and big burst. No need for exotic implants or whatever odd crap as well.
All flexibility and power that mining ships don't have.
so why don't miners switch to hurricanes since they're so flexible[/quote]
I have a gas mining 'cane somewhere. And a pre-Noctis salvagecane
Just saying... Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1757
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 22:36:00 -
[2360] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote: Hulks could easily simply Orbit the roid they're mining. Would make ganking them a lot harder.
Works well with ice mining, but for normal mining, expecially the roids you say to dig (1.0 sec) pop so fast that in the end roid orbiting gets lost.
Ofc you can go further and anchor GSCs and whatsnot and then keep adding more burden always on the defendants. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1757
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 22:37:00 -
[2361] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Mining fleets - expecially multi Orca ones - tend to be cross corporation as well, so the pilots not in the Orca's corp can't take anything from the Orcas including crystals why do miners feel that they need to all be in their personal tax dodging corps
The month or so I have done this year it was always about 4 corps in fleet. All busy dodging... oh wait.
But hey don't let the "Hulk fleet friendly" concept wooosh too high above you! Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Pipa Porto
582
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 22:39:00 -
[2362] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote: Hulks could easily simply Orbit the roid they're mining. Would make ganking them a lot harder.
Works well with ice mining, but for normal mining, expecially the roids you say to dig (1.0 sec) pop so fast that in the end roid orbiting gets lost. Ofc you can go further and anchor GSCs and whatsnot and then keep adding more burden always on the defendants.
I don't say to dig anything. I suggest options that have varying levels of effort, cost, and safety.
Also, you can Orbit a roid that you're not mining, while mining other nearby roids. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1758
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 22:44:00 -
[2363] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote: Ok, you know what an Orca is? It's a giant hauler. I said "Hauler Support," not necessarily Itty V support.
The cross corporation issue is easy. Drop a jetcan. Fill it with crystals. Done.
Yeah 3-4 corps mixing stuff or littering a belt they strip in 1 hour with GSCs then they have to move to another belt.
Pipa Porto wrote: Use Jetcans to buffer if you have a Solo Orca doing hauling for you. A Hulk will not fill a jetcan in the time it takes an Orca to dock, empty, warp back. (Even if it did, Hulks can make around 1 jetcan per Cycle, and they don't mine 1 Jetcan of Ore per cycle).
I kick ANY miner using a jetcan meant to be taken up by an Orca. Sure gonna risk an Orca to some clown flipping the can somehow, expecially when they go unload.
I had a guy doing this exactly the day before I experimented your Mackinaw fail fit on the field. A guy *with light speed* managed to warp in, flip and warp out so fast I noticed just by pure luck.
I truly doubt you have ever mined in anything beyond the starter frigate. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1517
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 22:44:00 -
[2364] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Richard Desturned wrote: so yeah you haven't figured out ship fittings beyond the "swiss army knife" school of pubbie fittings
Sorry, I don't have dedicated teams to find out how to exploit the various parts of the game. Ofc you won't spit such godly fitting to show off the mere mortals, right?
try losing the tank mods EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1758
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 22:47:00 -
[2365] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote: Hulks could easily simply Orbit the roid they're mining. Would make ganking them a lot harder.
Works well with ice mining, but for normal mining, expecially the roids you say to dig (1.0 sec) pop so fast that in the end roid orbiting gets lost. Ofc you can go further and anchor GSCs and whatsnot and then keep adding more burden always on the defendants. I don't say to dig anything. I suggest options that have varying levels of effort, cost, and safety. Also, you can Orbit a roid that you're not mining, while mining other nearby roids.
You just don't get it. Even in WoW they got the concept that if you have a min maxed setup, then that min maxed setup has to work better than the non min maxed setups. This is why they put simplified skill rotations on pure DPS classes. Any kind of slow down and hybrid classes and offspecs can compete with them and make them pointless.
Same for Exhumers. If it's more cumbersome to make an Hulk do work than an alternative, then it will be pointless. If anything, it should be the other ships to be harder to setup and keep up to speed with their operation, not the Hulk. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1758
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 22:49:00 -
[2366] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Richard Desturned wrote: so yeah you haven't figured out ship fittings beyond the "swiss army knife" school of pubbie fittings
Sorry, I don't have dedicated teams to find out how to exploit the various parts of the game. Ofc you won't spit such godly fitting to show off the mere mortals, right? try losing the tank mods
And then I get 0.3s less lock time and 0.1% better tracking speed (which at 25km of optimal I don't need really to min max too much). What changes in practice?
I tried the "absolutely all out" approach with a Malestrom, the benefit was so marginal I did not find it worth the loss of a tank.
Also, I said in that fitting post something like: "feel free to replace tank with more damage mods". Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1517
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 22:54:00 -
[2367] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:And then I get 0.3s less lock time and 0.1% better tracking speed (which at 25km of optimal I don't need really to min max too much). What changes in practice?
the vitals of your hulk after the attempt EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1758
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 22:56:00 -
[2368] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:And then I get 0.3s less lock time and 0.1% better tracking speed (which at 25km of optimal I don't need really to min max too much). What changes in practice? the vitals of your hulk after the attempt
Only Hulks I had are those I finished selling some days ago. It's nice to return back to 2009 and play miner once a year for the giggles but my real occupation is to build and sell Hulks to the poor sods and catalysts to the SkillPro PvPers. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Ian The Bane
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 22:58:00 -
[2369] - Quote
mmmm wah! mmmm wah!
Cry baby cry! Comer on cry for me! |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1145
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 23:02:00 -
[2370] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:.... Pipa Porto wrote: Use Jetcans to buffer if you have a Solo Orca doing hauling for you. A Hulk will not fill a jetcan in the time it takes an Orca to dock, empty, warp back. (Even if it did, Hulks can make around 1 jetcan per Cycle, and they don't mine 1 Jetcan of Ore per cycle).
I kick ANY miner using a jetcan meant to be taken up by an Orca. Sure gonna risk an Orca to some clown flipping the can somehow, expecially when they go unload. I had a guy doing this exactly the day before I experimented your Mackinaw fail fit on the field. A guy *with light speed* managed to warp in, flip and warp out so fast I noticed just by pure luck. I truly doubt you have ever mined in anything beyond the starter frigate. If the Orca pilot cannot have the sense not to pick up a can that was flipped, they should be the ones kicked.
Also, with the new lag generating UI, its really hard to open a tractored can.
Also, you need some situational awareness if you don't notice someone warp in (exceptions being extremely crowded ice belts and station undocks). Takes about 3 whole seconds for them to do anything after they appear on the overview. And then they would have to approach the can, and flip it (another 2 seconds for the UI to react). |
|
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
469
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 23:08:00 -
[2371] - Quote
Ian The Bane wrote:mmmm wah! mmmm wah!
Cry baby cry! Comer on cry for me!
Here's a better quote from this loser.
Posted: 2012.07.28 18:23
Quote: This is my 3rd time trying to play EVE since 2010. Other than getting a little bored the first two times at least I made money and completed missions. Now I cannot do either...No matter what ship I use on level 1 missions, I die...doesnt even matter that I spent 3 million on upgrades....the enemy ships in any mission kill me. Worst thing is this is a rookie mission requiring rookie ships... I am at a loss and cancelled my sub.....no other game has made me so frustrated, worse is that the last two times I did well.
HAHAHA. These look a lot more like tears to me.
I die in LVL1 missions, I'm going to quit.
Come back when you get some hair on your little teabag. |
Ludi Burek
The Player Haters Corp
123
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 23:15:00 -
[2372] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Ian The Bane wrote:mmmm wah! mmmm wah!
Cry baby cry! Comer on cry for me! Here's a better quote from this loser. Posted: 2012.07.28 18:23 Quote: This is my 3rd time trying to play EVE since 2010. Other than getting a little bored the first two times at least I made money and completed missions. Now I cannot do either...No matter what ship I use on level 1 missions, I die...doesnt even matter that I spent 3 million on upgrades....the enemy ships in any mission kill me. Worst thing is this is a rookie mission requiring rookie ships... I am at a loss and cancelled my sub.....no other game has made me so frustrated, worse is that the last two times I did well.
HAHAHA. These look a lot more like tears to me. I die in LVL1 missions, I'm going to quit. Come back when you get some hair on your little teabag.
These are the kind of people we should balance eve around! Oh wait, it seems we are already. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1758
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 23:17:00 -
[2373] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:If the Orca pilot cannot have the sense not to pick up a can that was flipped, they should be the ones kicked.
Also, with the new lag generating UI, its really hard to open a tractored can.
Also, you need some situational awareness if you don't notice someone warp in (exceptions being extremely crowded ice belts and station undocks). Takes about 3 whole seconds for them to do anything after they appear on the overview. And then they would have to approach the can, and flip it (another 2 seconds for the UI to react).
I always have been in extremely crowded ice belts and after 8 brain-wrecking hours of unloading stuff it's quite easy for an Orca pilot to warp back and not know somebody flipped it in his absence and take it.
I am always surprised of people (not just you but others in this thread) who pretend somebody can do the same stuff for 8 hours and then be ready and pristine for any sudden event like they just had a big sniff of lol-they-censored-it.
I feel like I am the only puny, mere human in this thread. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Johan Civire
Dirty Curse inc.
49
|
Posted - 2012.07.30 23:42:00 -
[2374] - Quote
mining is for fun* stop reading there. Answer sinds when is minner fun... O wait ... Yah he right.... now what are you going to do about that QQ the forums for it? wait till a dev will show this to ccp? or just email ccp and the will help you? i guys nice shot but you miss.... |
Pipa Porto
585
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 00:15:00 -
[2375] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:If the Orca pilot cannot have the sense not to pick up a can that was flipped, they should be the ones kicked.
Also, with the new lag generating UI, its really hard to open a tractored can.
Also, you need some situational awareness if you don't notice someone warp in (exceptions being extremely crowded ice belts and station undocks). Takes about 3 whole seconds for them to do anything after they appear on the overview. And then they would have to approach the can, and flip it (another 2 seconds for the UI to react). I always have been in extremely crowded ice belts and after 8 brain-wrecking hours of unloading stuff it's quite easy for an Orca pilot to warp back and not know somebody flipped it in his absence and take it. I am always surprised of people (not just you but others in this thread) who pretend somebody can do the same stuff for 8 hours and then be ready and pristine for any sudden event like they just had a big sniff of lol-they-censored-it. I feel like I am the only puny, mere human in this thread.
Being bright yellow instead of white and having a popup saying "do you really want to steal this" isn't enough of a hint for the Orca pilot? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Pipa Porto
585
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 00:19:00 -
[2376] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote: Hulks could easily simply Orbit the roid they're mining. Would make ganking them a lot harder.
Works well with ice mining, but for normal mining, expecially the roids you say to dig (1.0 sec) pop so fast that in the end roid orbiting gets lost. Ofc you can go further and anchor GSCs and whatsnot and then keep adding more burden always on the defendants. I don't say to dig anything. I suggest options that have varying levels of effort, cost, and safety. Also, you can Orbit a roid that you're not mining, while mining other nearby roids. You just don't get it. Even in WoW they got the concept that if you have a min maxed setup, then that min maxed setup has to work better than the non min maxed setups. This is why they put simplified skill rotations on pure DPS classes. Any kind of slow down and hybrid classes and offspecs can compete with them and make them pointless. Same for Exhumers. If it's more cumbersome to make an Hulk do work than an alternative, then it will be pointless. If anything, it should be the other ships to be harder to setup and keep up to speed with their operation, not the Hulk.
The Hulk does yield better than the other ships. It just takes a little bit of effort and support to do it. That's called balance.
The Mack Yields less, but it's really easy and convenient to use. The Skiff Yields less, but it's really safe to use.
I still don't give a flying what Blizzard does with their game. There is nothing about that game that interests me. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Vigilant
Vigilant's Vigilante's
2
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 00:37:00 -
[2377] - Quote
This thread is pure win! Mine a fleet BS like I did during hulkagedon |
|
ISD TYPE40
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
45
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 01:01:00 -
[2378] - Quote
This thread has already been cleaned once, and I have asked politely for people not to troll, post off topic or use personal insults, if the thread continues to degenerate I will be forced to lock it. Please stick to the topic at hand and post responsibly, thank you. ISD Type40 Ensign Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
Reiisha
Splint Eye Probabilities Inc. Dawn of Transcendence
139
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 01:01:00 -
[2379] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:Reiisha wrote: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. I don't know why you miners always use this argument. You aren't getting ganked because people are afraid to risk their ship, they know well ahead of time that they are risking a ship, instead you're getting ganked because you whine and tantrum over it. The most hilarious part of all of this is that you wouldn't get ganked at all if you actually fit a tank. Like I said earlier though in ~6months when minerals crash because of the bot friendly environment brought about by these changes I'm going to laugh at you "smart" miners.
Any ship can be ganked anywhere.
The only difference this patch makes is that you can't easily gank miners with destroyers anymore. Your entire argument falls down on you not being willing to spend more than 1m on a gank...
Use a cruiser or a bc? You can still gank. No one is stopping you :) |
Urgg Boolean
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
191
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 01:07:00 -
[2380] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Urgg Boolean wrote:1) spend all your ISK fielding gank fit Machariels to take out the new mining barges just because you hate miners. lmfao they'll just use more gank catalysts and you'll be whining when your afk hulks keep getting ganked because you don't know how to fit a tank, can't be bothered to actually be at your computer when you're playing a game rather than doing your laundry and expect the developers to give you everything on a silver platter You are right, of course. No real ganker would take out Hulks in a Machariel (or a Vindi) . I know, because my main and her corp mates have been ganked by some of the best teams we have seen.
My exaggeration was to point out that you can still gank, it's just potentially harder to make a profit. I agree with you, and I have even posted this: some miners will continue to fly max yield paper-tank hulks.
We HTFUed and the gankage stopped: 1) tanked Orca with Shield Harmonizer II (only 253K EHP with wimpy T2 mods, in fleet, resists in the high 80s-low 90s, no EFT guesstimate) 2) proper tank for Hulks of course 3) Hulks orbit Orca (which has it's problems...) 4) Spider tankage with repper drones 5) passive tanking skills maxed in case of neut 6) Orca pilot with perfect fleet/gang link skills 7) we also try to look like space hobos so the gankers think we have nothing of value. 8) watch local of known reds
Since we no longer get ganked, for us, the new ships are icing :: tthick, delicious, icing. Now the gankers will have to rethink things. So HTFU already.
I will never talk **** in local to insight a ganker, but we'd respect any real attempt to take us out. We learned so much from dealing with so many well rehearsed teams. We may learn more if somebody tries to take us out again. But they won't. We are well prepared, a difficult set of targets,and they know it. And now it's even better. |
|
Pipa Porto
587
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 01:07:00 -
[2381] - Quote
Reiisha wrote:La Nariz wrote:Reiisha wrote: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. I don't know why you miners always use this argument. You aren't getting ganked because people are afraid to risk their ship, they know well ahead of time that they are risking a ship, instead you're getting ganked because you whine and tantrum over it. The most hilarious part of all of this is that you wouldn't get ganked at all if you actually fit a tank. Like I said earlier though in ~6months when minerals crash because of the bot friendly environment brought about by these changes I'm going to laugh at you "smart" miners. Any ship can be ganked anywhere. The only difference this patch makes is that you can't easily gank miners with destroyers anymore. Your entire argument falls down on you not being willing to spend more than 1m on a gank... Use a cruiser or a bc? You can still gank. No one is stopping you :)
The only time you can gank with a 1m ISK ship is if the Hulk is literally unfit. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1671
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 02:06:00 -
[2382] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:]I always have been in extremely crowded ice belts and after 8 brain-wrecking hours of unloading stuff it's quite easy for an Orca pilot to warp back and not know somebody flipped it in his absence and take it.
I am always surprised of people (not just you but others in this thread) who pretend somebody can do the same stuff for 8 hours and then be ready and pristine for any sudden event like they just had a big sniff of lol-they-censored-it.
I feel like I am the only puny, mere human in this thread.
The Orca pilot would be tired indeed to dismiss the can theft warning message. I have on the past lost ships to CONCORD due to mistaking "do you want to repair this NPC" for the "do you want to repair this guy who has an active wardec" warning. But why would you get the can flip warning and ignore it? Out of corp miners who leave fleet before you tractor their cans? Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Suddenly Forums ForumKings
Republic University Minmatar Republic
90
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 04:22:00 -
[2383] - Quote
Arise, dead horse whipping thread, arise! |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1149
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 04:29:00 -
[2384] - Quote
Suddenly Forums ForumKings wrote:Arise, dead horse whipping thread, arise! Just couldn't let it die... for at least an hour. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
470
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 05:08:00 -
[2385] - Quote
Urgg Boolean wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Urgg Boolean wrote:1) spend all your ISK fielding gank fit Machariels to take out the new mining barges just because you hate miners. lmfao they'll just use more gank catalysts and you'll be whining when your afk hulks keep getting ganked because you don't know how to fit a tank, can't be bothered to actually be at your computer when you're playing a game rather than doing your laundry and expect the developers to give you everything on a silver platter You are right, of course. No real ganker would take out Hulks in a Machariel (or a Vindi) . I know, because my main and her corp mates have been ganked by some of the best teams we have seen. My exaggeration was to point out that you can still gank, it's just potentially harder to make a profit. I agree with you, and I have even posted this: some miners will continue to fly max yield paper-tank hulks. We HTFUed and the gankage stopped: 1) tanked Orca with Shield Harmonizer II (only 253K EHP with wimpy T2 mods, in fleet, resists in the high 80s-low 90s, no EFT guesstimate) 2) proper tank for Hulks of course 3) Hulks orbit Orca (which has it's problems...) 4) Spider tankage with repper drones 5) passive tanking skills maxed in case of neut 6) Orca pilot with perfect fleet/gang link skills 7) we also try to look like space hobos so the gankers think we have nothing of value. 8) watch local of known reds Since we no longer get ganked, for us, the new ships are icing :: tthick, delicious, icing. Now the gankers will have to rethink things. So HTFU already. I will never talk **** in local to insight a ganker, but we'd respect any real attempt to take us out. We learned so much from dealing with so many well rehearsed teams. We may learn more if somebody tries to take us out again. But they won't. We are well prepared, a difficult set of targets,and they know it. And now it's even better.
And this is where you are wrong.
Apparently you have mining safely figured out. Thats awesome. You stand to benefit the most from high mineral prices, as other lesser miners are smashed to pieces.
You are probably the last person who would want to 'lower the bar', make all Exhumers hard to gank. Because you'll find your little operation swamped by AFK miners and bots and see your income per hour drop.
Suicide ganking is highly beneficial to miners who tank intelligently and take precautions. Less ganking = less ships ships blowing up = less demand for minerals. Less miner ganking = more miners = more minerals on the market = lower prices.
While there are tons of factors that ultimately determine mineral prices, lots of ganking is a big net win for miners who know how to protect themselves.
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
769
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 05:12:00 -
[2386] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:While there are tons of factors that ultimately determine mineral prices, lots of ganking is a big net win for miners who know how to protect themselves. Fortunately, these miners have for the most part taken the pro-ganking stance in this thread, and others. It's the derpers who are complaining. In a few months, they'll be complaining about mineral prices being too low, and will beg for an increase in yield, just like they did around 2007-2008, when botting really picked up in scale. AKA the "holy **** I have no idea how anything works, just make me be able to mine more and I'm sure everything will be fine" whining. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Asuka Solo
Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises
1582
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 05:21:00 -
[2387] - Quote
120 pages of griefer tears and whinebabies \o/
This thread srsly delivers. |
Jimmy Gunsmythe
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
84
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 05:23:00 -
[2388] - Quote
Asuka Solo wrote:120 pages of griefer tears and whinebabies \o/
This thread srsly delivers.
I was just thinking the same thing.
Oh delicious irony, I fill to bursting on thee. A good predator knows how to live in balance with his prey, lest he follow them into oblivion. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1758
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 05:35:00 -
[2389] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:If the Orca pilot cannot have the sense not to pick up a can that was flipped, they should be the ones kicked.
Also, with the new lag generating UI, its really hard to open a tractored can.
Also, you need some situational awareness if you don't notice someone warp in (exceptions being extremely crowded ice belts and station undocks). Takes about 3 whole seconds for them to do anything after they appear on the overview. And then they would have to approach the can, and flip it (another 2 seconds for the UI to react). I always have been in extremely crowded ice belts and after 8 brain-wrecking hours of unloading stuff it's quite easy for an Orca pilot to warp back and not know somebody flipped it in his absence and take it. I am always surprised of people (not just you but others in this thread) who pretend somebody can do the same stuff for 8 hours and then be ready and pristine for any sudden event like they just had a big sniff of lol-they-censored-it. I feel like I am the only puny, mere human in this thread. Being bright yellow instead of white and having a popup saying "do you really want to steal this" isn't enough of a hint for the Orca pilot?
Sure, but after many hours, and expecially if for any reason the warning got disabled, it becomes more and more possible.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1758
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 05:39:00 -
[2390] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:
The Hulk does yield better than the other ships. It just takes a little bit of effort and support to do it. That's called balance.
The Mack Yields less, but it's really easy and convenient to use. The Skiff Yields less, but it's really safe to use.
I still don't give a flying what Blizzard does with their game. There is nothing about that game that interests me.
I am interested in comparative games design, expecially of those who do certain things in a better way than EvE.
What you just wrote above is exactly why the Hulk is going to be not so good. On paper numbers clash with actual usability. It can't be 500% better than the other ships, it's still comparable. A little micromanagement induced inefficiencies and it becomes barely better than the others while imposing sensible limitations and burdens and becomes just an exercise of self slaving into menial tasks.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
|
Blastil
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
7
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 05:54:00 -
[2391] - Quote
oh for gods sake, everyone is SERIOUSLY over-reacting to these changes
to the gankers: just because some base stats get changed, doesn't mean you will stop being able to gank people. It will simply mean that in highsec, a well fit, intelligent and supported pilot will be more comfortably be able to defend himself. This is fair, normal, and not even NEW. Just modified slightly. Additionally, the new ship changes are NOT AIMED AT MAKING HIGHSEC MINING MORE PROFITABLE. They are aimed at making 0.0 mining more profitable. I for one would like to see this because highsec mining is boring as **** for everyone, miners and pvp pilots included. Tougher exhumers means ease of access to high-end 0.0 ores, and a much cheaper selection of pvp ships, as well as more variety to 0.0 pvp than running into opposing gangs of falcons and drakes.
to the miners: You will not see and end to ganking. People will still do it, it is a profession, and it is fun. Your hulks will still die, don't expect CCP to fix that any time soon. Try keeping in mind that you are a valid target, and you must fit accordingly, or be destroyed.
I for one whole heartedly support CCP in this change, it is needed, and it will make the game much more fun for everyone, as new vistas of 0.0 industry take shape, hopefully making those otherwise desolate places of EVE full of activity and industry, and not just packs of ravenous wolves supported by highsec mining corps. |
baltec1
Bat Country
1759
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 06:10:00 -
[2392] - Quote
Jimmy Gunsmythe wrote:Asuka Solo wrote:120 pages of griefer tears and whinebabies \o/
This thread srsly delivers. I was just thinking the same thing. Oh delicious irony, I fill to bursting on thee.
Both of you need to pay more attention. Its the bad miners whining hard yet again because untanked hulk are going to continue to die. |
Matius Toskavich
State War Academy Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 06:25:00 -
[2393] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Jimmy Gunsmythe wrote:Asuka Solo wrote:120 pages of griefer tears and whinebabies \o/
This thread srsly delivers. I was just thinking the same thing. Oh delicious irony, I fill to bursting on thee. Both of you need to pay more attention. Its the bad miners whining hard yet again because untanked hulk are going to continue to die.
ROFL what? |
Pipa Porto
588
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 06:26:00 -
[2394] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:If the Orca pilot cannot have the sense not to pick up a can that was flipped, they should be the ones kicked.
Also, with the new lag generating UI, its really hard to open a tractored can.
Also, you need some situational awareness if you don't notice someone warp in (exceptions being extremely crowded ice belts and station undocks). Takes about 3 whole seconds for them to do anything after they appear on the overview. And then they would have to approach the can, and flip it (another 2 seconds for the UI to react). I always have been in extremely crowded ice belts and after 8 brain-wrecking hours of unloading stuff it's quite easy for an Orca pilot to warp back and not know somebody flipped it in his absence and take it. I am always surprised of people (not just you but others in this thread) who pretend somebody can do the same stuff for 8 hours and then be ready and pristine for any sudden event like they just had a big sniff of lol-they-censored-it. I feel like I am the only puny, mere human in this thread. Being bright yellow instead of white and having a popup saying "do you really want to steal this" isn't enough of a hint for the Orca pilot? Sure, but after many hours, and expecially if for any reason the warning got disabled, it becomes more and more possible.
So we now need to protect miners against their own fatigue and stupidity (for disabling the warning ever)?
It's BRIGHT YELLOW instead of White. After that, there's a big pop-up. If you lose your Orca because you disabled it (I don't know, because your mining buddy doesn't know how standings works or some stupidity like that), that is entirely your fault.
If TWO BIG Clues saying "something's wrong here" aren't enough to keep "realistic" Orca pilots alive, I honestly don't know what could. If you can't bother reading what a pop-up says (there are 3 pop-ups like it in HS. All three equal Death for an Orca Pilot), maybe the orca loss will wake you up.
Why should you get special protections against your own avoidable human error? Nobody else does. If you're that tired, go to bed. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1522
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 06:29:00 -
[2395] - Quote
Blastil wrote:oh for gods sake, everyone is SERIOUSLY over-reacting to these changes
to the gankers: just because some base stats get changed, doesn't mean you will stop being able to gank people. It will simply mean that in highsec, a well fit, intelligent and supported pilot will be more comfortably be able to defend himself. This is fair, normal, and not even NEW. Just modified slightly. Additionally, the new ship changes are NOT AIMED AT MAKING HIGHSEC MINING MORE PROFITABLE. They are aimed at making 0.0 mining more profitable. I for one would like to see this because highsec mining is boring as **** for everyone, miners and pvp pilots included. Tougher exhumers means ease of access to high-end 0.0 ores, and a much cheaper selection of pvp ships, as well as more variety to 0.0 pvp than running into opposing gangs of falcons and drakes.
to the miners: You will not see and end to ganking. People will still do it, it is a profession, and it is fun. Your hulks will still die, don't expect CCP to fix that any time soon. Try keeping in mind that you are a valid target, and you must fit accordingly, or be destroyed.
I for one whole heartedly support CCP in this change, it is needed, and it will make the game much more fun for everyone, as new vistas of 0.0 industry take shape, hopefully making those otherwise desolate places of EVE full of activity and industry, and not just packs of ravenous wolves supported by highsec mining corps.
you're entirely wrong here because nullsec mining is never done solo, it's done in fleets.
in their current SiSi state barges (besides the covetor/hulk) have such inflated HP numbers that they'll have far more EHP, unfit, than unfit fleet command ships (you know, the ones that fit links and are fit to tank a massive fleet, but can't do any DPS worth a damn) and even some tanked HACs.
the 'proper' change would have been to give them actual T2 resists and perhaps the ability to fit LSEs (via, say, a bonus that reduces the fitting requirements for LSEs) so that the decision between fitting for yield and a tank doesn't leave you with a useless tank (in the case of the Mackinaw) with gimped yield.
allowing them to have good 50-60k EHP tanks at the expense of yield would have been the right approach - it'd leave miners with more meaningful fitting choices, it'd give an advantage to miners who don't simply turn their mining lasers on and get off their computer to do their laundry and it wouldn't simply leave you with an idiot-proof ship - "here's a ship that has everything you need and you don't have to bother trying to fit it right, just fit strip miners and go" EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Pipa Porto
588
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 06:30:00 -
[2396] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:
The Hulk does yield better than the other ships. It just takes a little bit of effort and support to do it. That's called balance.
The Mack Yields less, but it's really easy and convenient to use. The Skiff Yields less, but it's really safe to use.
I still don't give a flying what Blizzard does with their game. There is nothing about that game that interests me.
I am interested in comparative games design, expecially of those who do certain things in a better way than EvE. What you just wrote above is exactly why the Hulk is going to be not so good. On paper numbers clash with actual usability. It can't be 500% better than the other ships, it's still comparable. A little micromanagement induced inefficiencies and it becomes barely better than the others while imposing sensible limitations and burdens and becomes just an exercise of self slaving into menial tasks.
It's 20+% better yield.
I don't know how drunk you are when you mine, but when I mined, when I was ATK, I could have been so drunk as to barely able to stand, but I could do my 1 action per 2.5m before the 2.5m timer for inefficiency caught me. Even easier, if you're that drunk, just right-click > Jettison cargo every time Ore appears and have a semi-sober Orca pilot tractor/scoop.
When I said "little bit of effort," what I really meant to say was 24 actions per hour. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
baltec1
Bat Country
1759
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 06:33:00 -
[2397] - Quote
Matius Toskavich wrote:baltec1 wrote:Jimmy Gunsmythe wrote:Asuka Solo wrote:120 pages of griefer tears and whinebabies \o/
This thread srsly delivers. I was just thinking the same thing. Oh delicious irony, I fill to bursting on thee. Both of you need to pay more attention. Its the bad miners whining hard yet again because untanked hulk are going to continue to die. ROFL what?
Look back at the past 60 of so pages. CCP changed the barge stats and suddenly the wines about how unfair life is for miners fired up again dispite them getting a great tanky ship for mining. The pages before consisted of miners mistaking consructive feedback as tears. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1522
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 06:33:00 -
[2398] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:You just don't get it. Even in WoW they got the concept that if you have a min maxed setup, then that min maxed setup has to work better than the non min maxed setups. This is why they put simplified skill rotations on pure DPS classes. Any kind of slow down and hybrid classes and offspecs can compete with them and make them pointless.
Same for Exhumers. If it's more cumbersome to make an Hulk do work than an alternative, then it will be pointless. If anything, it should be the other ships to be harder to setup and keep up to speed with their operation, not the Hulk.
"guys let me tell you how everything works in a terribly dumbed down game where losses have zero consequence" EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
773
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 06:36:00 -
[2399] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:If the Orca pilot cannot have the sense not to pick up a can that was flipped, they should be the ones kicked.
Also, with the new lag generating UI, its really hard to open a tractored can.
Also, you need some situational awareness if you don't notice someone warp in (exceptions being extremely crowded ice belts and station undocks). Takes about 3 whole seconds for them to do anything after they appear on the overview. And then they would have to approach the can, and flip it (another 2 seconds for the UI to react). I always have been in extremely crowded ice belts and after 8 brain-wrecking hours of unloading stuff it's quite easy for an Orca pilot to warp back and not know somebody flipped it in his absence and take it. I am always surprised of people (not just you but others in this thread) who pretend somebody can do the same stuff for 8 hours and then be ready and pristine for any sudden event like they just had a big sniff of lol-they-censored-it. I feel like I am the only puny, mere human in this thread. Being bright yellow instead of white and having a popup saying "do you really want to steal this" isn't enough of a hint for the Orca pilot? Sure, but after many hours, and expecially if for any reason the warning got disabled, it becomes more and more possible. So we now need to protect miners against their own fatigue and stupidity (for disabling the warning ever)? It's BRIGHT YELLOW instead of White. After that, there's a big pop-up. If you lose your Orca because you disabled it (I don't know, because your mining buddy doesn't know how standings works or some stupidity like that), that is entirely your fault. If TWO BIG Clues saying "something's wrong here" aren't enough to keep "realistic" Orca pilots alive, I honestly don't know what could. If you can't bother reading what a pop-up says (there are 3 pop-ups like it in HS. All three equal Death for an Orca Pilot), maybe the orca loss will wake you up. Why should you get special protections against your own avoidable human error? Nobody else does. If you're that tired, go to bed. Don't forget what kind of player you're talking to here... (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1522
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 06:45:00 -
[2400] - Quote
many alliances have lost titans due to fatigued (or simply dumb) pilots clicking jump instead of bridge
i'm glad that CCP feels that you shouldn't be punished for such things anymore EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1758
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 06:47:00 -
[2401] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:]I always have been in extremely crowded ice belts and after 8 brain-wrecking hours of unloading stuff it's quite easy for an Orca pilot to warp back and not know somebody flipped it in his absence and take it.
I am always surprised of people (not just you but others in this thread) who pretend somebody can do the same stuff for 8 hours and then be ready and pristine for any sudden event like they just had a big sniff of lol-they-censored-it.
I feel like I am the only puny, mere human in this thread. The Orca pilot would be tired indeed to dismiss the can theft warning message. I have on the past lost ships to CONCORD due to mistaking "do you want to repair this NPC" for the "do you want to repair this guy who has an active wardec" warning. But why would you get the can flip warning and ignore it? Out of corp miners who leave fleet before you tractor their cans?
- The warning can be disabled for any reason (to me it happened because EvE ALT TABbing clients sometimes bugs and the UI responds oddly including moving the focus between buttons).
- If you jetcan in missions or grav sites, on reboot the cans become yellow and then it becomes more of a guesswork to find out whose can is it, expecially if there were NPC corp alts fleeted.
- if a fleet member gets disconnected sometimes all his stuff becomes yellow even on reconnect.
- there's something that I think it's a bug, where if you had an alt tabbed client (quite normal for multi-account play) the cans stay white even if they should not. I tend to keep a rat wreck in sight to see if this glitch happened but rat wrecks are not always there.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Pipa Porto
588
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 06:47:00 -
[2402] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:many alliances have lost titans due to fatigued (or simply dumb) pilots clicking jump instead of bridge
i'm glad that CCP feels that you shouldn't be punished for such things anymore
The better alliances use their titans to try and Decloak Nyxes.
What a wonderful Christmas Present that was. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Pipa Porto
588
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 06:52:00 -
[2403] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:- The warning can be disabled for any reason (to me it happened because EvE ALT TABbing clients sometimes bugs and the UI responds oddly including moving the focus between buttons).
- If you jetcan in missions or grav sites, on reboot the cans become yellow and then it becomes more of a guesswork to find out whose can is it, expecially if there were NPC corp alts fleeted.
- if a fleet member gets disconnected sometimes all his stuff becomes yellow even on reconnect.
- there's something that I think it's a bug, where if you had an alt tabbed client (quite normal for multi-account play) the cans stay white even if they should not. I tend to keep a rat wreck in sight to see if this glitch happened but rat wrecks are not always there.
Windowed mode > Alt-Tab. I've never seen any of these bugs ever. Regardless, I know of no bug that checks the little box for you.
Then have him blue it first. Or have him set standings instead. Wrecks and Cans of people who have you listed at +10 (possibly also +5, not sure) are white to you.
Then Bug Report that.
Regardless, the central question is: Why should Orca pilots be protected for their incompetence in a way that nobody else in EVE is? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1758
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 06:58:00 -
[2404] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote: It's BRIGHT YELLOW instead of White. After that, there's a big pop-up. If you lose your Orca because you disabled it (I don't know, because your mining buddy doesn't know how standings works or some stupidity like that), that is entirely your fault.
If TWO BIG Clues saying "something's wrong here" aren't enough to keep "realistic" Orca pilots alive, I honestly don't know what could. If you can't bother reading what a pop-up says (there are 3 pop-ups like it in HS. All three equal Death for an Orca Pilot), maybe the orca loss will wake you up.
Why should you get special protections against your own avoidable human error? Nobody else does. If you're that tired, go to bed.
Because it bugs? Oh wait you don't have to deal with hundreds of these things a day so you did not even know. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Pipa Porto
588
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 06:59:00 -
[2405] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:have to
I don't understand. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1671
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 06:59:00 -
[2406] - Quote
From comments on Jester's blog: http://pastebin.com/fnuau8HH
Exec Summary: hulk is actually receiving a nerf to tank from current level. Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
baltec1
Bat Country
1759
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 07:00:00 -
[2407] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Because it bugs? Oh wait you don't have to deal with hundreds of these things a day so you did not even know.
I have never encountered or heard of such a bug in the past 6 years. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1758
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 07:01:00 -
[2408] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:You just don't get it. Even in WoW they got the concept that if you have a min maxed setup, then that min maxed setup has to work better than the non min maxed setups. This is why they put simplified skill rotations on pure DPS classes. Any kind of slow down and hybrid classes and offspecs can compete with them and make them pointless.
Same for Exhumers. If it's more cumbersome to make an Hulk do work than an alternative, then it will be pointless. If anything, it should be the other ships to be harder to setup and keep up to speed with their operation, not the Hulk. "guys let me tell you how everything works in a terribly dumbed down game where losses have zero consequence"
Streamlined things work streamlined regardless of game and even out of game.
Just look at the descriptions: the Hulk should be the top of the line yet it's the other ships that get less handwork and are described as having efficient laser device that allow for 1 laser to be as good as 3.
If anything it should be a main property of the min maxed ship to be fast to use not of the AFK ones.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Suddenly Forums ForumKings
Republic University Minmatar Republic
92
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 07:02:00 -
[2409] - Quote
Hulk [+|n] shipBonusEmShieldResistanceORE3 [+|n] shipBonusExplosiveShieldResistanceORE3 [+|n] shipBonusKineticShieldResistanceORE3 [+|n] shipBonusThermicShieldResistanceORE3 armorHP: 2300.0 => 1800.0 capacity: 500.0 => 350.0 hp: 2500.0 => 2000.0 requiredSkill1Level: 3.0 => 1.0 shieldCapacity: 2700.0 => 2200.0 shieldEmDamageResonance: 0.625 => 1.0 shieldExplosiveDamageResonance: 0.35 => 0.5 shieldKineticDamageResonance: 0.375 => 0.6 shieldThermalDamageResonance: 0.5 => 0.8 shipBonusORE3: -3.0 => -5.0 shieldEmDamageResonance: 0.625 => 1.0 WAIT, does that make it invincible to EM? |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1758
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 07:03:00 -
[2410] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:- The warning can be disabled for any reason (to me it happened because EvE ALT TABbing clients sometimes bugs and the UI responds oddly including moving the focus between buttons).
- If you jetcan in missions or grav sites, on reboot the cans become yellow and then it becomes more of a guesswork to find out whose can is it, expecially if there were NPC corp alts fleeted.
- if a fleet member gets disconnected sometimes all his stuff becomes yellow even on reconnect.
- there's something that I think it's a bug, where if you had an alt tabbed client (quite normal for multi-account play) the cans stay white even if they should not. I tend to keep a rat wreck in sight to see if this glitch happened but rat wrecks are not always there.
Windowed mode > Alt-Tab. I've never seen any of these bugs ever. Regardless, I know of no bug that checks the little box for you.
I have already it bug reported, they have fixed other glitches in the past but this one it's stil there. I can only imagine it's due to the interaction between EvE window mode and the video card drivers but then, all I can do is to have the latest drivers and they still have that.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1671
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 07:05:00 -
[2411] - Quote
You took the time to copy/paste, but not to read.
RESONANCE is the OPPOSITE OF RESISTANCE. Thus 100% resonance = 0% resistance. Then multiply the 25% resist bonus for Exhumers 5 (which is actually 0.85 resonance). But that gets cancelled out by stacking nerfs. Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1758
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 07:08:00 -
[2412] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote: The Hulk does yield better than the other ships. It just takes a little bit of effort and support to do it. That's called balance.
Yes it yields better since 1 day ago.
Maybe because they listened to people not like you.
"Maximum Retriever ore hold is being nerfed slightly. nbd. Mack ore hold is also being nerfed a fair bit. That's probably a good decision. It was far too big. And it looks like the Hulk might be getting a 5% per level mining yield bonus instead of 3%, which is a really good change. That should push it past Mackinaw mining yield again."
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Pipa Porto
588
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 07:09:00 -
[2413] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:You just don't get it. Even in WoW they got the concept that if you have a min maxed setup, then that min maxed setup has to work better than the non min maxed setups. This is why they put simplified skill rotations on pure DPS classes. Any kind of slow down and hybrid classes and offspecs can compete with them and make them pointless.
Same for Exhumers. If it's more cumbersome to make an Hulk do work than an alternative, then it will be pointless. If anything, it should be the other ships to be harder to setup and keep up to speed with their operation, not the Hulk. "guys let me tell you how everything works in a terribly dumbed down game where losses have zero consequence" Streamlined things work streamlined regardless of game and even out of game. Just look at the descriptions: the Hulk should be the top of the line yet it's the other ships that get less handwork and are described as having efficient laser device that allow for 1 laser to be as good as 3. If anything it should be a main property of the min maxed ship to be fast to use not of the AFK ones.
You don't seem to understand the purpose behind tiericide. The Hulk is not meant to be "the best." It is meant to be "the best in some situations" while the others are meant to be "the best in other situations."
The Hulk is not meant to be the "top of the line." EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Pipa Porto
588
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 07:10:00 -
[2414] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote: The Hulk does yield better than the other ships. It just takes a little bit of effort and support to do it. That's called balance.
Yes it yields better since 1 day ago. Maybe because they listened to people not like you. "Maximum Retriever ore hold is being nerfed slightly. nbd. Mack ore hold is also being nerfed a fair bit. That's probably a good decision. It was far too big. And it looks like the Hulk might be getting a 5% per level mining yield bonus instead of 3%, which is a really good change. That should push it past Mackinaw mining yield again."
It always was. 3% per level of Exhumer. Now it's 5%. The others never got that bonus.
It was ~20% before the increase to 5%, now it's more than 25%. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
773
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 07:12:00 -
[2415] - Quote
Suddenly Forums ForumKings wrote: Hulk [+|n] shipBonusEmShieldResistanceORE3 [+|n] shipBonusExplosiveShieldResistanceORE3 [+|n] shipBonusKineticShieldResistanceORE3 [+|n] shipBonusThermicShieldResistanceORE3 armorHP: 2300.0 => 1800.0 capacity: 500.0 => 350.0 hp: 2500.0 => 2000.0 requiredSkill1Level: 3.0 => 1.0 shieldCapacity: 2700.0 => 2200.0 shieldEmDamageResonance: 0.625 => 1.0 shieldExplosiveDamageResonance: 0.35 => 0.5 shieldKineticDamageResonance: 0.375 => 0.6 shieldThermalDamageResonance: 0.5 => 0.8 shipBonusORE3: -3.0 => -5.0 shieldEmDamageResonance: 0.625 => 1.0 WAIT, does that make it invincible to EM? resist% = 100 * (1 - resonance)
What CCP is doing is taking the resist bonus and applying it separately to T1 resistances. Currently, the resists you see in the Hulk's show info window already take the 7.5% per level bonus into account. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1758
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 07:18:00 -
[2416] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:You just don't get it. Even in WoW they got the concept that if you have a min maxed setup, then that min maxed setup has to work better than the non min maxed setups. This is why they put simplified skill rotations on pure DPS classes. Any kind of slow down and hybrid classes and offspecs can compete with them and make them pointless.
Same for Exhumers. If it's more cumbersome to make an Hulk do work than an alternative, then it will be pointless. If anything, it should be the other ships to be harder to setup and keep up to speed with their operation, not the Hulk. "guys let me tell you how everything works in a terribly dumbed down game where losses have zero consequence" Streamlined things work streamlined regardless of game and even out of game. Just look at the descriptions: the Hulk should be the top of the line yet it's the other ships that get less handwork and are described as having efficient laser device that allow for 1 laser to be as good as 3. If anything it should be a main property of the min maxed ship to be fast to use not of the AFK ones. You don't seem to understand the purpose behind tiericide. The Hulk is not meant to be "the best." It is meant to be "the best in some situations" while the others are meant to be "the best in other situations." The Hulk is not meant to be the "top of the line."
Yes it's meant to be the best min maxed yield. As such every rough edges should be smoothed *for Hulk only* to allow it to do its job, unhindered. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1758
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 07:20:00 -
[2417] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote: The Hulk does yield better than the other ships. It just takes a little bit of effort and support to do it. That's called balance.
Yes it yields better since 1 day ago. Maybe because they listened to people not like you. "Maximum Retriever ore hold is being nerfed slightly. nbd. Mack ore hold is also being nerfed a fair bit. That's probably a good decision. It was far too big. And it looks like the Hulk might be getting a 5% per level mining yield bonus instead of 3%, which is a really good change. That should push it past Mackinaw mining yield again." It always was. 3% per level of Exhumer. Now it's 5%. The others never got that bonus. It was ~20% before the increase to 5%, now it's more than 20%.
It was situationally better in some things. Now it's better, period. As it should be. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Andre Jean Sarpantis
University of Caille Gallente Federation
38
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 07:23:00 -
[2418] - Quote
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!
CCP Soundwave wrote:
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.
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 ) |
Pipa Porto
588
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 07:24:00 -
[2419] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Yes it's meant to be the best min maxed yield. As such every rough edges should be smoothed *for Hulk only* to allow it to do its job, unhindered.
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:It was situationally better in some things. Now it's better, period. As it should be.
You don't seem to understand the point of Tiericide. All the Exhumers are supposed to be better than the others in the situations they're designed for. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
baltec1
Bat Country
1759
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 07:26:00 -
[2420] - Quote
Andre Jean Sarpantis wrote: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! CCP Soundwave wrote:
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.
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 )
We will still be able to gank miners for a profit if they are bad at protecting themselves. |
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1671
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 07:37:00 -
[2421] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Yes it's meant to be the best min maxed yield. As such every rough edges should be smoothed *for Hulk only* to allow it to do its job, unhindered. Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:It was situationally better in some things. Now it's better, period. As it should be. You don't seem to understand the point of Tiericide. All the Exhumers are supposed to be better than the others in the situations they're designed for.
The situation that VV is talking about is yield. The Skiff for tank, Mackinaw for solo mining to belt and back to station, the Hulk for maximum yield, sacrificing storage and tank. Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Pipa Porto
588
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 07:37:00 -
[2422] - Quote
Andre Jean Sarpantis wrote: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!
Ganking isn't profitable unless the miners are complicit in their own demise. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Pipa Porto
588
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 07:39:00 -
[2423] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Yes it's meant to be the best min maxed yield. As such every rough edges should be smoothed *for Hulk only* to allow it to do its job, unhindered. Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:It was situationally better in some things. Now it's better, period. As it should be. You don't seem to understand the point of Tiericide. All the Exhumers are supposed to be better than the others in the situations they're designed for. The situation that VV is talking about is yield. The Skiff for tank, Mackinaw for solo mining to belt and back to station, the Hulk for maximum yield, sacrificing storage and tank.
Yes, and with 3% per level, the hulk's got a lead in yield. With 5%, it's got a bigger one.
VV is asking for a bigger hold and other buffs. Those are the "rough edges" she's been talking about. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1671
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 07:49:00 -
[2424] - Quote
Ah, in that case ignore VV since VV only mines once a year for lulz.
The Hulk's ore bay only needs to be large enough for three cycles worth of ore from a max-bonused strip miner. Maybe four if the pilot is staggering lasers to buy time for a sandwich-making trip to the kitchen.
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1758
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 07:49:00 -
[2425] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Yes it's meant to be the best min maxed yield. As such every rough edges should be smoothed *for Hulk only* to allow it to do its job, unhindered. Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:It was situationally better in some things. Now it's better, period. As it should be. You don't seem to understand the point of Tiericide. All the Exhumers are supposed to be better than the others in the situations they're designed for.
You don't seem to understand I am only and exclusively talking about the Hulk yield and since it gets all sorts of drawbacks (some smart, some less smart) then it HAS to be the best at it.
If the micromanagement drawbacks are tiny then it has to be best but just by some margin, if the drawbacks are large then it has to be better by a larger margin, to make up for the efficiency loss at all the shuffling, changing and so on. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1758
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 07:51:00 -
[2426] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Ah, in that case ignore VV since VV only mines once a year for lulz.
The Hulk's ore bay only needs to be large enough for three cycles worth of ore from a max-bonused strip miner. Maybe four if the pilot is staggering lasers to buy time for a sandwich-making trip to the kitchen.
Saying what I say is not = ignoring me...
Also, I mine whenever it's worth over other things I do (usually 1-2 periods of time a year) and certainly not for lulz. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Pipa Porto
588
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 07:56:00 -
[2427] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
You don't seem to understand I am only and exclusively talking about the Hulk yield and since it gets all sorts of drawbacks (some smart, some less smart) then it HAS to be the best at it.
If the micromanagement drawbacks are tiny then it has to be best but just by some margin, if the drawbacks are large then it has to be better by a larger margin, to make up for the efficiency loss at all the shuffling, changing and so on.
The Drawbacks are tiny if you're in a fleet. The margin was ~20% and is now larger. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1758
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 08:00:00 -
[2428] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
You don't seem to understand I am only and exclusively talking about the Hulk yield and since it gets all sorts of drawbacks (some smart, some less smart) then it HAS to be the best at it.
If the micromanagement drawbacks are tiny then it has to be best but just by some margin, if the drawbacks are large then it has to be better by a larger margin, to make up for the efficiency loss at all the shuffling, changing and so on.
The Drawbacks are tiny if you're in a fleet. The margin was ~20% and is now larger.
No they aren't tiny and no the margin was not 20% better than a Mack. Else they would not have increased the margin itself.
Imo they should have smoothed out menial tasks and not have given the margin buff but hey it's CCP's game, let them do their stuff. I am not going to put myself on a pire and roll over to force them to change the game like you guys do.
(if it was for me I'd have just added few PG and CPU and improved T1 versions and left everything as is). Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
321
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 08:02:00 -
[2429] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Ah, in that case ignore VV since VV only mines once a year for lulz.
The Hulk's ore bay only needs to be large enough for three cycles worth of ore from a max-bonused strip miner. Maybe four if the pilot is staggering lasers to buy time for a sandwich-making trip to the kitchen.
i've said it before and i'll say it again; if you want to go afk do other things, fly a mackinaw not a hulk. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Pipa Porto
588
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 08:12:00 -
[2430] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Ah, in that case ignore VV since VV only mines once a year for lulz.
The Hulk's ore bay only needs to be large enough for three cycles worth of ore from a max-bonused strip miner. Maybe four if the pilot is staggering lasers to buy time for a sandwich-making trip to the kitchen.
Why more than 1? It's meant to run with hauler support. Either have it in the belt with you or accept the risk that comes with jet cans. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1758
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 08:22:00 -
[2431] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:Ah, in that case ignore VV since VV only mines once a year for lulz.
The Hulk's ore bay only needs to be large enough for three cycles worth of ore from a max-bonused strip miner. Maybe four if the pilot is staggering lasers to buy time for a sandwich-making trip to the kitchen.
Why more than 1? It's meant to run with hauler support. Either have it in the belt with you or accept the risk that comes with jet cans.
Because the hauler needs continuously to run off and unload?
Try yourself managing 3 Hulks and 1 indy or something (it IS a fleet already, not everyone have 2 Orcas for your fantasy world theorycraft). The indy gets continuously full, the Hulks won't be synchronized in their cycles (maybe if you bot? But we are not catering to botters right?) so you'll always end with an Hulk at half cycle one at 2/3 and the Hauler has to go dump.
Jet can mining is a crutch "invented" by players, CCP did not even mean it. Making a whole ship line rely on a crutch that make them less efficient than AFK other ships is a nonsense.
Hulk has to have enough room to grant uninterrupted operation in mining fleets, not all mining fleets have super duper support. AFK ships don't need any fleet, don't have any micromanagement endurance and they don't need to suffer any interruption.
The end result is making AFK ships very competitive just because of the pointless burden imposed on the supposed min max one. It's pointless because emptying every short time does not make you a better player.
It just makes you a better bot customer. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Shalua Rui
FEROX AQUILA
23
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 08:30:00 -
[2432] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Jet can mining is a crutch "invented" by players, CCP did not even mean it.
1000x this... people seam to forget that all the time.
But I have to say... the "new" Hulk IS desinged to work in large/well outfitted mining fleets now... in conjunction with Orcas or Porqs. For everything else, there are the other ships now. |
Pipa Porto
588
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 08:31:00 -
[2433] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:Ah, in that case ignore VV since VV only mines once a year for lulz.
The Hulk's ore bay only needs to be large enough for three cycles worth of ore from a max-bonused strip miner. Maybe four if the pilot is staggering lasers to buy time for a sandwich-making trip to the kitchen.
Why more than 1? It's meant to run with hauler support. Either have it in the belt with you or accept the risk that comes with jet cans. Because the hauler needs continuously to run off and unload? Try yourself managing 3 Hulks and 1 indy or something (it IS a fleet already, not everyone have 2 Orcas for your fantasy world theorycraft). The indy gets continuously full, the Hulks won't be synchronized in their cycles (maybe if you bot? But we are not catering to botters right?) so you'll always end with an Hulk at half cycle one at 2/3 and the Hauler has to go dump. Jet can mining is a crutch "invented" by players, CCP did not even mean it. Making a whole ship line rely on a crutch that make them less efficient than AFK other ships is a nonsense. Hulk has to have enough room to grant uninterrupted operation in mining fleets, not all mining fleets have super duper support. AFK ships don't need any fleet, don't have any micromanagement endurance and they don't need to suffer any interruption. The end result is making AFK ships very competitive just because of the pointless burden imposed on the supposed min max one. It's pointless because emptying every short time does not make you a better player. It just makes you a better bot customer.
If you don't have enough hauler support for the size of your fleet, the Mackinaw is > Thataway.
And Jetcan mining's been around forever, intended or not. In this case, you're using it as a small buffer during the short time your Itty is hauling. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1758
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 08:36:00 -
[2434] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote: If you don't have enough hauler support for the size of your fleet, the Mackinaw is > Thataway.
And Jetcan mining's been around forever, intended or not. In this case, you're using it as a small buffer during the short time your Itty is hauling.
Forgot you are the god of game balance (in this and other threads) and all MUST play your way or ====> Thatway. Sandbox as long as you decide the walls placement, the sand to use and what tools to hand out, eh?
No dear all you get is people switching to Macks (and then you'll cry again because Macks are harder to kill) except botters.
Botters can put a bot performing stupidly repetitive, frequent menial tasks, the others will indeed switch to something else.
And the next day you'll be here breaking everybody's balls because now all use hard and unprofitable ships to kill AND still get a competitive yield.
Also if I was cheap like you, about the 60 pages or so of pure savage crying about ships being buffed, I'd remind you that the lead developer said the official CCP position on this and he IS entitled to do so.
Why don't you take your own advice if you don't like it and go play =========> Thatway some other game?
You don't take your own advice? Well, so won't I. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1672
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 11:08:00 -
[2435] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:i've said it before and i'll say it again; if you want to go afk do other things, fly a mackinaw not a hulk.
Or a cloaky ship which you can park in someone else's industrial system 24/7.
Or a Retribution which you just use for structure bashing.
If you want people to be tied to the computer while their account is logged in, go play some other game.
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Blastcaps Madullier
Celestial Horizon Corp. Ethereal Dawn
76
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 11:11:00 -
[2436] - Quote
As long as the hulk can tank nullsec BS belt rats still, dont think many are going to be that bothered by changes to hulks other than HS miners at risk from gankers (read afk doing xyz irl while hulk cycles strips) on the surface of it they could do with tinkering again with the cargo hold in the case of increasing it slightly so that it can fit 3 of each diff crystal type in there, some people go out mining with crystals for all ore types depending on what/where their mining, increasing the specialty ore hold to 8k wouldn't be a bad idea either, cause looking at the current changes they've taken the current hulk hold of 8k m3 and split it into 500 m3 cargo bay and 7.5k m3 ore hold. as for hs vs LS/Null mining you CAN NOT afford to go afk in ls or null, if you do, well expect to wake up in your medi clone frequently :)
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1672
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 11:12:00 -
[2437] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Why more than 1? It's meant to run with hauler support. Either have it in the belt with you or accept the risk that comes with jet cans.
More than 1 because the Hulk has 3 strip miners and I don't want to be continually dragging one cycle of ore to the Orca's corp hangar every minute. That's far too much attention to a task which takes my mouse away from the "warp the hell out of here" button . 6000m3 is a decent size. People with ultimately maxed out yield can learn to stagger their strip miners. Being required to stagger strip miners because the ore bay isn't even big enough for min yield Strip Miner Is cycling simultaneously would be a pain in the neck.
Of course, I would very happily trade a 5% yield bonus for a 5% cycle time bonus. Change the Mining Foreman Mindlink from a 15% yield to a 5% cycle time on all mining lasers and I'd be a happy miner.
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
321
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 12:31:00 -
[2438] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Dave stark wrote:i've said it before and i'll say it again; if you want to go afk do other things, fly a mackinaw not a hulk. Or a cloaky ship which you can park in someone else's industrial system 24/7. Or a Retribution which you just use for structure bashing. If you want people to be tied to the computer while their account is logged in, go play some other game.
exactly there's a ship to let you go afk. the mackinaw is that ship not the hulk. deal with it. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
321
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 12:36:00 -
[2439] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Why more than 1? It's meant to run with hauler support. Either have it in the belt with you or accept the risk that comes with jet cans. More than 1 because the Hulk has 3 strip miners and I don't want to be continually dragging one cycle of ore to the Orca's corp hangar every minute. That's far too much attention to a task which takes my mouse away from the "warp the hell out of here" button . 6000m3 is a decent size. People with ultimately maxed out yield can learn to stagger their strip miners. Being required to stagger strip miners because the ore bay isn't even big enough for min yield Strip Miner Is cycling simultaneously would be a pain in the neck. Of course, I would very happily trade a 5% yield bonus for a 5% cycle time bonus. Change the Mining Foreman Mindlink from a 15% yield to a 5% cycle time on all mining lasers and I'd be a happy miner.
you won't be dragging every min, you'll be dragging every ~2 mins depending on if you're in a fleet with an orca and a rorq. even then the difference in time isn't that substantial.
currently you're only going to go over 6k m3 / cycle if you're perfect skilled with a +5 implant... do yourself a favour and get a +3 and 6k cargo is more than sufficient if you don't want staggered strips [not that i'm having a go, just an observation] and yes, i agree having to stagger strips would be a pain. hardly maxing yield if you're sitting there with inactive strips because you can't just warp in to a belt and turn them on.
trading yield for cycle time will never happen. fixed cycles and variable m3 vs variable cycles vs fixed yield is the defining factor between ore and ice mining respectively. inb4 orca links; mining foreman skill/implant. there are bonuses to yield and cycle times, except yield doesn't affect ice mining.
to be honest the new hulk is fine aside from the 350 cargo needs to go back to 500 like the covetor and all is good, imo. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Blastcaps Madullier
Celestial Horizon Corp. Ethereal Dawn
76
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 14:39:00 -
[2440] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Why more than 1? It's meant to run with hauler support. Either have it in the belt with you or accept the risk that comes with jet cans. More than 1 because the Hulk has 3 strip miners and I don't want to be continually dragging one cycle of ore to the Orca's corp hangar every minute. That's far too much attention to a task which takes my mouse away from the "warp the hell out of here" button . 6000m3 is a decent size. People with ultimately maxed out yield can learn to stagger their strip miners. Being required to stagger strip miners because the ore bay isn't even big enough for min yield Strip Miner Is cycling simultaneously would be a pain in the neck. Of course, I would very happily trade a 5% yield bonus for a 5% cycle time bonus. Change the Mining Foreman Mindlink from a 15% yield to a 5% cycle time on all mining lasers and I'd be a happy miner. you won't be dragging every min, you'll be dragging every ~2 mins depending on if you're in a fleet with an orca and a rorq. even then the difference in time isn't that substantial. currently you're only going to go over 6k m3 / cycle if you're perfect skilled with a +5 implant... do yourself a favour and get a +3 and 6k cargo is more than sufficient if you don't want staggered strips [not that i'm having a go, just an observation] and yes, i agree having to stagger strips would be a pain. hardly maxing yield if you're sitting there with inactive strips because you can't just warp in to a belt and turn them on. trading yield for cycle time will never happen. fixed cycles and variable m3 vs variable cycles vs fixed yield is the defining factor between ore and ice mining respectively. inb4 orca links; mining foreman skill/implant. there are bonuses to yield and cycle times, except yield doesn't affect ice mining. to be honest the new hulk is fine aside from the 350 cargo needs to go back to 500 like the covetor and all is good, imo.
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. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country
1759
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 14:50:00 -
[2441] - Quote
Blastcaps Madullier wrote:
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.
Thats more than enough to hold crystals, if you want more just get the hauler to shuttle some more out to you. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
325
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 14:59:00 -
[2442] - Quote
Blastcaps Madullier wrote: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.
i really hope you're joking. yes lets add a whole new, and pointless bay when you can just change 350 to 500 on 1 ship's stats in order to solve the problem. a number that shouldn't have been changed from 500 to begin with, especially since they didn't add that space to the ore bay.
also stealth bombers have nothing to do with this, besides they have 1 bomb launcher to load not 3, if you're trying to draw the worst parallel in the world between strip miners and bomb launchers. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
325
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 15:00:00 -
[2443] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Blastcaps Madullier wrote:
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.
Thats more than enough to hold crystals, if you want more just get the hauler to shuttle some more out to you.
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. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
baltec1
Bat Country
1759
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 15:06:00 -
[2444] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:baltec1 wrote:Blastcaps Madullier wrote:
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.
Thats more than enough to hold crystals, if you want more just get the hauler to shuttle some more out to you. 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.
Because its so hard to warp to a station and grab more crystals every so often. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
326
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 15:14:00 -
[2445] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dave stark wrote:baltec1 wrote:Blastcaps Madullier wrote:
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.
Thats more than enough to hold crystals, if you want more just get the hauler to shuttle some more out to you. 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. Because its so hard to warp to a station and grab more crystals every so often. 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. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Andoria Thara
Fallen Avatars
88
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 15:18:00 -
[2446] - Quote
Dave stark wrote: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.
So use a Mackinaw.
I'll quote something I read earlier: "THE HULK IS NOT THE BEST MINING SHIP ANYMORE"
Use the proper ship for the proper job, tiercide is in effect, don't use a screw driver to hammer a nail.
If you can't deal with the limited space, use a different ship, simple as that. |
baltec1
Bat Country
1759
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 15:19:00 -
[2447] - Quote
Dave stark wrote: 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 will be docking a lot more to empty your hold on all the barges than needing to swarp crystals so just pick up more then. This really isnt an issue for solo or group play. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
326
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 15:21:00 -
[2448] - Quote
Andoria Thara wrote:Dave stark wrote: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. So use a Mackinaw. I'll quote something I read earlier: "THE HULK IS NOT THE BEST MINING SHIP ANYMORE" Use the proper ship for the proper job, teircide is in effect, don't use a screw driver to hammer a nail. If you can't deal with the limited space, use a different ship, simple as that.
teircide isn't in effect at all, using the proper ship for the job would be using the hulk, however if the hulk isn't going to produce the goods because of bad design and the answer is "use the mack" which has more ehp, cargo, and yield due to less time wasted on bad design then....
we're simply handing the mackinaw the crown that the hulk currently wears and rebalancing hasn't balanced anything it's just crowned a new king of everything. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
326
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 15:22:00 -
[2449] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dave stark wrote: 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 will be docking a lot more to empty your hold on all the barges than needing to swarp crystals so just pick up more then. This really isnt an issue for solo or group play.
you won't be docking more at all; you'll just be jetcanning, like you always were. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
baltec1
Bat Country
1759
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 15:25:00 -
[2450] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:
you won't be docking more at all; you'll just be jetcanning, like you always were.
Well then thats your choice if you want to jetcan solo. If you really want you can fit cargo expanders to hold more crystals. |
|
Andoria Thara
Fallen Avatars
88
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 15:26:00 -
[2451] - Quote
Dave stark wrote: teircide isn't in effect at all, using the proper ship for the job would be using the hulk, however if the hulk isn't going to produce the goods because of bad design and the answer is "use the mack" which has more ehp, cargo, and yield due to less time wasted on bad design then....
we're simply handing the mackinaw the crown that the hulk currently wears and rebalancing hasn't balanced anything it's just crowned a new king of everything.
The Hulk will work fine, like someone else mentioned, store your crystals in the orca or a hauling ship. You don't need 1000m3 or even 500m3 worth of space to hold crystals.
Hell even 150m3 is perfectly fine for a mining op, pick which type of rock you are going to mine, equip your 3 crystals, put 3 backup crystals in your cargo, and start mining.
Edit: CCP Goliath just replied over in the other thread https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1725209#post1725209 |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
326
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 15:32:00 -
[2452] - Quote
good stuff.
i have a feeling the 350m3 ore bay is a mistake. my evidence is that A) the cov still has 500m3 ore bay, and B) the hulk still has 7500m3 ore bay.
then again if both the rumoured yield increase and my prediction about the cargo being a mistake happen in tomorrow's sisi update the hulk will be where it needs to be without encroaching on any of the other exhumer's role.
however i would like them to take a peek at the retriever vs mackinaw. the difference in ore bay is quite insubstantial. when going from the procurer to the skiff, or covetor to the hulk they feel like sizable upgrades for their intended role; the mack doesn't since it has less than 1 cycle of ore's space of space over the retriever. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1760
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 15:45:00 -
[2453] - Quote
Blastcaps Madullier wrote:As long as the hulk can tank nullsec BS belt rats still, dont think many are going to be that bothered by changes to hulks other than HS miners at risk from gankers (read afk doing xyz irl while hulk cycles strips) on the surface of it they could do with tinkering again with the cargo hold in the case of increasing it slightly so that it can fit 3 of each diff crystal type in there, some people go out mining with crystals for all ore types depending on what/where their mining, increasing the specialty ore hold to 8k wouldn't be a bad idea either, cause looking at the current changes they've taken the current hulk hold of 8k m3 and split it into 500 m3 cargo bay and 7.5k m3 ore hold. as for hs vs LS/Null mining you CAN NOT afford to go afk in ls or null, if you do, well expect to wake up in your medi clone frequently :)
For what I have seen, from the most dangerous to the least:
- You absolutely cannot go AFK in WHs, expecially if you didn't "seal" them first.
- You can afk for 2-3 minutes in low sec "out of the way" systems if you are in voice comm fleet, just turn up the volume to hear possible warnings, 3-5 minutes in "home system" when it's actively sealed by corp mates. Better if inbound WHs were sealed or are camped.
- You can afk for 3-4 minutes in NPC nullsec if you are in voice comm fleet, just turn up the volume to hear possible warnings. Bubbles at gate give a little of room. Better if inbound WHs are sealed / camped, this happens more often as your own corp mates will go inside to find PvP or a short route back to low sec.
- You can afk for 5-10 minutes in important sov nullsec systems if you are in voice comm fleet, it's worse for out of the way systems (unchecked inbound WHs, more unchecked if you are in a renter corp) and in "conduits" between multiple clusters where you may get get neuts roams.
- You can afk for about 20 minutes in hi sec out of the way systems or even in "hot" systems (ice mining) during low population times of the day / outside week ends and outside of Hulkageddon (which now is permanent...). If you are in hot systems or week ends then 10 minutes tops would be better. If there are reds (identified gankers) then you can't go afk at all. If the reds are organized gankers you are better to dock / log off as even being ATK they are smart enough to catch you at first mistake, they can catch you at gates (use tanked Orca to get out with ships), they WILL kill tanked exhumers as they have no "I must make a profit on all ganks" issues. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1760
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 15:48:00 -
[2454] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:Dave stark wrote:i've said it before and i'll say it again; if you want to go afk do other things, fly a mackinaw not a hulk. Or a cloaky ship which you can park in someone else's industrial system 24/7. Or a Retribution which you just use for structure bashing. If you want people to be tied to the computer while their account is logged in, go play some other game. exactly there's a ship to let you go afk. the mackinaw is that ship not the hulk. deal with it.
Except the Pro Game Balancers in this thread say Mack is not allowed to be an AFK ship... Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
328
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 15:49:00 -
[2455] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Dave stark wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:Dave stark wrote:i've said it before and i'll say it again; if you want to go afk do other things, fly a mackinaw not a hulk. Or a cloaky ship which you can park in someone else's industrial system 24/7. Or a Retribution which you just use for structure bashing. If you want people to be tied to the computer while their account is logged in, go play some other game. exactly there's a ship to let you go afk. the mackinaw is that ship not the hulk. deal with it. Except the Pro Game Balancers in this thread say Mack is not allowed to be an AFK ship... then.... what use is it? Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1760
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 15:52:00 -
[2456] - Quote
Andoria Thara wrote:Dave stark wrote: teircide isn't in effect at all, using the proper ship for the job would be using the hulk, however if the hulk isn't going to produce the goods because of bad design and the answer is "use the mack" which has more ehp, cargo, and yield due to less time wasted on bad design then....
we're simply handing the mackinaw the crown that the hulk currently wears and rebalancing hasn't balanced anything it's just crowned a new king of everything.
The Hulk will work fine, like someone else mentioned, store your crystals in the orca or a hauling ship. You don't need 1000m3 or even 500m3 worth of space to hold crystals. Hell even 150m3 is perfectly fine for a mining op, pick which type of rock you are going to mine, equip your 3 crystals, put 3 backup crystals in your cargo, and start mining. Edit: CCP Goliath just replied over in the other thread https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1725209#post1725209
Are you the new Ruby Porto alt? Only him could justify a larger crystal bay in ships intended to have worse efficiency and less turrets while having it smaller in the top of the line efficiency ship. This not even including the factor that the new ore + hold is now less than the old all purpose hold. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1760
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 16:00:00 -
[2457] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Dave stark wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:Dave stark wrote:i've said it before and i'll say it again; if you want to go afk do other things, fly a mackinaw not a hulk. Or a cloaky ship which you can park in someone else's industrial system 24/7. Or a Retribution which you just use for structure bashing. If you want people to be tied to the computer while their account is logged in, go play some other game. exactly there's a ship to let you go afk. the mackinaw is that ship not the hulk. deal with it. Except the Pro Game Balancers in this thread say Mack is not allowed to be an AFK ship... then.... what use is it?
Don't ask me
Imo Hulk => glass cannon, min maxed if in fleet, should be given a mechanic to let it perform the best, should have the least micromanagement. If it has clunky micromanagement, in order to still be the best with margin enough, then it has to be overbuffed and this is why I'd rather have a little micromanagement Hulk, to keep it "sane". A possible drawback to its superiority could be to give it a well sized crystals hold but it burns crystals faster than the other ships. So you have to factor in fast speed vs higher operation cost and not some dumb time sink that kills efficiency and makes Macks competitive for way less effort and dangers.
Mack => Self sufficient, resilient enough to not get popped by less than 3 catalysts or 1 tornado volley, so not really AFK (can't deal with organized gank corps) but still good and able to get out if not scrambled.
Skiff => Self sufficient, ungankable for a profit, period. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Josef Djugashvilis
The Scope Gallente Federation
380
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 16:27:00 -
[2458] - Quote
This thread is going down the plug-hole in ever decreasing circles. You want fries with that? |
Pipa Porto
589
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 17:10:00 -
[2459] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Forgot you are the god of game balance (in this and other threads) and all MUST play your way or ====> Thatway. Sandbox as long as you decide the walls placement, the sand to use and what tools to hand out, eh?
No dear all you get is people switching to Macks (and then you'll cry again because Macks are harder to kill) except botters.
Botters can put a bot performing stupidly repetitive, frequent menial tasks, the others will indeed switch to something else.
And the next day you'll be here breaking everybody's balls because now all use hard and unprofitable ships to kill AND still get a competitive yield.
Also if I was cheap like you, about the 60 pages or so of pure savage crying about ships being buffed, I'd remind you that the lead developer said the official CCP position on this and he IS entitled to do so.
Why don't you take your own advice if you don't like it and go play =========> Thatway some other game?
You don't take your own advice? Well, so won't I.
Whenever to walls of the sandbox are changing, public commentary is a good thing.
The Hulk is designed to shine when you have an adequate fleet to support it. If you don't have an adequate fleet to support it, of course it's not going to shine. A 20% yield bonus is a pretty strong incentive to form that fleet.
As I've said many times, the new Mack's tank is silly. Because of it, the Skiff is entirely useless.
And Soundwave has been pretty resoundingly mocked by bringing back an idea that the price of a Hull should have something to do with its surviviability (an idea proven to be silly by Supers) and hasn't been back.
You keep coming at this assuming that the goal is to have everyone in Hulks. That's you not understanding tiericide. The Hulk's yield is the reward for doing the groundwork needed to make it efficient. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
470
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 17:11:00 -
[2460] - Quote
Another issue that I hope CCP addresses:
Build Cost of the Exhumers!
Used to be a fairly simple progression, at current prices, Skiff, Mack, Hulk, 120M, 180M, 300M. Small Bigger, Biggest. Made sense.
As all 3 Exhumers have had major revisions done. They are now supposed to be roughly 'equivalent', and ALL have received a significant upgrade, build costs should be addressed and updated as well.
Doesn't make sense for the Mackinaw and the Skiff to cost a fraction of a Hulk anymore.
It should be pretty obvious that the new build cost of the Hulk should be slightly increased, and the other Exhumer's costs should be roughly equivalent to that.
I figure, somewhere between 350 and 400M at current mineral/goo prices would be appropriate for all three Exhumers.
The Skiff will never be ganked in the first place, but it simply doesn't really make much sense for the Mackinaw to be 'the equal' of the Hulk, yet cost far, far less.
Hoping Soundwave doesn't over look that detail in the balancing process either.
|
|
Pipa Porto
589
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 17:12:00 -
[2461] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Why more than 1? It's meant to run with hauler support. Either have it in the belt with you or accept the risk that comes with jet cans. More than 1 because the Hulk has 3 strip miners and I don't want to be continually dragging one cycle of ore to the Orca's corp hangar every minute. That's far too much attention to a task which takes my mouse away from the "warp the hell out of here" button . 6000m3 is a decent size. People with ultimately maxed out yield can learn to stagger their strip miners. Being required to stagger strip miners because the ore bay isn't even big enough for min yield Strip Miner Is cycling simultaneously would be a pain in the neck. Of course, I would very happily trade a 5% yield bonus for a 5% cycle time bonus. Change the Mining Foreman Mindlink from a 15% yield to a 5% cycle time on all mining lasers and I'd be a happy miner.
It's got like a 7500m3 ore bay. It stores just a little more than 1 cycle of all 3, non-staggered Strips. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Pipa Porto
589
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 17:16:00 -
[2462] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Andoria Thara wrote:Dave stark wrote: teircide isn't in effect at all, using the proper ship for the job would be using the hulk, however if the hulk isn't going to produce the goods because of bad design and the answer is "use the mack" which has more ehp, cargo, and yield due to less time wasted on bad design then....
we're simply handing the mackinaw the crown that the hulk currently wears and rebalancing hasn't balanced anything it's just crowned a new king of everything.
The Hulk will work fine, like someone else mentioned, store your crystals in the orca or a hauling ship. You don't need 1000m3 or even 500m3 worth of space to hold crystals. Hell even 150m3 is perfectly fine for a mining op, pick which type of rock you are going to mine, equip your 3 crystals, put 3 backup crystals in your cargo, and start mining. Edit: CCP Goliath just replied over in the other thread https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1725209#post1725209 Are you the new Ruby Porto alt? Only him could justify a larger crystal bay in ships intended to have worse efficiency and less turrets while having it smaller in the top of the line efficiency ship. This not even including the factor that the new ore + hold is now less than the old all purpose hold.
The Hulk is designed to be efficient only when properly supported by haulers (who can drop crystals off for you).
The Mack and Skiff are designed to be more self sufficient. Situational Efficiency is the watchword of tiericide. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Jim Era
The Syndicate Inc En Garde
19
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 17:30:00 -
[2463] - Quote
pewp |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1760
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 17:33:00 -
[2464] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:The Hulk is designed to be efficient only when properly supported by haulers (who can drop crystals off for you).
The Mack and Skiff are designed to be more self sufficient. Situational Efficiency is the watchword of tiericide.
I totally disagree. The Hulk cannot be efficient if its fleet depenency is hardwired into 3rd party providing such efficiency. Hulk should and has to rely on fleet because of limited cargo hold and thin hull already.
Try making Hulk efficient when mission mining, let's see how fast that Orca will get to give him the crystals at the 3rd pocket, 80km off the warp in point. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
329
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 17:34:00 -
[2465] - Quote
i think soundwave has been quoted out of context a lot. a hulk's high slots are probably worth more than a t2 catalyst, i think that's the issue, pretty much has nothing to do with the hull cost of a hulk. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1153
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 17:35:00 -
[2466] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:The Hulk is designed to be efficient only when properly supported by haulers (who can drop crystals off for you).
The Mack and Skiff are designed to be more self sufficient. Situational Efficiency is the watchword of tiericide. I totally disagree. The Hulk cannot be efficient if its fleet depenency is hardwired into 3rd party providing such efficiency. Hulk should and has to rely on fleet because of limited cargo hold and thin hull already. Try making Hulk efficient when mission mining, let's see how fast that Orca will get to give him the crystals at the 3rd pocket, 80km off the warp in point. Your missing the point.
The Hulk is redesigned for basic fleet mining ops. Thats it. Not solo mining. Not deadspace pocket mining. Fleet ops. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1760
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 17:38:00 -
[2467] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:The Hulk is designed to be efficient only when properly supported by haulers (who can drop crystals off for you).
The Mack and Skiff are designed to be more self sufficient. Situational Efficiency is the watchword of tiericide. I totally disagree. The Hulk cannot be efficient if its fleet depenency is hardwired into 3rd party providing such efficiency. Hulk should and has to rely on fleet because of limited cargo hold and thin hull already. Try making Hulk efficient when mission mining, let's see how fast that Orca will get to give him the crystals at the 3rd pocket, 80km off the warp in point. Your missing the point. The Hulk is redesigned for basic fleet mining ops. Thats it. Not solo mining. Not deadspace pocket mining. Fleet ops.
Pocket mining IS a fleet ops. It's not a 1000000000 blobfare ops but Orca + 3 Hulks are a fleet already and there's several plentiful missions that turn to be quite useful to avoid pro "PvPers". Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
329
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 17:38:00 -
[2468] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:The Hulk is designed to be efficient only when properly supported by haulers (who can drop crystals off for you).
The Mack and Skiff are designed to be more self sufficient. Situational Efficiency is the watchword of tiericide. I totally disagree. The Hulk cannot be efficient if its fleet depenency is hardwired into 3rd party providing such efficiency. Hulk should and has to rely on fleet because of limited cargo hold and thin hull already. Try making Hulk efficient when mission mining, let's see how fast that Orca will get to give him the crystals at the 3rd pocket, 80km off the warp in point. Your missing the point. The Hulk is redesigned for basic fleet mining ops. Thats it. Not solo mining. Not deadspace pocket mining. Fleet ops.
it hasn't been redesigned at all. all they've done is created a crystal issue, lowered the resist bonus and gone "there we go". it has been given no bonuses for being in a fleet what so ever. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Pipa Porto
589
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 17:40:00 -
[2469] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:I totally disagree. The Hulk cannot be efficient if its fleet depenency is hardwired into 3rd party providing such efficiency. Hulk should and has to rely on fleet because of limited cargo hold and thin hull already.
Limited Storage space and protection are the only reasons it has to rely on the fleet. What are you talking about?
The Hulk is more useful than the Mack IFF it has enough hauler support to keep up with its yield because it can't store anything significant locally. If else, the Mack is more useful. Atm, the Skiff is out in the cold. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Pipa Porto
589
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 17:40:00 -
[2470] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:The Hulk is designed to be efficient only when properly supported by haulers (who can drop crystals off for you).
The Mack and Skiff are designed to be more self sufficient. Situational Efficiency is the watchword of tiericide. I totally disagree. The Hulk cannot be efficient if its fleet depenency is hardwired into 3rd party providing such efficiency. Hulk should and has to rely on fleet because of limited cargo hold and thin hull already. Try making Hulk efficient when mission mining, let's see how fast that Orca will get to give him the crystals at the 3rd pocket, 80km off the warp in point. Your missing the point. The Hulk is redesigned for basic fleet mining ops. Thats it. Not solo mining. Not deadspace pocket mining. Fleet ops. it hasn't been redesigned at all. all they've done is created a crystal issue, lowered the resist bonus and gone "there we go". it has been given no bonuses for being in a fleet what so ever.
~20% yield over the Mackinaw isn't a bonus now? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
|
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
329
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 17:41:00 -
[2471] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Dave stark wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:The Hulk is designed to be efficient only when properly supported by haulers (who can drop crystals off for you).
The Mack and Skiff are designed to be more self sufficient. Situational Efficiency is the watchword of tiericide. I totally disagree. The Hulk cannot be efficient if its fleet depenency is hardwired into 3rd party providing such efficiency. Hulk should and has to rely on fleet because of limited cargo hold and thin hull already. Try making Hulk efficient when mission mining, let's see how fast that Orca will get to give him the crystals at the 3rd pocket, 80km off the warp in point. Your missing the point. The Hulk is redesigned for basic fleet mining ops. Thats it. Not solo mining. Not deadspace pocket mining. Fleet ops. it hasn't been redesigned at all. all they've done is created a crystal issue, lowered the resist bonus and gone "there we go". it has been given no bonuses for being in a fleet what so ever. ~20% yield over the Mackinaw isn't a bonus now?
in comparison to a 50+% yield bonus from simply having an extra strip miner? that's the bonus it previously had. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Pipa Porto
589
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 17:49:00 -
[2472] - Quote
Dave stark wrote: in comparison to a 50+% yield bonus from simply having an extra strip miner? that's the bonus it previously had.
Seriously? Come now. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Jim Era
The Syndicate Inc En Garde
21
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 17:55:00 -
[2473] - Quote
continuous pewp just spewing all over this thread |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1761
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 18:01:00 -
[2474] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:I totally disagree. The Hulk cannot be efficient if its fleet depenency is hardwired into 3rd party providing such efficiency. Hulk should and has to rely on fleet because of limited cargo hold and thin hull already. Limited Storage space and protection are the only reasons it has to rely on the fleet. What are you talking about? The Hulk is more useful than the Mack IFF it has enough hauler support to keep up with its yield because it can't store anything significant locally. If else, the Mack is more useful. Atm, the Skiff is out in the cold.
The developers did not talk about *crystals* space.
CCP Ytterbium wrote: Covetor/hulk: ore bay is identical to its current cargo hold, little to average EHP, but best mining output. Basically made for group operations when players have industrials and protection to back them up
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Andoria Thara
Fallen Avatars
89
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 18:44:00 -
[2475] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:The developers did not talk about *crystals* space. CCP Ytterbium wrote: Covetor/hulk: ore bay is identical to its current cargo hold, little to average EHP, but best mining output. Basically made for group operations when players have industrials and protection to back them up
oh my god, they changed their mind on something, it's the end of the world
Vaerah, stop whining and just HTFU already |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
329
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 19:03:00 -
[2476] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Dave stark wrote: in comparison to a 50+% yield bonus from simply having an extra strip miner? that's the bonus it previously had.
Seriously? Come now.
you made a comment that it mines better than the mack, i reminded you it mined better before the changes. you still haven't made a comment on why it's better in a fleet [which, it isn't as it has no bonuses for being in a fleet] Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Infinite Force
Hammer Of Light Covenant of the Phoenix Alliance
114
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 19:13:00 -
[2477] - Quote
Andoria Thara wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:The developers did not talk about *crystals* space. CCP Ytterbium wrote: Covetor/hulk: ore bay is identical to its current cargo hold, little to average EHP, but best mining output. Basically made for group operations when players have industrials and protection to back them up
oh my god, they changed their mind on something, it's the end of the world Vaerah, stop whining and just HTFU already I love reading posts in which people can't put out a well reasoned thought - instead, they have to end in personal insults and petty name calling.
Does CCP have the ability to change the game on a whim, sure, but what does it accomplish? If they change ti too much, then people leave. If it's fun, people play. When it's no longer fun, they lose $$$'s.
Personally I can't wait to see all the whining when they start "redefining" the Cruisers, BC's, Logi's and BS hulls for combat ships. If they thought that the miners complained a bit about balance ... ... ... ...
All this talk about what constitutes a "Fleet" is annoying at best. As defined by the game parameters, a "Fleet" consists of 2 or more people "fleeted" together. Until CCP makes a change that says you can't be considered a fleet until you have X, Y and Z ships in it, those spouting off what constitutes a Fleet need to adjust their opinions to be inline with with what's reality (e.g. basic game mechanics).
Has CCP said that you can carry every crystal there is? No Has CCP said that a hauler must deliver crystals to you? No Has CCP said that an Orca must hold 'extra' crystals for you? No
They're redesigning the ships, and all we can really hope for is that they make sure and get the redesign of all intersecting systems, ships & modules properly balanced. If not, people will leave - and that means less revenue for CCP. HROLT CEO Live Free; Die Proud
Hammer Mineral Compression -á- The only way to go! |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1155
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 19:14:00 -
[2478] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Dave stark wrote: in comparison to a 50+% yield bonus from simply having an extra strip miner? that's the bonus it previously had.
Seriously? Come now. you made a comment that it mines better than the mack, i reminded you it mined better before the changes. you still haven't made a comment on why it's better in a fleet [which, it isn't as it has no bonuses for being in a fleet] CCP decided they wanted the Hulk to not be the end all of mining ships. So they gave it drawbacks so that it must be part of a fleet op to be useful. And in that area, it is more useful than any of the other barges. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1762
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 19:17:00 -
[2479] - Quote
Andoria Thara wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:The developers did not talk about *crystals* space. CCP Ytterbium wrote: Covetor/hulk: ore bay is identical to its current cargo hold, little to average EHP, but best mining output. Basically made for group operations when players have industrials and protection to back them up
oh my god, they changed their mind on something, it's the end of the world Vaerah, stop whining and just HTFU already
Your cogent and detailed reasoning totally convinced me. Not. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
329
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 19:21:00 -
[2480] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:Dave stark wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Dave stark wrote: in comparison to a 50+% yield bonus from simply having an extra strip miner? that's the bonus it previously had.
Seriously? Come now. you made a comment that it mines better than the mack, i reminded you it mined better before the changes. you still haven't made a comment on why it's better in a fleet [which, it isn't as it has no bonuses for being in a fleet] CCP decided they wanted the Hulk to not be the end all of mining ships. So they gave it drawbacks so that it must be part of a fleet op to be useful. And in that area, it is more useful than any of the other barges.
except it isn't more useful than another type of barge in a fleet. in fact you're just an imposed burden upon the other fleet members constantly having to be resupplied with crystals etc. if you're constantly dicking around with crystals instead of mining you may as well just turn up in mackinaws and keep the boosting ship in a pos which gives it extra safety for no loss in yield because the macks aren't knobing around with crystals and can haul their own ****.
in their current state hulks are far more hassle than their yield bonus is worth. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
|
Andoria Thara
Fallen Avatars
91
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 19:24:00 -
[2481] - Quote
Infinite Force wrote: I love reading posts in which people can't put out a well reasoned thought - instead, they have to end in personal insults and petty name calling.
I love reading a post in which some almighty twit jumps in on page # 124 without reading the other 123 pages.
Had you read even the previous 10 pages you would see one person complaining non-stop, brushing off all suggestions that were made.
The changes are still being tweaked, there's a modification to the cargo numbers happening tomorrow as a matter of fact. Nothing is set in stone yet. |
Andoria Thara
Fallen Avatars
91
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 19:25:00 -
[2482] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: Your cogent and detailed reasoning totally convinced me. Not.
Would it have even matter? No matter what someone tells you, you are going to keep repeating the same thing. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
262
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 19:33:00 -
[2483] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Dave stark wrote: in comparison to a 50+% yield bonus from simply having an extra strip miner? that's the bonus it previously had.
Seriously? Come now. you made a comment that it mines better than the mack, i reminded you it mined better before the changes. you still haven't made a comment on why it's better in a fleet [which, it isn't as it has no bonuses for being in a fleet] It should be painfully clear why it functions better in a fleet environment. It mines more and with proper support cargo restrictions become irrelevant. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
329
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 19:35:00 -
[2484] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Dave stark wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Dave stark wrote: in comparison to a 50+% yield bonus from simply having an extra strip miner? that's the bonus it previously had.
Seriously? Come now. you made a comment that it mines better than the mack, i reminded you it mined better before the changes. you still haven't made a comment on why it's better in a fleet [which, it isn't as it has no bonuses for being in a fleet] It should be painfully clear why it functions better in a fleet environment. It mines more and with proper support cargo restrictions become irrelevant.
except having a 3% yield modifier/level does not mean it mines more. i love my spread sheets as much as the next person but just because the paper says it's a bigger number doesn't mean it works like that. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Pipa Porto
589
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 19:40:00 -
[2485] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Dave stark wrote: in comparison to a 50+% yield bonus from simply having an extra strip miner? that's the bonus it previously had.
Seriously? Come now. you made a comment that it mines better than the mack, i reminded you it mined better before the changes. you still haven't made a comment on why it's better in a fleet [which, it isn't as it has no bonuses for being in a fleet]
Because it's able to make effective use of it's ~20%(25% now) yield bonus over a Mackinaw/Skiff.
That's why it's better than a Mack/Skiff in a fleet. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
262
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 19:41:00 -
[2486] - Quote
Dave stark wrote: except having a 3% yield modifier/level does not mean it mines more. i love my spread sheets as much as the next person but just because the paper says it's a bigger number doesn't mean it works like that.
How would it not? The bonus improves the base yield above the other 2 barges by sheer fact of the matter. Additionally these appear to be meant for a more active role and as such shouldn't need the level of tank one would need for solo AFK mining meaning more room for MLU's. The hulk has no other drawbacks that are unique to it and as stated before, proper support renders cargo constraints irrelevant. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
329
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 19:43:00 -
[2487] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Dave stark wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Dave stark wrote: in comparison to a 50+% yield bonus from simply having an extra strip miner? that's the bonus it previously had.
Seriously? Come now. you made a comment that it mines better than the mack, i reminded you it mined better before the changes. you still haven't made a comment on why it's better in a fleet [which, it isn't as it has no bonuses for being in a fleet] Because it's able to make effective use of it's ~20%(25% now) yield bonus over a Mackinaw/Skiff. That's why it's better than a Mack/Skiff in a fleet.
except with constantly ******* around with crystals; it's not able to make use of that bonus as efficiently as it needs to to make it really worth using.
sure when(if) that extra 10% yield bonus hits sisi i might agree that the extra logistics are worth it until then though, it's really not. i guess we'll see tomorrow. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Pipa Porto
589
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 19:44:00 -
[2488] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:Dave stark wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Dave stark wrote: in comparison to a 50+% yield bonus from simply having an extra strip miner? that's the bonus it previously had.
Seriously? Come now. you made a comment that it mines better than the mack, i reminded you it mined better before the changes. you still haven't made a comment on why it's better in a fleet [which, it isn't as it has no bonuses for being in a fleet] CCP decided they wanted the Hulk to not be the end all of mining ships. So they gave it drawbacks so that it must be part of a fleet op to be useful. And in that area, it is more useful than any of the other barges. except it isn't more useful than another type of barge in a fleet. in fact you're just an imposed burden upon the other fleet members constantly having to be resupplied with crystals etc. if you're constantly dicking around with crystals instead of mining you may as well just turn up in mackinaws and keep the boosting ship in a pos which gives it extra safety for no loss in yield because the macks aren't knobing around with crystals and can haul their own ****. in their current state hulks are far more hassle than their yield bonus is worth.
Sure it is. It's a 20-25% yield bonus over a Mackinaw/Skiff (even bigger when you remember that gang links stack with that). If that's not worth it to you, that's fine, don't use it. But VV was complaining that fitting a Brick Tank gimps the TQ Hulk's yield too much, and that reduces the yield less than switching to a SISI Mackinaw will.
As for constantly switching out Crystals, I'll ask something again that you still haven't answered: How long does it take to burn out a set of crystals? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
262
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 19:46:00 -
[2489] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Dave stark wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Dave stark wrote: in comparison to a 50+% yield bonus from simply having an extra strip miner? that's the bonus it previously had.
Seriously? Come now. you made a comment that it mines better than the mack, i reminded you it mined better before the changes. you still haven't made a comment on why it's better in a fleet [which, it isn't as it has no bonuses for being in a fleet] Because it's able to make effective use of it's ~20%(25% now) yield bonus over a Mackinaw/Skiff. That's why it's better than a Mack/Skiff in a fleet. except with constantly ******* around with crystals; it's not able to make use of that bonus as efficiently as it needs to to make it really worth using. sure when(if) that extra 10% yield bonus hits sisi i might agree that the extra logistics are worth it until then though, it's really not. i guess we'll see tomorrow. Does everyone in your fleet need a full set of crystals? Can you not dedicate certain people do different types of ore and actually make effective use of your numbers? |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
329
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 19:47:00 -
[2490] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:
Sure it is. It's a 20-25% yield bonus over a Mackinaw/Skiff (even bigger when you remember that gang links stack with that). If that's not worth it to you, that's fine, don't use it. But VV was complaining that fitting a Brick Tank gimps the TQ Hulk's yield too much, and that reduces the yield less than switching to a SISI Mackinaw will.
As for constantly switching out Crystals, I'll ask something again that you still haven't answered: How long does it take to burn out a set of crystals?
it's not even bigger because gang links are % based so a 20% bonus now is still a 20% bonus after gang links.
no idea how long it takes, between auto reload and being able to carry all of the crystals i want it's never been an issue so i've never needed to know. i do remember having to buy a handful of new crystals every few days even with casual mining at about 1-3hs a day without orca bonuses (slower cycles, less wear on crystals). Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
|
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
329
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 19:51:00 -
[2491] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Does everyone in your fleet need a full set of crystals? Can you not dedicate certain people do different types of ore and actually make effective use of your numbers?
even if you don't need a full set, you can't get a half set in with the current cargo capacity. that's the thing, if we revert back to the old 500m3 cargo bay iirc we still can't fit a full set of crystals however; we can fit enough sets of crystals that there's a wide enough range of crystals for it not to be an issue.
see, we don't want to hold a billion crystals we just want to be able to hold a reasonable amount. 350m3's worth is fine for the other barges with less strips to load.
no you can't dedicate them to certain kinds of ores because ore's aren't nice and bunched up in the same locations even with the range bonus from orcas/rorqs not every ore will be in range of you from a given spot in a belt/site. hence no; you can't really dedicate certain miners to certain ores. also spodumain will pretty much always be left to the end, nobody likes it, but you're inevitably going to have every one all shooting it when it's the only thing left so you can cycle the site. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Pipa Porto
589
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 19:56:00 -
[2492] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:
Sure it is. It's a 20-25% yield bonus over a Mackinaw/Skiff (even bigger when you remember that gang links stack with that). If that's not worth it to you, that's fine, don't use it. But VV was complaining that fitting a Brick Tank gimps the TQ Hulk's yield too much, and that reduces the yield less than switching to a SISI Mackinaw will.
As for constantly switching out Crystals, I'll ask something again that you still haven't answered: How long does it take to burn out a set of crystals?
it's not even bigger because gang links are % based so a 20% bonus now is still a 20% bonus after gang links. no idea how long it takes, between auto reload and being able to carry all of the crystals i want it's never been an issue so i've never needed to know. i do remember having to buy a handful of new crystals every few days even with casual mining at about 1-3hs a day without orca bonuses (slower cycles, less wear on crystals).
Say a Skiff/Mack mines 100m3/time. The Hulk mines 120m3. Say the ganglinked mining bonus is 50% (ease of mental math here).
The Skiff/Mack will mine 150m3/time, while the Hulk will mine 180m3/time
Sure it's still the same 20% (I wasn't clear that I meant that the yield improves by a larger amt, not the %), but it's now a 30m3 difference instead of 20m3.
Yeah. The Hulk takes some thought/effort to use efficiently now. Luckily, they're introducing some new ships that don't require that. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Pipa Porto
589
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 19:58:00 -
[2493] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Does everyone in your fleet need a full set of crystals? Can you not dedicate certain people do different types of ore and actually make effective use of your numbers? even if you don't need a full set, you can't get a half set in with the current cargo capacity. that's the thing, if we revert back to the old 500m3 cargo bay iirc we still can't fit a full set of crystals however; we can fit enough sets of crystals that there's a wide enough range of crystals for it not to be an issue.
You can fit 3 Ores worth of Crystals. Do you really have situations where you have to switch ores more than 3 times while the Hauler's making a run to station? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1768
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 20:00:00 -
[2494] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote: But VV was complaining that fitting a Brick Tank gimps the TQ Hulk's yield too much, and that reduces the yield less than switching to a SISI Mackinaw will.
No.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
332
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 20:02:00 -
[2495] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Dave stark wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Does everyone in your fleet need a full set of crystals? Can you not dedicate certain people do different types of ore and actually make effective use of your numbers? even if you don't need a full set, you can't get a half set in with the current cargo capacity. that's the thing, if we revert back to the old 500m3 cargo bay iirc we still can't fit a full set of crystals however; we can fit enough sets of crystals that there's a wide enough range of crystals for it not to be an issue. You can fit 3 Ores worth of Crystals. Do you really have situations where you have to switch ores more than 3 times while the Hauler's making a run to station?
clearly i do; or it wouldn't be an issue. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1772
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 20:05:00 -
[2496] - Quote
Certainly being able to bring 4 sets of cystals instead of 3 is absolutely as game breaking as T20 or subcap killer fitted Titans.
I mean, look at the opposition, you'll find less opposition at making drugs legal. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Pipa Porto
589
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 20:06:00 -
[2497] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Dave stark wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Does everyone in your fleet need a full set of crystals? Can you not dedicate certain people do different types of ore and actually make effective use of your numbers? even if you don't need a full set, you can't get a half set in with the current cargo capacity. that's the thing, if we revert back to the old 500m3 cargo bay iirc we still can't fit a full set of crystals however; we can fit enough sets of crystals that there's a wide enough range of crystals for it not to be an issue. You can fit 3 Ores worth of Crystals. Do you really have situations where you have to switch ores more than 3 times while the Hauler's making a run to station? clearly i do; or it wouldn't be an issue.
The Station run shouldn't take more than 9m (your Orca's not boosting during the run), and should make much less than 9m. You're seriously short stroking your Strips (by a lot) to change ore types? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Pipa Porto
589
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 20:07:00 -
[2498] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Certainly being able to bring 4 sets of cystals instead of 3 is absolutely as game breaking as T20 or subcap killer fitted Titans.
I mean, look at the opposition, you'll find less opposition at making drugs legal.
Clearly only being able to bring 3 sets of crystals instead of 4 makes the Hulk useless despite the 20% increase in yield. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
333
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 20:10:00 -
[2499] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Certainly being able to bring 4 sets of cystals instead of 3 is absolutely as game breaking as T20 or subcap killer fitted Titans.
I mean, look at the opposition, you'll find less opposition at making drugs legal. Clearly only being able to bring 3 sets of crystals instead of 4 makes the Hulk useless despite the 20% increase in yield.
it's not a 20% increase, at the moment. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Pipa Porto
589
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 20:16:00 -
[2500] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Certainly being able to bring 4 sets of cystals instead of 3 is absolutely as game breaking as T20 or subcap killer fitted Titans.
I mean, look at the opposition, you'll find less opposition at making drugs legal. Clearly only being able to bring 3 sets of crystals instead of 4 makes the Hulk useless despite the 20% increase in yield. it's not a 20% increase, at the moment.
You're forgetting the 15% from Barge 5. Skiff/Mack doesn't have that.
It's actually 25%. 100/79~=1.25.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1686159#post1686159
Denidil wrote:hulk bonuses are unchanged so (so it's mining yield is unchanged) so we can figure out all the mining rates relative to a hulk
these calculations are based on Exhumers V/Barge V char, for mining rock not ice - this is without MLUs
Ship - Strips * modifiers = effective # of strip mining modules
Hulk - 3 strips * 1.15 (barge V) * 1.15 (exhumers V) = 3.9675 Mackinaw - 2 strips * 1.50 (role bonus) * 1.05 (exhumers V) = 3.15 Skiff - 1 strips * 3 (role bonus) * 1.05 = 3.15
Covetor - 3 strips * 1.2 (barge V) = 3.6 Retriever - 2 strips * 1.5 (role bonus) = 3 strips Procurer - 1 strips * 3 (role bonus) = 3 strips
or % relative to a hulk
Mackinaw: 79.4% Skiff: 79.4%
Covetor: 90.7% Retriever: 75.6% Procurer: 75.6% EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1772
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 20:23:00 -
[2501] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Certainly being able to bring 4 sets of cystals instead of 3 is absolutely as game breaking as T20 or subcap killer fitted Titans.
I mean, look at the opposition, you'll find less opposition at making drugs legal. Clearly only being able to bring 3 sets of crystals instead of 4 makes the Hulk useless despite the 20% increase in yield.
Clearly gimping the workflow of the ship meant to have the best yield is what's needed to make Hulks competitive over other ships that don't need any fleet, any defense, any micromanagement. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Pipa Porto
589
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 20:27:00 -
[2502] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Certainly being able to bring 4 sets of cystals instead of 3 is absolutely as game breaking as T20 or subcap killer fitted Titans.
I mean, look at the opposition, you'll find less opposition at making drugs legal. Clearly only being able to bring 3 sets of crystals instead of 4 makes the Hulk useless despite the 20% increase in yield. Clearly gimping the workflow of the ship meant to have the best yield is what's needed to make Hulks competitive over other ships that don't need any fleet, any defense, any micromanagement.
Clearly a 25+% yield(income) boost isn't enough to make Hulks competitive over other ships. Why have people been using MLU Hulks instead of Brick tanked Hulks if 25% isn't a giant income boost?
And the not needing any defense thing is a problem with the current SISI Mackinaw. Steals all the thunder from the Skiff. Not needing any micro is a problem with the current SISI Skiff's ore bay. Steals all the thunder from the Mack if the above is fixed.
And again, how is it gimping the workflow? If you're not in corp together, you don't get the convenience of corp hangars, and you just have to jetcan. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1773
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 20:31:00 -
[2503] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:
Clearly a 25+% yield(income) boost isn't enough to make Hulks competitive over other ships. Why have people been using MLU Hulks instead of Brick tanked Hulks if 25% isn't a giant income boost?
They used MLUs because before the last months there was never a permanent Hulkageddon so tanking the Hulks was not needed. So why gimp the ship if gankers were only to be dealt with 1 for month a year?
Pipa Porto wrote: And again, how is it gimping the workflow? If you're not in corp together, you don't get the convenience of corp hangars, and you just have to jetcan.
Try stop hammering F5 on the forums and get out mine for 1 week, most of your questions will be sorted. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
333
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 20:32:00 -
[2504] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Dave stark wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Certainly being able to bring 4 sets of cystals instead of 3 is absolutely as game breaking as T20 or subcap killer fitted Titans.
I mean, look at the opposition, you'll find less opposition at making drugs legal. Clearly only being able to bring 3 sets of crystals instead of 4 makes the Hulk useless despite the 20% increase in yield. it's not a 20% increase, at the moment. You're forgetting the 15% from Barge 5. Skiff/Mack doesn't have that. It's actually 25%. 100/79~=1.25. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1686159#post1686159Denidil wrote:hulk bonuses are unchanged so (so it's mining yield is unchanged) so we can figure out all the mining rates relative to a hulk
these calculations are based on Exhumers V/Barge V char, for mining rock not ice - this is without MLUs
Ship - Strips * modifiers = effective # of strip mining modules
Hulk - 3 strips * 1.15 (barge V) * 1.15 (exhumers V) = 3.9675 Mackinaw - 2 strips * 1.50 (role bonus) * 1.05 (exhumers V) = 3.15 Skiff - 1 strips * 3 (role bonus) * 1.05 = 3.15
Covetor - 3 strips * 1.2 (barge V) = 3.6 Retriever - 2 strips * 1.5 (role bonus) = 3 strips Procurer - 1 strips * 3 (role bonus) = 3 strips
or % relative to a hulk
Mackinaw: 79.4% Skiff: 79.4%
Covetor: 90.7% Retriever: 75.6% Procurer: 75.6%
however that's without fittings. max yield for both ships brings the difference to 15.5526....% due to the mack's third mlu. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Blastil
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
8
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 20:42:00 -
[2505] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:
you're entirely wrong here because nullsec mining is never done solo, it's done in fleets.
in their current SiSi state barges (besides the covetor/hulk) have such inflated HP numbers that they'll have far more EHP, unfit, than unfit fleet command ships (you know, the ones that fit links and are fit to tank a massive fleet, but can't do any DPS worth a damn) and even some tanked HACs.
the 'proper' change would have been to give them actual T2 resists and perhaps the ability to fit LSEs (via, say, a bonus that reduces the fitting requirements for LSEs) so that the decision between fitting for yield and a tank doesn't leave you with a useless tank (in the case of the Mackinaw) with gimped yield.
allowing them to have good 50-60k EHP tanks at the expense of yield would have been the right approach - it'd leave miners with more meaningful fitting choices, it'd give an advantage to miners who don't simply turn their mining lasers on and get off their computer to do their laundry and it wouldn't simply leave you with an idiot-proof ship - "here's a ship that has everything you need and you don't have to bother trying to fit it right, just fit strip miners and go"
while nullsec mining IS done in groups, its super annoying when your new mining toon can't mine with the best of them because every 10 minutes you have to warp out when rats spawn in the belt, and you don't have half a billion to buy a well fitted hulk. This is unlike every other profession in EVE (except technium moon technician) where within weeks you can contribute meaningfully to other players. the risk vs reward is very screwed up too, requiring billions and billions of ISK in risk for a relatively tiny profit compared to say complexing, which turns a much higher return for a billion isk investment in a t3 cloaked ship.
I'm certainly not saying that EHP should NOT be balanced, however, these ships should HAVE MORE HITPOINTS. Honestly, it makes no sense why there are ships which are larger than battle cruisers with less hit points in line with a frigate. from both a gameplay perspective AND a realism one. |
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
906
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 20:58:00 -
[2506] - Quote
I can't believe there are 126 pages on this...
|
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
333
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 21:00:00 -
[2507] - Quote
Gogela wrote:I can't believe there are 126 pages on this...
mining, it's as important as goons exploiting faction warfare. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Pipa Porto
589
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 21:01:00 -
[2508] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:
Clearly a 25+% yield(income) boost isn't enough to make Hulks competitive over other ships. Why have people been using MLU Hulks instead of Brick tanked Hulks if 25% isn't a giant income boost?
They used MLUs because before the last months there was never a permanent Hulkageddon so tanking the Hulks was not needed. So why gimp the ship if gankers were only to be dealt with 1 for month a year?
You were moaning that my brick tank fit was unrealistic during the throws of the permanent HAG (when clearly tanking is needed).
Quote:Pipa Porto wrote: And again, how is it gimping the workflow? If you're not in corp together, you don't get the convenience of corp hangars, and you just have to jetcan.
Try stop hammering F5 on the forums and get out mine for 1 week, most of your questions will be sorted.
I used to mine. I quit because it didn't pay well.
You're saying that you mine in an NPC Corp Orca and Hulk. That means you can't use the Corp Hangars with the Hulk, so you have to Jetcan the ore to transfer it. What's the problem with transferring the Crystals back? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Gogela
Direct Action LLC.
906
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 21:02:00 -
[2509] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Gogela wrote:I can't believe there are 126 pages on this... mining, it's as important as goons exploiting faction warfare. People still mine?!
|
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
333
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 21:04:00 -
[2510] - Quote
Gogela wrote:Dave stark wrote:Gogela wrote:I can't believe there are 126 pages on this... mining, it's as important as goons exploiting faction warfare. People still mine?!
where do you think minerals come from? Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
|
Pipa Porto
589
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 21:05:00 -
[2511] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:however that's without fittings. max yield for both ships brings the difference to 15.5526....% due to the mack's third mlu.
Ok, 15%. That's still a great big yield bonus. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1773
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 21:09:00 -
[2512] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:
You were moaning that my brick tank fit was unrealistic during the throws of the permanent HAG (when clearly tanking is needed).
No, I was moaning that after I spent weeks to train an alt for your fitting required V skills and then fitted a Mack with your tank fit, it was horribly performing (35% less, not just some theorycrafted -15% or 20%) AND 1 ganker volley still hit it hard.
The fact I was rabidly watching around me like an hawk and warped in 3 seconds saved me NOT your fitting, at the same time I suffered for a large missed ISK income because of the massive yield drop.
Pipa Porto wrote: You're saying that you mine in an NPC Corp Orca and Hulk. That means you can't use the Corp Hangars with the Hulk, so you have to Jetcan the ore to transfer it. What's the problem with transferring the Crystals back?
I only have 1 rarely used character in NPC corp (PI alt), all the others are in multiple corps. Your point was?
Edit:
I will NEVER EVER keep the Orca(s) close to the ships, I am not so dumb to let Bat Country and similar pull a smart bomb and them make a nice taunting video about it. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Shalua Rui
FEROX AQUILA
43
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 21:09:00 -
[2513] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:where do you think minerals come from?
Like a kid asking where burgers are coming from...^^ "I wish to have no Connection with any Ship that does not Sail fast for I intend to go in harm's way."
Captain John Paul Jones, 16 November 1778 |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
333
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 21:12:00 -
[2514] - Quote
Shalua Rui wrote:Dave stark wrote:where do you think minerals come from? Like a kid asking where burgers are coming from...^^
worryingly, i don't think many kids could actually tell you the answer to that. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Pipa Porto
589
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 21:19:00 -
[2515] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:
You were moaning that my brick tank fit was unrealistic during the throws of the permanent HAG (when clearly tanking is needed).
No, I was moaning that after I spent weeks to train an alt for your fitting required V skills and then fitted a Mack with your tank fit, it was horribly performing (35% less, not just some theorycrafted -15% or 20%) AND 1 ganker volley still hit it hard. The fact I was rabidly watching around me like an hawk and warped in 3 seconds saved me NOT your fitting, at the same time I suffered for a large missed ISK income because of the massive yield drop.
Never did a Mack fit that I claimed to be unprofitable to gank. Never claimed that the Macks didn't need some love.
"Hulk" is not the same word as "Mackinaw."
Quote:Pipa Porto wrote: You're saying that you mine in an NPC Corp Orca and Hulk. That means you can't use the Corp Hangars with the Hulk, so you have to Jetcan the ore to transfer it. What's the problem with transferring the Crystals back?
I only have 1 rarely used character in NPC corp (PI alt), all the others are in multiple corps. Your point was? Edit: I will NEVER EVER keep the Orca(s) close to the ships, I am not so dumb to let Bat Country and similar pull a smart bomb and them make a nice taunting video about it.
Smartbomb ganks are terrible against Hulks (you need a ridiculous number of Hulks balled up to even win the ISK war, let alone profit), and Mackinaws don't need crystals.
Multiple corps have identical problems with NPC corps. So,
Pipa Porto wrote:You're saying that you mine in an Different PC Corp Orca and Hulk. That means you can't use the Corp Hangars with the Hulk, so you have to Jetcan the ore to transfer it. What's the problem with transferring the Crystals back? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
stoicfaux
1367
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 21:43:00 -
[2516] - Quote
Gogela wrote:I can't believe there are 126 pages on this... Agreed. Keep local and get rid of forum?
You can tell me what is and isn't Truth when you pry the tinfoil from my cold, lifeless head.
|
Suddenly Forums ForumKings
Republic University Minmatar Republic
98
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 21:44:00 -
[2517] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Gogela wrote:I can't believe there are 126 pages on this... Agreed. Keep local and get rid of forum?
All in favor say AYE! |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1773
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 21:45:00 -
[2518] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:
Never did a Mack fit that I claimed to be unprofitable to gank. Never claimed that the Macks didn't need some love.
"Hulk" is not the same word as "Mackinaw."
Too bad I had Macks (3+ years old, not going to change them before they pop) and not Hulks and you posted Mack fittings so I used Mack fittings.
All your posts ALWAYS implied or downright stated that it was a small giving up of performance vs getting a tank. I can't blame you for a Mack still being gankable even with 22k EHP but I CAN blame your for saying the "give up" was small. It was not some 15-20%. The other macks do 10 blocks, your mack does 6 and a bit in the same time.
Pipa Porto wrote: Multiple corps have identical problems with NPC corps. So,
And? It's FLEETS, fleets of people in corps, in corps that are as "noble" as every other corps and suffer consequences like the other corps.
It's not my fault CCP's implementation today handles multi-corps fleets perfectly and past August 8 it will not.
CCP for the Battlecruisers V to multi racial battlecruiser Tiericide change stated "you'll be able to fly tomorrow what you can fly today".
Good, I want the same applied for mining fleets.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Suddenly Forums ForumKings
Republic University Minmatar Republic
98
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 21:49:00 -
[2519] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
It's not my fault CCP's implementation today handles multi-corps fleets perfectly and past August 8 it will not.
CCP for the Battlecruisers V to multi racial battlecruiser Tiericide change stated "you'll be able to fly tomorrow what you can fly today".
Good, I want the same applied for mining fleets.
Non sequitur.
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
262
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 21:58:00 -
[2520] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: CCP for the Battlecruisers V to multi racial battlecruiser Tiericide change stated "you'll be able to fly tomorrow what you can fly today".
Good, I want the same applied for mining fleets.
Sometimes in the course of balance things have to come down instead of go up. And the odd thing is that when you take that statement as intended we're actually gaining as 4 of the 6 mining ships will be an easier train. |
|
krickettt
Golden Orb Technology inc
4
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 22:12:00 -
[2521] - Quote
So much butt-hurt in this thread. The tears are glorious! |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
335
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 22:15:00 -
[2522] - Quote
krickettt wrote:So much butt-hurt in this thread. The tears are glorious!
i'll wager if you go through the whole threat there are more posts saying how many tears there are rather than posts containing actual tears. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1773
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 22:22:00 -
[2523] - Quote
Suddenly Forums ForumKings wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
It's not my fault CCP's implementation today handles multi-corps fleets perfectly and past August 8 it will not.
CCP for the Battlecruisers V to multi racial battlecruiser Tiericide change stated "you'll be able to fly tomorrow what you can fly today".
Good, I want the same applied for mining fleets.
Non sequitur.
It's tiericide for both changes. It's existing vs new mechanics for both.
Quidam quod sequitur.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Andoria Thara
Fallen Avatars
91
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 22:23:00 -
[2524] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:krickettt wrote:So much butt-hurt in this thread. The tears are glorious! i'll wager if you go through the whole threat there are more posts saying how many tears there are rather than posts containing actual tears.
I always see more gloating on these forums than actual tears. |
Vertisce Soritenshi
Tactical Vendor of Services and Goods Partners of Industrial Service and Salvage
1691
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 22:23:00 -
[2525] - Quote
I see the forums haven't changed one bit while I was away...
Anybody got a link with info on this new barge people keep talking about? I can't seem to find it. EvE is not about PvP.-á EvE is about the SANDBOX! |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
335
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 22:31:00 -
[2526] - Quote
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:I see the forums haven't changed one bit while I was away...
Anybody got a link with info on this new barge people keep talking about? I can't seem to find it.
Nevermind...its just a stats change.
Bunch of whiny little pricks...go cry me a river so I may bathe in your tears.
yeah... because feedback on changes is a bad thing, right? Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1157
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 23:14:00 -
[2527] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:I see the forums haven't changed one bit while I was away...
Anybody got a link with info on this new barge people keep talking about? I can't seem to find it.
Nevermind...its just a stats change.
Bunch of whiny little pricks...go cry me a river so I may bathe in your tears. yeah... because feedback on changes is a bad thing, right? Of course...
|
Jypsie
Wandering Star Enterprises
20
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 23:19:00 -
[2528] - Quote
Andoria Thara wrote:Dave stark wrote:krickettt wrote:So much butt-hurt in this thread. The tears are glorious! i'll wager if you go through the whole threat there are more posts saying how many tears there are rather than posts containing actual tears. I always see more gloating on these forums than actual tears.
ITT I'm seeing it something more like this on both sides of the arguement.
|
Pipa Porto
593
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 23:26:00 -
[2529] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:
Never did a Mack fit that I claimed to be unprofitable to gank. Never claimed that the Macks didn't need some love.
"Hulk" is not the same word as "Mackinaw."
Too bad I had Macks (3+ years old, not going to change them before they pop) and not Hulks and you posted Mack fittings so I used Mack fittings. All your posts ALWAYS implied or downright stated that it was a small giving up of performance vs getting a tank. I can't blame you for a Mack still being gankable even with 22k EHP but I CAN blame your for saying the "give up" was small. It was not some 15-20%. The other macks do 10 blocks, your mack does 6 and a bit in the same time.
Mining aligned with a Mack gives you perfect safety, and Ice roids are huge and webs work well.
Also, the loss of one Mack is some 30 hours of work. You could also mine Ice in a Hulk.
Quote:Pipa Porto wrote: Multiple corps have identical problems with NPC corps. So,
And? It's FLEETS, fleets of people in corps, in corps that are as "noble" as every other corps and suffer consequences like the other corps. It's not my fault CCP's implementation today handles multi-corps fleets perfectly and past August 8 it will not. CCP for the Battlecruisers V to multi racial battlecruiser Tiericide change stated "you'll be able to fly tomorrow what you can fly today". Good, I want the same applied for mining fleets.
You can fly tomorrow what you can fly today. The Skill reqs are being reduced.
CCP's implementation of multi-corp fleets isn't changing. You still have to use jetcans to transfer things, no difference from now. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Pipa Porto
593
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 23:27:00 -
[2530] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:Dave stark wrote:Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:I see the forums haven't changed one bit while I was away...
Anybody got a link with info on this new barge people keep talking about? I can't seem to find it.
Nevermind...its just a stats change.
Bunch of whiny little pricks...go cry me a river so I may bathe in your tears. yeah... because feedback on changes is a bad thing, right? Of course...
"Just a stats change" EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1773
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 23:33:00 -
[2531] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote: You could also mine Ice in a Hulk.
Not going to switch to it since I already have Macks. Also, after the patch, if Hulks stay as is I am going to keep Macks even dearer.
Pipa Porto wrote: CCP's implementation of multi-corp fleets isn't changing. You still have to use jetcans to transfer things, no difference from now.
"Have to use?"
Never had to use a jet can. It's a gimnick CCP did not even invent anyway. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Pipa Porto
596
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 23:47:00 -
[2532] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote: You could also mine Ice in a Hulk.
Not going to switch to it since I already have Macks. Also, after the patch, if Hulks stay as is I am going to keep Macks even dearer.
Good for you. The fact that you're unwilling to adapt to changing risk profiles isn't a balance issue.
Quote:Pipa Porto wrote: CCP's implementation of multi-corp fleets isn't changing. You still have to use jetcans to transfer things, no difference from now.
"Have to use?" Never had to use a jet can. It's a gimnick CCP did not even invent anyway.
"Have to use?" Yes. To trade items between unaffiliated pilots. You want to use the full capabilities of an Orca's hangars, get in the same corp. "Corp Hangar"
CCP didn't invent the Jetcan? Is it some strange code injection someone's piggybacked on the installer?
Jetcan Mining wasn't intended. Using Jetcans to trade items absolutely was.
Or, you're free to dock up after the hour or two it takes to burn out 3 sets of crystals (cba to look up how long). EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1773
|
Posted - 2012.07.31 23:59:00 -
[2533] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote: Good for you. The fact that you're unwilling to adapt to changing risk profiles isn't a balance issue.
Balls. Flying high yeld Macks for years during each Hulkageddon is the most risk profile that exists.
Hulks don't even come close to that. Come next patch I am just unwilling to play your game. You and the goons are annoyed because ships got somewhat buffed so you are doing the impossible to at least make playing them a dumb chore. I am not going to become a crystal swapper drone and have all sorts of downsides because you love to "punish" people for not being a flying free target any more.
Pipa Porto wrote: "Have to use?" Yes. To trade items between unaffiliated pilots. You want to use the full capabilities of an Orca's hangars, get in the same corp. "Corp Hangar"
Had plenty of fleets with NPC corp guys and other corp other friends and never had to use any of your suggested gimnicks including jet cans.
Maybe you should study how Orca fleets work before talking about them.
It's also why I don't see forcing jet canning down the throat as a good thing. Jet cans are one of the preferred features gankers love to see around. I understand your love for it, but don't pretend I should do the same.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Pipa Porto
597
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 00:17:00 -
[2534] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote: Good for you. The fact that you're unwilling to adapt to changing risk profiles isn't a balance issue.
Balls. Flying high yeld Macks for years during each Hulkageddon is the most risk profile that exists. Hulks don't even come close to that. Come next patch I am just unwilling to play your game. You and the goons are annoyed because ships got somewhat buffed so you are doing the impossible to at least make playing them a dumb chore. I am not going to become a crystal swapper drone and have all sorts of downsides because you love to "punish" people for not being a flying free target any more.
Wait, that I dare to say that the Skiff should actually be worth flying is evidence that I'm bothered by the idea of buffing mining ships? The Hell?
Right now, the SISI stats make the Skiff worthless and give you a choice between AFK/Solo in a Mack or ATK+Fleeted in a Hulk for extra yield.
I want to see all 3 be viable ships to mine in. You know why I want to see that? Because CCP said that that is their goal with the rebalance. The Hulk has to be slightly uncomfortable to use to make up for the large yield boost it gives. The Mack has to be lower yield to give the Hulk a reason to exist and has to have a mediocre tank to allow the skiff a reason to exist. The Skiff has to be slightly uncomfortable to use solo, or the Mack has no reason to exist.
If you're bothered by Crystal swapping, use one of the Exhumers designed to be convenient and easy to use. Or anchor a GSC. Or put your mining fleet in the same corp. Or use Jetcans. Or fly to the station for all I care.
Skiff = Mac OS. Safe. Mack = Windows. Not so safe, but it's pretty easy to use. Hulk = Linux. You gotta work for it.
Quote: Had plenty of fleets with NPC corp guys and other corp other friends and never had to use any of your suggested gimnicks including jet cans.
Maybe you should study how Orca fleets work before talking about them.
It's also why I don't see forcing jet canning down the throat as a good thing. Jet cans are one of the preferred features gankers love to see around. I understand your love for it, but don't pretend I should do the same.
The jetcan exists for the 5s it takes for the miner to change out his load of 2 sets of spare crystals. Then it goes poof. I am not suggesting you jetcan the ore except during the hauler's haul run.
I still don't see why it's an overwhelming burden is in having someone drop crystals off for you. Let's see how often you'd need to do it...
20% chance per cycle to do 2.5% damage to the crystal. On average, 5 cycles per damage, and it can survive 40 hits of damage. On average, a crystal will last 200 Cycles, which with max Rorq boosts is 104s/cycle.
20800 seconds is 5.77 hours. So, you need fresh crystals every 5 hours. Oh, the burden. As for switching, if you're in a fleet, size up your belt when you warp in and have different Hulks be responsible for different groups of 3 ores. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Oliver Stoned
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 00:21:00 -
[2535] - Quote
What did the griefers/gankers say to the industiralists/miners?
HTFU!
It's about stinking time for a change.
HTFU gankers!
|
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1157
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 00:22:00 -
[2536] - Quote
Oliver Stoned wrote:What did the griefers/gankers say to the industiralists/miners?
HTFU!
It's about stinking time for a change.
HTFU gankers!
You're a lil late. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1774
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 01:06:00 -
[2537] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote: If you're bothered by Crystal swapping, use one of the Exhumers designed to be convenient and easy to use. Or anchor a GSC. Or put your mining fleet in the same corp. Or use Jetcans. Or fly to the station for all I care.
"If you are bothered by my dog peeing on your carpet, you can wash the carpet, remove the carpet, move your door to the other side of the house".
I can invent 50 kinds of workarounds myself, does not mean the very feature has a reason to exist, it's just a trash menial task.
Pipa Porto wrote: The jetcan exists for the 5s it takes for the miner to change out his load of 2 sets of spare crystals. Then it goes poof. I am not suggesting you jetcan the ore except during the hauler's haul run.
I still don't see why it's an overwhelming burden is in having someone drop crystals off for you. Let's see how often you'd need to do it...
Pockets and anoms exist, let me tell you how fun is it to fly an indy thru 80km and multiple gates.
Today: Nice and dandy. Tomorrow: "We have to dump all our Hulks (that will be worth as much as an awful ship can be) and replace with Macks".
Large grav sites exist, even in high sec: let me tell you how many minerals are in there and how effective is to put ships on 1 mineral.
Today: Nice and dandy. Tomorrow: "Bztttt Bztttt Bztttt" (noise of bot at work, bots don't care about menial tasks). Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Suddenly Forums ForumKings
Republic University Minmatar Republic
101
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 01:09:00 -
[2538] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: Pockets and anoms exist, let me tell you how fun is it to fly an indy thru 80km and multiple gates.
Today: Nice and dandy. Tomorrow: "We have to dump all our Hulks (that will be worth as much as an awful ship can be) and replace with Macks".
In other words you're mad you have to buy new ships. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
595
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 01:18:00 -
[2539] - Quote
Its more then just buying it. Gotta change everything you do as well. Its one thing for me to go out and buy a new tv. Then another thing to actually use it all the time.
Thats some good advice, the next time you buy a gift for someone. Its more then just buying something. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Pipa Porto
599
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 02:30:00 -
[2540] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote: If you're bothered by Crystal swapping, use one of the Exhumers designed to be convenient and easy to use. Or anchor a GSC. Or put your mining fleet in the same corp. Or use Jetcans. Or fly to the station for all I care.
"If you are bothered by my dog peeing on your carpet, you can wash the carpet, remove the carpet, move your door to the other side of the house". I can invent 50 kinds of workarounds myself, does not mean the very feature has a reason to exist, it's just a trash menial task.
Yeah, Changing Ammo's so terrible. How ever shall we manage. If the increase in Yield from using a Hulk is not worth your effort of changing out crystals every few hours or whatever, then the Mackinaw is better for you.
Quote:Pipa Porto wrote: The jetcan exists for the 5s it takes for the miner to change out his load of 2 sets of spare crystals. Then it goes poof. I am not suggesting you jetcan the ore except during the hauler's haul run.
I still don't see why it's an overwhelming burden is in having someone drop crystals off for you. Let's see how often you'd need to do it...
Pockets and anoms exist, let me tell you how fun is it to fly an indy thru 80km and multiple gates. Today: Nice and dandy. Tomorrow: "We have to dump all our Hulks (that will be worth as much as an awful ship can be) and replace with Macks". Large grav sites exist, even in high sec: let me tell you how many minerals are in there and how effective is to put ships on 1 mineral. Today: Nice and dandy. Tomorrow: "Bztttt Bztttt Bztttt" (noise of bot at work, bots don't care about menial tasks).
Yes, they do, and your Indy is already going to be flying through those gates to pick up Ore. So what's the new problem? If you were going to despawn the mission, then have your hauler bring crystals out in an MWD Magnate or something.
There are 7 HS ores. Each Hulk can Carry 3 Ores of Crystals. You can skip Omber because it's terrible. Split your Hulks in Half and have them each work on 3 of the 6 worthwhile Ores. Vary the proportions as the Ore proportions require.
Again, if the slight effort of having your hauler (who's going to be there anyway) drop a can full of crystals isn't worth a 15-25% yield increase, you're free to use the Mackinaw or the Skiff (can hold ores worth of Crystals) EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
|
Danny Diamonds
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 02:39:00 -
[2541] - Quote
You have no chance Vaera.
Pipa will keep posting and trying to "win" an internet thread about opinions. Logic and fun were thrown out long ago. |
Phill Esteen
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
104
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 02:49:00 -
[2542] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:20% chance per cycle to do 2.5% damage to the crystal. On average, 5 cycles per damage, and it can survive 40 hits of damage. On average, a crystal will last 200 Cycles, which with max Rorq boosts is 104s/cycle.
20800 seconds is 5.77 hours. So, you need fresh crystals every 5 hours. Oh, the burden. As for switching, if you're in a fleet, size up your belt when you warp in and have different Hulks be responsible for different groups of 3 ores.
I wish I could go 5.77(*3) hours without restocking ammo. GÇô postum faex est GÇô-á
never forget
|
Pipa Porto
599
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 03:04:00 -
[2543] - Quote
Phill Esteen wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:20% chance per cycle to do 2.5% damage to the crystal. On average, 5 cycles per damage, and it can survive 40 hits of damage. On average, a crystal will last 200 Cycles, which with max Rorq boosts is 104s/cycle.
20800 seconds is 5.77 hours. So, you need fresh crystals every 5 hours. Oh, the burden. As for switching, if you're in a fleet, size up your belt when you warp in and have different Hulks be responsible for different groups of 3 ores. I wish I could go 5.77(*3) hours without restocking ammo.
And if they don't use the equivalent of Faction ammo (better but with no downside but cost), they get to go 11.55(*4) hours without restocking.
It's just horrible having to restock your ship with consumable goods every day. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1675
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 03:29:00 -
[2544] - Quote
CCP is already investigation the potential "fleet hangar" to replace the Orca's "corp hangar". Why is this even part of the discussion? How many belts actually require more than a whole day of mining? Are you trying to mine an entire nullsec or class 6 grav site with 1 hulk?
Where are you mining in hisec that can flipping is a concern while you are out of a station for tens of hours?
Seriously, VV, some of your arguments seem manufactured entirely for the purpose of having something to complain about. The cargo hold of a Hulk is sufficient for replacement crystals. Focus on just the most profitable, move to the next belt when the rocks are gone or the Orca is full. If you do not have spare crystals in the cargo bay, use this time to fetch one new set. Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Suddenly Forums ForumKings
Republic University Minmatar Republic
102
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 04:14:00 -
[2545] - Quote
This thread is going places. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
337
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 06:28:00 -
[2546] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:The cargo hold of a Hulk is sufficient for replacement crystals.
no it isn't. that's the issue. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
804
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 06:36:00 -
[2547] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:The cargo hold of a Hulk is sufficient for replacement crystals. no it isn't. that's the issue. Fit a cargo expander? (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
337
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 06:39:00 -
[2548] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Dave stark wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:The cargo hold of a Hulk is sufficient for replacement crystals. no it isn't. that's the issue. Fit a cargo expander?
jesus christ i'm laughing too hard to even consider giving this a serious response. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
595
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 06:44:00 -
[2549] - Quote
fit two cargo expander? :) I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
337
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 06:48:00 -
[2550] - Quote
i'll humour you... instead of fitting expanders and losing my mlus, i'll just fit a ship that doesn't have to deal with the crystal bullshit and mine more ore.
cargo expanders aren't the answer to bad game design; swapping to the mackinaw is.
which then means you've simply crowned a new "go to" mining ship and the rebalance has totally failed because every one just switches to macks and the problem we currently have will still exist except the fotm ship will be the mack not the hulk.
then if you weren't just posting for the sake of it or had any idea about the issue being discussed; you'd already know that. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
|
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
595
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 06:53:00 -
[2551] - Quote
Yeah they don't have dead space cargo expanders or dead space MLUs, mining sucks. If they had those, I would propably fly the procurer, tank be worth it.
Hopefully someday, CCP Moses puts his hands on your hulk and cures it. Until then you just have CCP Goliath's ambigious promise of it being better tomorrow. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
595
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 06:54:00 -
[2552] - Quote
Does seem like the mack will be the go to ship for most people. Based on reading most players replies, they want the hulk to be pro, or only experts are allowed to drive it. One reason I chalked up, why everyone might fly a mack. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
337
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 06:55:00 -
[2553] - Quote
rodyas wrote:Yeah they don't have dead space cargo expanders or dead space MLUs, mining sucks. If they had those, I would propably fly the procurer, tank be worth it.
Hopefully someday, CCP Moses puts his hands on your hulk and cures it. Until then you just have CCP Goliath's ambigious promise of it being better tomorrow.
i don't think ccp goliath was being that ambiguous; he admitted he didn't know what the changes were. even so, if you look at the inconsistencies between what ccp have said, and the other ships on sisi the most likely change today is the hulk's cargo going back to 500m3 and the issue being resolved.
no, 500m3 is not enough for a full set of every crystal, however it's enough space for enough crystals that it doesn't matter. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
596
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 07:02:00 -
[2554] - Quote
Seems kind of like a lame change, suppose its either Goliath's lame change tomorrow, or Goliath's ambigious change tomorrow.
Those SIS builds change too fast and too much for me, can't stand staying up with the changes. Though it does seem I might be flying two macks now, then a hulk and orca. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1775
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 07:05:00 -
[2555] - Quote
Suddenly Forums ForumKings wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: Pockets and anoms exist, let me tell you how fun is it to fly an indy thru 80km and multiple gates.
Today: Nice and dandy. Tomorrow: "We have to dump all our Hulks (that will be worth as much as an awful ship can be) and replace with Macks".
In other words you're mad you have to buy new ships.
As fully geared and rigged Hulks and Mack producer? Lol. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Shameless Avenger
Can Preachers of Kador
361
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 07:09:00 -
[2556] - Quote
128 pages of tears in less than a week... OMG what a success! "This is the Ninja. He will scan you down; he will salvage your wrecks and there shall be no aggro" |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1775
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 07:10:00 -
[2557] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:
Yeah, Changing Ammo's so terrible. How ever shall we manage. If the increase in Yield from using a Hulk is not worth your effort of changing out crystals every few hours or whatever, then the Mackinaw is better for you.
I don't talk for me. I am ready to bet that Hulks won't be worth the effort for more than me.
For the 3rd time (probably more), I already have all macks ATM so it's not something affecting me. Plus I produce both Macks and Hulks, what do you want I am going to care to switch them.
Pipa Porto wrote: Yes, they do, and your Indy is already going to be flying through those gates to pick up Ore. So what's the new problem? If you were going to despawn the mission, then have your hauler bring crystals out in an MWD Magnate or something.
Not using indy but Orca. Never, never had to fly to the ships. Tractor beam FTW.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
596
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 07:11:00 -
[2558] - Quote
^ This thread was suppose to be about pigs, not tears. Don't make an ISD come here. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1775
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 07:13:00 -
[2559] - Quote
Danny Diamonds wrote:You have no chance Vaera.
Pipa will keep posting and trying to "win" an internet thread about opinions. Logic and fun were thrown out long ago.
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 Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
596
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 07:15:00 -
[2560] - Quote
^ Pipa, is not a pro pvp troll, he told me he mined like years ago. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1776
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 07:16:00 -
[2561] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:CCP is already investigation the potential "fleet hangar" to replace the Orca's "corp hangar". Why is this even part of the discussion? How many belts actually require more than a whole day of mining? Are you trying to mine an entire nullsec or class 6 grav site with 1 hulk?
You don't accept whatever in exchange for a vague statement about a far future Orca change. It's the most typical bait and switch strategy.
Also, large grav sites may easily take more than 1 day, expecially since you'll get rogues "invading it" and trying to gank the ships (I had this on 5 grav sites out of 5 I have done 2 months ago). Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1776
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 07:17:00 -
[2562] - Quote
rodyas wrote:^ Pipa, is not a pro pvp troll, he told me he mined like years ago.
I PvPed years ago. I will never imply I am a pro EvE PvPer nor will put my beak into PvP balance discussions. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1776
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 07:19:00 -
[2563] - Quote
Dave stark wrote: which then means you've simply crowned a new "go to" mining ship and the rebalance has totally failed because every one just switches to macks and the problem we currently have will still exist except the fotm ship will be the mack not the hulk.
then if you weren't just posting for the sake of it or had any idea about the issue being discussed; you'd already know that.
Finally somebody with a clue.
Despite I have all and only Macks ATM I am trying not to make them the easy no brainer new FOTM. Glad to see at least 1 can get this so hard concept. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
574
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 07:21:00 -
[2564] - Quote
So after 126 barrels of bitching moaning and tears stuff aren't those fake gankers tired of looking stupid?
Now, what if we start making some decent statements and ask CCP to take a better look to Hulk and give it +5K base EHP and actually make it better at mining?
brb |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
596
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 07:21:00 -
[2565] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:rodyas wrote:^ Pipa, is not a pro pvp troll, he told me he mined like years ago. I PvPed years ago. I will never imply I am a pro EvE PvPer nor will put my beak into PvP balance discussions.
Sounds like you are steps ahead of pipa then, in finally realizing who you are. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1675
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 07:55:00 -
[2566] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Also, large grav sites may easily take more than 1 day, expecially since you'll get rogues "invading it" and trying to gank the ships (I had this on 5 grav sites out of 5 I have done 2 months ago).
When mining a grav site in w-space, you do not need to worry about "can flipping" because you can shoot first. The minor loss in time from having to drag crystals to and from a can because you absolutely have to mine every type of rock with every hulk in the fleet is your own cross to bear. Normal, clear thinking people would equip each Hulk in the fleet for specific rocks and have at those rocks for the duration of the mining operation, transferring the ore to the Orca, to be scooped up by the haulers.
You can avoid the ganks by monitoring signatures. The time your mining fleet spends inside the POS bubble is not causing damage to the mining crystals, so doesn't matter.
GÇ£But the belts are huge and the rocks re spread outGÇ¥ you cry. Do multiple sweeps. There are enough of each type of ore that you can run through the belt with no interruptions harvesting one or two types of ore. Keep moving with the Orca, you will cover the 100km belt having extracted all of those ores. Then turn around and repeat for the next set. The rocks are large, so you will have time to target the next rock while mining out the current one.
Other options include having a scout in a MWD frigate bookmarking appropriate entry points and delivering different crystals as the miner needs them. This could be the same pilot monitoring signatures.
Adapt your workflow to the style afforded by the ship you want to fly, or adapt your ship to the workflow you wish to follow. Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
jonathon Jameson
Spatial Interaction inc.
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 07:58:00 -
[2567] - Quote
Being a miner myself i can see the need for rebalancing, but i think CCP have gone overboard on some aspects.
the main thing being yield and tanks, if they had left the hulk and covetor alone EHP-wise and yield wise that would have been fiune for me, as if you fly a hulk with no tank you've gone full ****** anyway.
What i would have done is the following:
covetor / hulk - EHP no change, 10k/15k ore hold no change to yield, so the hulk still needs to jet can to get good yield.
retriever / mack - 50% better tank than covetor / hulk & keep the yield 2/3 of the covetor / hulk, plus 20k/30k ore hold - no jet canning required.
procurer / skiff - ubertank + 150% on the hulk/covetor - but keep the yield at 1/3 of hulk/covetor, and cargo hold 10k/15k same as covetor / hulk - again no jet canning required
If CCP kept the emphasis on the hulk / covetors yield the gankers would still be happy as i can assure you the majority of miners would still honestly believe that hulks were the best for ALL situations, and max-yield hulk tears could still be drunk by the gallon.
but miners who had some kind of idea could show some sense and take the right ship at the right time, mack for solo, hulk for gang.
just taking the derp option and giving all barges a big old EHP boost makes no sense to me at all, like most people say above, it DOES make mining too easy - and that's coming from a miner. now everything has nearly the same yield as a hulk (procurer 75% of hulk) it just makes no sense either - where's the trade off? it should be set towards making AFK mining harder not easier. either you mine AFK for max-yield and risk losing a 300million isk ship or take the safe option and drop yield by 1/3 or 2/3.
that way miners get a variety of ships worth using and gankers still have idiot miners to keep them happy. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
596
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 08:11:00 -
[2568] - Quote
^ 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. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
804
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 08:15:00 -
[2569] - Quote
rodyas wrote:^ 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. Contrary to what you might think, tier 3 BCs weren't added with the intent of boosting suicide-ganking. And destroyers were so terrible and underused, they needed a buff (or rather the removal of the built-in nerf) just to become relevant again. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
337
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 08:18:00 -
[2570] - Quote
jonathon Jameson wrote:Being a miner myself i can see the need for rebalancing, but i think CCP have gone overboard on some aspects.
the main thing being yield and tanks, if they had left the hulk and covetor alone EHP-wise and yield wise that would have been fine for me, as if you fly a hulk with no tank you've gone full ****** anyway.
What i would have done is the following:
covetor / hulk - EHP no change, 10k/15k ore hold no change to yield, so the hulk still needs to jet can to get good yield.
retriever / mack - 50% better tank than covetor / hulk & keep the yield 2/3 of the covetor / hulk, plus 20k/30k ore hold - no jet canning required.
procurer / skiff - ubertank +200% on the hulk/covetor - but keep the yield at 1/3 of hulk/covetor, and cargo hold 10k/15k same as covetor / hulk - again no jet canning required. keeping the warp strength bonus, you could even risk a quick mine during war, albeit at much reduced yield, so it would actually make the boat useable.
If CCP kept the emphasis on the hulk / covetors yield the gankers would still be happy as i can assure you the majority of miners would still honestly believe that hulks were the best for ALL situations, and max-yield hulk tears could still be drunk by the gallon.
but miners who had some kind of idea could show some sense and take the right ship at the right time, mack for solo, hulk for gang.
just taking the derp option and giving all barges a big old EHP boost makes no sense to me at all, like most people say above, it DOES make mining too easy - and that's coming from a miner. now everything has nearly the same yield as a hulk (procurer 75% of hulk) it just makes no sense either - where's the trade off? it should be set towards making AFK mining harder not easier. either you mine AFK for max-yield and risk losing a 300million isk ship or take the safe option and drop yield by 1/3 or 2/3.
that way miners get a variety of ships worth using and gankers still have idiot miners to keep them happy.
so basically you want them to not change the ships and keep the hulk as the king of mining. nobody is going to use a ship with 1/3 of the yield regardless of how much tank it has, the isk/hour would be a joke, in fact an osprey would probably out mine it.
the difference in yield is arguably the main reason why the other ships suck so much **** right now. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
|
Kryss Darkdust
The Skulls
37
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 08:27:00 -
[2571] - Quote
The confusing aspect of the mining barges for me is trying to decipher a purpose for each ship which defines it as "better for this purpose".
You have three mining barges, the procurer, Retriever and Covetor. Within reason these ships are priced pretty close to each other (within a few millions which is negligable and no one will choose a cheaper class just because of the price here). The skills are pretty negligable as well, for the most part we are talking a few days of extra training to get the Covetor.
So the question is what purpose does the Procurer and Retriever really serve in the scope of things? What do these ships do better than the Covetor and why would anyone beyond perhaps a brief period as they wait to skill up, fly the lesser ships?
The Hulk I understand. Its a considerably larger investment and higher skill requirement. So there is a reason for someone to take a lesser ship and fly it.
Can anyone shed some light on that for me? |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
337
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 09:18:00 -
[2572] - Quote
Kryss Darkdust wrote:The confusing aspect of the mining barges for me is trying to decipher a purpose for each ship which defines it as "better for this purpose".
You have three mining barges, the procurer, Retriever and Covetor. Within reason these ships are priced pretty close to each other (within a few millions which is negligable and no one will choose a cheaper class just because of the price here). The skills are pretty negligable as well, for the most part we are talking a few days of extra training to get the Covetor.
So the question is what purpose does the Procurer and Retriever really serve in the scope of things? What do these ships do better than the Covetor and why would anyone beyond perhaps a brief period as they wait to skill up, fly the lesser ships?
The Hulk I understand. Its a considerably larger investment and higher skill requirement. So there is a reason for someone to take a lesser ship and fly it.
Can anyone shed some light on that for me?
the situation now: no there's no reason to fly anything but the hulk. it has the most ehp, most cargo, and most tank. exception to this is if you're mining ice or mercoxit, even so the hulk is still close in terms of yield.
after the change; yeah the hulk has the highest yield, but the mack has more cargo and ehp, and the skiff just has insane ehp and that holds for the t1 variants too. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1776
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 11:15:00 -
[2573] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote: When mining a grav site in w-space,
Nope, I was not referring to that.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Shameless Avenger
Can Preachers of Kador
361
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 11:20:00 -
[2574] - Quote
I want to be a miner... so I could mine some tin ... so I could make some hats.... and sell some tinfoil here... "This is the Ninja. He will scan you down; he will salvage your wrecks and there shall be no aggro" |
Blastcaps Madullier
Celestial Horizon Corp. Ethereal Dawn
76
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 11:58:00 -
[2575] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Also, large grav sites may easily take more than 1 day, expecially since you'll get rogues "invading it" and trying to gank the ships (I had this on 5 grav sites out of 5 I have done 2 months ago). When mining a grav site in w-space, you do not need to worry about "can flipping" because you can shoot first. The minor loss in time from having to drag crystals to and from a can because you absolutely have to mine every type of rock with every hulk in the fleet is your own cross to bear. Normal, clear thinking people would equip each Hulk in the fleet for specific rocks and have at those rocks for the duration of the mining operation, transferring the ore to the Orca, to be scooped up by the haulers. You can avoid the ganks by monitoring signatures. The time your mining fleet spends inside the POS bubble is not causing damage to the mining crystals, so doesn't matter. GÇ£But the belts are huge and the rocks re spread outGÇ¥ you cry. Do multiple sweeps. There are enough of each type of ore that you can run through the belt with no interruptions harvesting one or two types of ore. Keep moving with the Orca, you will cover the 100km belt having extracted all of those ores. Then turn around and repeat for the next set. The rocks are large, so you will have time to target the next rock while mining out the current one. Other options include having a scout in a MWD frigate bookmarking appropriate entry points and delivering different crystals as the miner needs them. This could be the same pilot monitoring signatures. Adapt your workflow to the style afforded by the ship you want to fly, or adapt your ship to the workflow you wish to follow.
other one you can do to reduce risk vs reward factor is use covetors instead of hulks, sure it will take longer to strip gravs but WHEN they go pop its a hell of a lot cheaper to replace than hulks :) |
Blastcaps Madullier
Celestial Horizon Corp. Ethereal Dawn
76
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 12:00:00 -
[2576] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:rodyas wrote:^ 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. Contrary to what you might think, tier 3 BCs weren't added with the intent of boosting suicide-ganking. And destroyers were so terrible and underused, they needed a buff (or rather the removal of the built-in nerf) just to become relevant again.
Yep and some of us spotted what was going to happen soon as the winter patch info leaked and got a look at the numbers and changes, and nothing was done eitehr way...
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
806
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 12:09:00 -
[2577] - Quote
Blastcaps Madullier wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:rodyas wrote:^ 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. Contrary to what you might think, tier 3 BCs weren't added with the intent of boosting suicide-ganking. And destroyers were so terrible and underused, they needed a buff (or rather the removal of the built-in nerf) just to become relevant again. Yep and some of us spotted what was going to happen soon as the winter patch info leaked and got a look at the numbers and changes, and nothing was done eitehr way... An Armageddon is capable of the same, or even higher damage output than a Tornado, due to drones offsetting the ROF bonus on the latter. An Armageddon costs only slightly more than a Tornado to manufacture. A Thorax straight-up deals significantly more damage than a Catalyst. Sure, a Thorax costs seven to ten times as much as a Catalyst, but the actual marginal increase is in the middle-single-digit millions. Paying about ten million more per ship would not deter gankers from their activity. Sure, the already-slim profit margins would be even tighter if we had to use these ships, but ganking would still be viable, just like it was before the changes. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Mike Whiite
Keystone Industrial
64
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 12:21:00 -
[2578] - Quote
I could turn things arround and say CCP forces the big bad wolf, to use his brains.
I've no trouble with gankers as a whole I do hate the fact that with the current mining ships it's possible to create a trial account and shoot al but every mining ship in a week or so in a destroyer.
I don't mine but I consider that a expliot. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
806
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 12:28:00 -
[2579] - Quote
Mike Whiite wrote:I could turn things arround and say CCP forces the big bad wolf, to use his brains.
I've no trouble with gankers as a whole I do hate the fact that with the current mining ships it's possible to create a trial account and shoot al but every mining ship in a week or so in a destroyer.
I don't mine but I consider that a expliot. 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? (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
338
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 12:30:00 -
[2580] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Mike Whiite wrote:I could turn things arround and say CCP forces the big bad wolf, to use his brains.
I've no trouble with gankers as a whole I do hate the fact that with the current mining ships it's possible to create a trial account and shoot al but every mining ship in a week or so in a destroyer.
I don't mine but I consider that a expliot. 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?
ban trial accounts from using gates!
i think that's almost the most absurd thing i've ever said on these forums. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
|
|
ISD TYPE40
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
57
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 12:49:00 -
[2581] - Quote
Thread has been cleaned again, please refrain from trolling and keep things constructive and on topic.
Trolling and some off topic posts removed - ISD Type40. ISD Type40 Ensign Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
Danny Diamonds
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 12:54:00 -
[2582] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Danny Diamonds wrote:You have no chance Vaera.
Pipa will keep posting and trying to "win" an internet thread about opinions. Logic and fun were thrown out long ago. 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 wasn't asking you to stay silent! It was more of a "I feel your pain" sorta post. 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...
How dare you miners get anything to make your non-pvp ships more useful!
|
Mr Management
Anger Management
13
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 12:56:00 -
[2583] - Quote
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. |
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
181
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 12:58:00 -
[2584] - Quote
Mr Management wrote: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.
Did you even read the thread? There were a couple of pages of "CCP probably buffed mining barges too much" then hundreds and hundreds of "Waaaa CCP didn't overbuff mining barges enough" |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
807
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 12:58:00 -
[2585] - Quote
Danny Diamonds wrote: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. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Big Bossu
Enterprise Estonia Northern Coalition.
5
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 13:09:00 -
[2586] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Danny Diamonds wrote: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.
You are a firm advocate of removing local from the game, I presume? |
Danny Diamonds
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 13:09:00 -
[2587] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Danny Diamonds wrote: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.
The proposed changes in no way prevent people from shooting other people. Not one bit. It just reduced the "easy win" situation. Don't try and pretend that this stops you from starting a fight. It doesn't.
If this was removing the ability to aggress in Hisec, then you can pull that argument out. But it isn't.
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
808
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 13:17:00 -
[2588] - Quote
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"? (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Danny Diamonds
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 13:25:00 -
[2589] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote: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"?
Stop taking it to extremes. *This* proposed change is *not* a Concorde buff, nor is it anything to do with "the government".
This is *not* some kind of infringement on your personal freedoms. It is a damn game. My God man, have you lost touch with reality? PIXELS.
I have been around for a few years, so I have seen quite a lot. I fit were more buffs to Concorde, I too would object. It isn't. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
808
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 13:31:00 -
[2590] - Quote
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. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
|
Mike Whiite
Keystone Industrial
64
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 14:07:00 -
[2591] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:Mike Whiite wrote:I could turn things arround and say CCP forces the big bad wolf, to use his brains.
I've no trouble with gankers as a whole I do hate the fact that with the current mining ships it's possible to create a trial account and shoot al but every mining ship in a week or so in a destroyer.
I don't mine but I consider that a expliot. 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.
yes things are easier with more people, things will become easier with more skillpoints as well, I still see oppertunities or a good SB pilot to bring one of these ships down without to much trouble, it just requires a person to put some effort in what they are doing like every other profesion in EVE.
Or find a hundred friends that all have time to hit one or two miners before they become an EVE twitter hit so to speak.
In my humble opinion, I think it will actualy make things easier for the dedicated ganker, those extra HP give a false feeling of security. Because no fake trial players sponserd by their borred main can accomplish this unless they come with 100 at once :), the miners will loose concentration Faster andgive you the oppertunity to sneak up on them.
|
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
808
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 14:10:00 -
[2592] - Quote
Mike Whiite wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote:Mike Whiite wrote:I could turn things arround and say CCP forces the big bad wolf, to use his brains.
I've no trouble with gankers as a whole I do hate the fact that with the current mining ships it's possible to create a trial account and shoot al but every mining ship in a week or so in a destroyer.
I don't mine but I consider that a expliot. 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. I think you'll feel really silly in a couple of weeks. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Andoria Thara
Fallen Avatars
94
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 14:14:00 -
[2593] - Quote
Mike Whiite wrote: 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.
I doubt this will be done for profit, or spoils. This will be a group of people doing it for the "lulz".
I have to admit, it would be pretty damn funny to see 100 rookie ships ganking a barge.
|
Mirajane Cromwell
76
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 14:23:00 -
[2594] - Quote
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... |
Mike Whiite
Keystone Industrial
64
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 14:28:00 -
[2595] - Quote
Oh I'm sure people will try it, I just think it won't be very effective.
A crowd draws attention.
and there is no reason to stop you from using this tactic now, and how often is a PVE batleship ganked by a hundred noob ships?
that might be even worth the trouble.
so yeah it probable happen, but I doubt it will happen very often. |
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
808
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 14:28:00 -
[2596] - Quote
Nah, I really doubt that combat ship re-balancing is going to lead to dps increases on any ships that don't desperately need them (few do, and even then they wouldn't be used for ganking). We'll have to make do with what we have, and we're prepared to deal with that. The real downside is that there will be even more of these anti-gank changes when the carebears realize that the big bad wolf didn't go away.
Mike Whiite wrote:Oh I'm sure people will try it, I just think it won't be very effective.
A crowd draws attention. It won't draw any more attention than countless threads, local warnings, and dev blogs already do. Therefore, miner awareness to large groups is the least of our worries. These people are oblivious. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) |
Cede Forster
EVE University Ivy League
10
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 14:38:00 -
[2597] - Quote
maybe this excess energy against the mining barge changes (which will come anyway) should be channeled in something positive, such as suggesting a suicide / high sec piracy update.
Proposals: Medium-Slot Module: Special Pirate Warp Scrambler Script - deactivates upon ISK transfer to the owners wallet. High-Slot Module: Payload - Can only be installed in a Badger and allows you to ram into other ships to blow them up, loss of capsule on both sides included.
see, you need to work the system so the high sec piracy update is next! |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
472
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 16:14:00 -
[2598] - Quote
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'.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
1768
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 16:18:00 -
[2599] - Quote
Mirajane Cromwell wrote: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...
Nope, miners are unhappy with the changes because gankers can still kill them for profit. |
Knight Cabbage
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
9
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 16:35:00 -
[2600] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote: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. |
|
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
577
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 16:45:00 -
[2601] - Quote
Knight Cabbage wrote:Destiny Corrupted wrote: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.
This brb |
Cede Forster
EVE University Ivy League
10
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 16:46:00 -
[2602] - Quote
i still can't believe that you can argue 130 pages on the forum on that subject
okay, they are making mining ships stronger okay, that's really sad for people who kill mining ships and? HTFU was the unofficial motto of the game. it has been said to miners, it has been said to gankers, what is this fuss really about? EvE being too easy? It is mining god forbid. If people want to mine in heavy armored ships, they could do that before, now they will do it without pointers ... sooo
so the essence is stupid people should be punished by gankers who kill them, okay but 130 pages for it? |
Pipa Porto
599
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 17:43:00 -
[2603] - Quote
rodyas wrote:^ 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.
With regards to Suicide ganking, the Loss of Insurance payouts was the tradeoff. Suicide Ganking was cheaper before Crucible, even though people used Thoraxes and Brutixes.
Thorax was the equivalent to the modern Meta Catalyst. Brutix was the equivalent to the modern T2 Catalyst. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Pipa Porto
599
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 17:54:00 -
[2604] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Danny Diamonds wrote:You have no chance Vaera.
Pipa will keep posting and trying to "win" an internet thread about opinions. Logic and fun were thrown out long ago. 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
Why is wanting all 3 Exhumers to have a role in mining (y'know, the Goal CCP set for this patch) being "fully motivated to bring as much nerf on miners as possible"?
At the moment, SISI has 2 viable exhumers. 2 is less than 3. 3 viable exhumers is the goal.
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.
By the way, the way to deal with mission pockets is to have to orca switch to a fast frigate once in a while. Unless you have an enormous fleet, the Orca has excess hauling capacity, and will be able to make up for the few minutes of lost time.
The Hulk is supposed to require some effort, but it gets some great yield. The Mackinaw is supposed to be the convenient one. The Skiff is supposed to be the tanky one. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1165
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 18:57:00 -
[2605] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote: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'.
Hmm interesting.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1781
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 19:23:00 -
[2606] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote: 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.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Pipa Porto
599
|
Posted - 2012.08.01 19:51:00 -
[2607] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Pipa Porto wrote: 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.
Mission Mining: While you set up your fleet, have your Orca pilot drop a can with crystals using something speedy. Or, given that you have multiple Hulks (or 2 Macks would be better than Orca/Hulk), have each miner be responsible for 3 Ores. Anoms: Have your Orca drop crystals or have your Hulks grab crystals from the orcs (depending on how corps shake out), or have each Hulk responsible for 3 Ores. There's no reason the Orca has to be far away, since Hulks are designed for you to be paying attention and escaping before the gank lands (and the gank resistant ship is the Skiff). Belts: See Anoms. Ice: (where you currently have to keep your ships separated to avoid smartbombs) doesn't need crystals.
See, everything still works. You just have to very slightly alter your procedure for mission mining.
You can perfectly adapt to each situation with each ship. Tomorrow, you would have to make one change for (I think there's only 1 or 2 missions that you have to go 3 gates deep to mine, and they're not worth mining anyway) a rare circumstance. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
ApexJB
EG CORP Talocan United
3
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 02:42:00 -
[2608] - Quote
To all the HS gankers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owzhYNcd4OM
|
Pipa Porto
601
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 02:48:00 -
[2609] - Quote
At this point we've been talking about Miners being unable to cope with having to get a new stock of crystals once every 15 hours of mining, or twice per HS belt if they're trying to scoop everything and mining for less time than that for the past few pages.
Whose tears are available for harvest? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Sentamon
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
88
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 02:53:00 -
[2610] - Quote
So can somebody sum up all 130 pages? ~ Professional Forum Alt -á~ |
|
Suddenly Forums ForumKings
Republic University Minmatar Republic
106
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 02:58:00 -
[2611] - Quote
Sentamon wrote:So can somebody sum up all 130 pages?
Carebears claiming gankers are crying. Gankers claiming that carebears are crying. |
Yokai Mitsuhide
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 03:12:00 -
[2612] - Quote
Sentamon wrote:So can somebody sum up all 130 pages?
Gankers don't think it's fair that mining ships get buffed, acting like they are unkillable even though they are not.
Personally would have rather had new higher end mining ships added instead of bothering with altering barges and exhumers. Game needs more than a whole 6 ships for miners. |
Suddenly Forums ForumKings
Republic University Minmatar Republic
106
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 03:13:00 -
[2613] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:Sentamon wrote:So can somebody sum up all 130 pages? Gankers don't think it's fair that mining ships get buffed, acting like they are unkillable even though they are not. Personally would have rather had new higher end mining ships added instead of bothering with altering barges and exhumers. Game needs more than a whole 6 ships for miners.
Guess you've never heard of all the racial mining frigates, mining cruisers, and the orca/rorqual. |
Yokai Mitsuhide
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 03:18:00 -
[2614] - Quote
Suddenly Forums ForumKings wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:Sentamon wrote:So can somebody sum up all 130 pages? Gankers don't think it's fair that mining ships get buffed, acting like they are unkillable even though they are not. Personally would have rather had new higher end mining ships added instead of bothering with altering barges and exhumers. Game needs more than a whole 6 ships for miners. Guess you've never heard of all the racial mining frigates, mining cruisers, and the orca/rorqual.
Orca and Rorqual don't mine. And I don't count the useless cruisers and frigates. |
Suddenly Forums ForumKings
Republic University Minmatar Republic
106
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 03:19:00 -
[2615] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:Suddenly Forums ForumKings wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:Sentamon wrote:So can somebody sum up all 130 pages? Gankers don't think it's fair that mining ships get buffed, acting like they are unkillable even though they are not. Personally would have rather had new higher end mining ships added instead of bothering with altering barges and exhumers. Game needs more than a whole 6 ships for miners. Guess you've never heard of all the racial mining frigates, mining cruisers, and the orca/rorqual. Orca and Rorqual don't mine. And I don't count the useless cruisers and frigates.
Not every ship can be top dog. |
Yokai Mitsuhide
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 03:22:00 -
[2616] - Quote
Suddenly Forums ForumKings wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:Suddenly Forums ForumKings wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:Sentamon wrote:So can somebody sum up all 130 pages? Gankers don't think it's fair that mining ships get buffed, acting like they are unkillable even though they are not. Personally would have rather had new higher end mining ships added instead of bothering with altering barges and exhumers. Game needs more than a whole 6 ships for miners. Guess you've never heard of all the racial mining frigates, mining cruisers, and the orca/rorqual. Orca and Rorqual don't mine. And I don't count the useless cruisers and frigates. Not every ship can be top dog.
No...not saying that either. Just seems the mining profession is a bit lacking. Can train 2 months and be in the best mining ship eve has to offer then what? You have nothing left to aim for lol. All I am saying is a little more variety for miners would be nice. |
Suddenly Forums ForumKings
Republic University Minmatar Republic
106
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 03:23:00 -
[2617] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:
No...not saying that either. Just seems the mining profession is a bit lacking. Can train 2 months and be in the best mining ship eve has to offer then what? You have nothing left to aim for lol. All I am saying is a little more variety for miners would be nice.
Good news, CCP has granted your request.
What additional kind of variety do you suggest? |
Yokai Mitsuhide
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 03:25:00 -
[2618] - Quote
Suddenly Forums ForumKings wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:
No...not saying that either. Just seems the mining profession is a bit lacking. Can train 2 months and be in the best mining ship eve has to offer then what? You have nothing left to aim for lol. All I am saying is a little more variety for miners would be nice.
Good news, CCP has granted your request. What additional kind of variety do you suggest?
Larger mining ships and capital mining ships. |
Jeremy Soikutsu
Homeworld Republic Intrepid Crossing
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 03:31:00 -
[2619] - Quote
Suddenly Forums ForumKings wrote: racial mining frigates
That are being turned into combat ships to be replaced by an ORE frig. To be fair there's only so much that can be done re:new mining ships without just making stats higher. We could really do from a dedicated gas harvesting ship or two though. |
Sophia Trinidad
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 03:31:00 -
[2620] - Quote
Wow, a whole thread of leet PVPers crying because they wont be able to easily blow up unarmed ships.
How tasty! |
|
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
158
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 03:32:00 -
[2621] - Quote
Sophia Trinidad wrote:Wow, a whole thread of leet PVPers crying because they wont be able to easily blow up unarmed ships.
How tasty!
but choices and dark universe and stuff and things and whatnot! |
Pipa Porto
601
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 03:35:00 -
[2622] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:Sentamon wrote:So can somebody sum up all 130 pages? Gankers don't think it's fair that mining ships get buffed, acting like they are unkillable even though they are not. Personally would have rather had new higher end mining ships added instead of bothering with altering barges and exhumers. Game needs more than a whole 6 ships for miners.
As someone who's been lumped into "gankers"
I think that it's fine that miners need their hands held, despite my (and others) attempts to show them how to fit their Hulks for safety. Gankers have never had a problem with the fact that Miners had the option to reduce their yield to gain safety. Miners have simply kept claiming that their Tank doesn't matter, that the gankers "will just bring more ships." All the while clamoring for just a little more tank to save them .
Now that the new ships have stats, miners are annoyed that the tiericide isn't a straight buff to the Hulk, and are confused that the Hulk's gonna have to have some of its abilities reduced so that the other ships have a chance to shine.
The new Hulk is not the Best mining ship. It is one of three best mining ships. All of them are supposed to be the best in their specialized situation. The Skiff is supposed to be best when you're concerned you might get shot at. The Mackinaw is supposed to be best when you're concerned that you have nobody to help you haul things. The Hulk is supposed to be best when both of the above have been taken care of.
Right now the situation on SISI is as follows: The Skiff is worthless, because the Mackinaw has more than enough tank to dissuade gankers. The Mackinaw is best if you might get shot at or if you don't have haulers. The Hulk is best when the above have been taken care of, but apparantly the fact that it takes some care and feeding to keep it in mining crystals (someone claimed that they sometimes needed to make 4 crystal changes during the time the Orca takes to haul it's load to station) is too horrific to contemplate.
By the way, having a New "Higher End" (I assume you mean "Higher Yield") mining ship, just means that after the 6 months it takes for everyone to train into it, mineral prices will fall, and you'll be making the same Isk/hr as you were with the Hulk, but you'll be doing proportionately more hauling to turn the minerals into ISK. At the same time, new players still in mining barges will be making a pittance and will have trouble saving up enough for Exhumers (price is largely independent of mineral prices) or the new ship (assuming it's T2).
P.S. A Dedicated Gas Harvesting ship would be good. Drug Dealing needs some Dev love. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Yokai Mitsuhide
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 03:36:00 -
[2623] - Quote
Suddenly Forums ForumKings wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:Suddenly Forums ForumKings wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:
No...not saying that either. Just seems the mining profession is a bit lacking. Can train 2 months and be in the best mining ship eve has to offer then what? You have nothing left to aim for lol. All I am saying is a little more variety for miners would be nice.
Good news, CCP has granted your request. What additional kind of variety do you suggest? Larger mining ships and capital mining ships. Yes please CCP, let the miners grind mineral costs into the ground so I can have 15m drakes.
Maybe then people in null would at least have some wars and fight each other if their ships were super cheap :) |
Yokai Mitsuhide
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 03:43:00 -
[2624] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:Sentamon wrote:So can somebody sum up all 130 pages? Gankers don't think it's fair that mining ships get buffed, acting like they are unkillable even though they are not. Personally would have rather had new higher end mining ships added instead of bothering with altering barges and exhumers. Game needs more than a whole 6 ships for miners. As someone who's been lumped into "gankers" I think that it's fine that miners need their hands held, despite my (and others) attempts to show them how to fit their Hulks for safety. Gankers have never had a problem with the fact that Miners had the option to reduce their yield to gain safety. Miners have simply kept claiming that their Tank doesn't matter, that the gankers "will just bring more ships." All the while clamoring for just a little more tank to save them . Now that the new ships have stats, miners are annoyed that the tiericide isn't a straight buff to the Hulk, and are confused that the Hulk's gonna have to have some of its abilities reduced so that the other ships have a chance to shine. The new Hulk is not the Best mining ship. It is one of three best mining ships. All of them are supposed to be the best in their specialized situation. The Skiff is supposed to be best when you're concerned you might get shot at. The Mackinaw is supposed to be best when you're concerned that you have nobody to help you haul things. The Hulk is supposed to be best when both of the above have been taken care of. Right now the situation on SISI is as follows: The Skiff is worthless, because the Mackinaw has more than enough tank to dissuade gankers. The Mackinaw is best if you might get shot at or if you don't have haulers. The Hulk is best when the above have been taken care of, but apparantly the fact that it takes some care and feeding to keep it in mining crystals (someone claimed that they sometimes needed to make 4 crystal changes during the time the Orca takes to haul it's load to station) is too horrific to contemplate. By the way, having a New "Higher End" (I assume you mean "Higher Yield") mining ship, just means that after the 6 months it takes for everyone to train into it, mineral prices will fall, and you'll be making the same Isk/hr as you were with the Hulk, but you'll be doing proportionately more hauling to turn the minerals into ISK. At the same time, new players still in mining barges will be making a pittance and will have trouble saving up enough for Exhumers (price is largely independent of mineral prices) or the new ship (assuming it's T2). P.S. A Dedicated Gas Harvesting ship would be good. Drug Dealing needs some Dev love.
No, not just referring to higher yield. I just want more than 3barges/exhumers for mining. I don't care if their yield sucks... I don't mine to build things nor do I care about maximizing my yield. I do it because it's fun. I just think it's silly that you have so many combat ships in eve, and so few mining ships. I didn't mean to only comment on the gankers btw, so sorry for that :D I don't really have anything to say about the new changes to the barges, I do like that they all will be useful instead of just 1 being useful. But other than that, don't care ..would just like to see more to train for beyond exhumers somewhere in the future.
|
Pipa Porto
601
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 03:54:00 -
[2625] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote: No, not just referring to higher yield. I just want more than 3barges/exhumers for mining. I don't care if their yield sucks... I don't mine to build things nor do I care about maximizing my yield. I do it because it's fun. I just think it's silly that you have so many combat ships in eve, and so few mining ships. I didn't mean to only comment on the gankers btw, so sorry for that :D I don't really have anything to say about the new changes to the barges, I do like that they all will be useful instead of just 1 being useful. But other than that, don't care ..would just like to see more to train for beyond exhumers somewhere in the future.
Each mining ship has different advantages and disadvantages, and those cover all 3 of the things that matter to a mining ship: Tank, Cargo, and Yield.
What purpose does a Fast mining ship serve? What purpose does a Long range mining ship serve? What purpose does a fast locking mining ship serve (what's with the Exhumer scan res, anyway?)? What purpose does a Drone focused mining ship serve?
Give me an idea for a new mining ship that's focused on something other than Tank, Yield, or Cargo and actually has a useful purpose. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Katie Frost
Asgard. Exodus.
87
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 03:58:00 -
[2626] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:don't mine to build things nor do I care about maximizing my yield. I do it because it's fun.
You require professional help. |
Yokai Mitsuhide
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 03:58:00 -
[2627] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote: No, not just referring to higher yield. I just want more than 3barges/exhumers for mining. I don't care if their yield sucks... I don't mine to build things nor do I care about maximizing my yield. I do it because it's fun. I just think it's silly that you have so many combat ships in eve, and so few mining ships. I didn't mean to only comment on the gankers btw, so sorry for that :D I don't really have anything to say about the new changes to the barges, I do like that they all will be useful instead of just 1 being useful. But other than that, don't care ..would just like to see more to train for beyond exhumers somewhere in the future.
Each mining ship has different advantages and disadvantages, and those cover all 3 of the things that matter to a mining ship: Tank, Cargo, and Yield. What purpose does a Fast mining ship serve? What purpose does a Long range mining ship serve? What purpose does a fast locking mining ship serve (what's with the Exhumer scan res, anyway?)? What purpose does a Drone focused mining ship serve? Give me an idea for a new mining ship that's focused on something other than Tank, Yield, or Cargo and actually has a useful purpose.
You named the things I would have named. They don't have to be something totally different than the 3 exhumers. Just slightly different styles of ships. Faster ships, super long range ships, doesn't matter...give them different looks, sizes, and slight changes from the pre existing exhumers and you at least give more variety and choices of ships to choose from. This could really apply to all categories of ships, I can't see more variety in the ways mentioned above being a bad thing. The universe is huge, I just think seeing the same handful of ships doing everything gets a little old. |
Suddenly Forums ForumKings
Republic University Minmatar Republic
107
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 03:59:00 -
[2628] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote: No, not just referring to higher yield. I just want more than 3barges/exhumers for mining. I don't care if their yield sucks... I don't mine to build things nor do I care about maximizing my yield. I do it because it's fun. I just think it's silly that you have so many combat ships in eve, and so few mining ships. I didn't mean to only comment on the gankers btw, so sorry for that :D I don't really have anything to say about the new changes to the barges, I do like that they all will be useful instead of just 1 being useful. But other than that, don't care ..would just like to see more to train for beyond exhumers somewhere in the future.
Each mining ship has different advantages and disadvantages, and those cover all 3 of the things that matter to a mining ship: Tank, Cargo, and Yield. What purpose does a Fast mining ship serve? What purpose does a Long range mining ship serve? What purpose does a fast locking mining ship serve (what's with the Exhumer scan res, anyway?)? What purpose does a Drone focused mining ship serve? Give me an idea for a new mining ship that's focused on something other than Tank, Yield, or Cargo and actually has a useful purpose. You named the things I would have named. They don't have to be something totally different than the 3 exhumers. Just slightly different styles of ships. Faster ships, super long range ships, doesn't matter...give them different looks, sizes, and slight changes from the pre existing exhumers and you at least give more variety and choices of ships to choose from. This could really apply to all categories of ships, I can't see more variety in the ways mentioned above being a bad thing.
And min maxers (most miners) will still only fly 1 ship. |
Yokai Mitsuhide
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 04:01:00 -
[2629] - Quote
Suddenly Forums ForumKings wrote:
And min maxers (most miners) will still only fly 1 ship.
Let em. I don't care about those people. |
Pipa Porto
601
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 04:08:00 -
[2630] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:You named the things I would have named. They don't have to be something totally different than the 3 exhumers. Just slightly different styles of ships. Faster ships, super long range ships, doesn't matter...give them different looks, sizes, and slight changes from the pre existing exhumers and you at least give more variety and choices of ships to choose from. This could really apply to all categories of ships, I can't see more variety in the ways mentioned above being a bad thing. The universe is huge, I just think seeing the same handful of ships doing everything gets a little old.
Except for the combat implications, I wouldn't care if all mining barges had unlimited lock ranges and could motor around at 100km/s.
The reason there aren't variety is that 99% of miners will either pick a Tanky Mining ship, a Convenient Mining ship, or a high Yield Mining ship because there's no rational reason to care about any other stat. There's no reason to bother spending a huge amount of Dev and Art team time on ships that nobody's going to use.
The bad thing is that variety takes an enormous amount of Dev and Art Dept time.
If you want something other than the 6 mining barges, you've got plenty of choices. You can mine in any ship that can fit drones or has a turret slot. Since you don't care about Yield, they'll all work great and that gives you an enormous amount of variety. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
|
Syphon Lodian
Fabled Enterprises
43
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 04:27:00 -
[2631] - Quote
Just curious, but if I made a thread called "Gankers, and saving the Stupid PIGS from themselves". Would it get locked, or... what ? |
Suqq Madiq
Amarr Empire
268
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 04:47:00 -
[2632] - Quote
Syphon Lodian wrote:Just curious, but if I made a thread called "Gankers, and saving the Stupid PIGS from themselves". Would it get locked, or... what ?
probably not. the continued existence of this thread is merely a social experiment being conducted by CCP to find out who can collect more tears; the gankers from the miners when they gank their mining ships? or the miners from the gankers when their mining ships get buffed?
also, i dont think there are many pigs in Iceland, so CCP might not see pigs as the vile, dirty creatures that they are. they see them as salty and delicious, so calling somebody a pig ends up being not really that big of a deal. |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1169
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 04:58:00 -
[2633] - Quote
Suqq Madiq wrote:... also, i dont think there are many pigs in Iceland, so CCP might not see pigs as the vile, dirty creatures that they are. they see them as salty and delicious, so calling somebody a pig ends up being not really that big of a deal. We have some wild pigs in my area... rather scary critters. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
600
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 04:59:00 -
[2634] - Quote
Canadian pigs, are the worst. Yet the best things. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Gorinia Sanford
Sons of Russ
51
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 05:11:00 -
[2635] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Well played, CCP. Your DEVs/balancing team apparently have the reasoning ability of small children so I'll put this in terms they will understand. ********** "Once upon a time there were three little miners. They ventured into the big wide world to earn their fortunes. The First Little Miner went to Jita and fit his Hulk with Cargo Expanders.This way, he could AFK mine with a minimum of effort and fuss. It left the miner plenty of freetime to daydream, jerk off, and watch Japanese Anime while earning ISK. ....Then along came the Big Bad Ganker in a Catalyst, saying "Little miner, little miner, I'm going to ******* do you in." The first miner, predictably, was tabbed out and said nothing. So the Ganker loaded and overheated and blew the Hulk in, and splattered the pod, too. The Second Little Miner went to Jita, bought MLU's and a hauler.This way, he could mine faster than anyone else - and become quite wealthy in no time. It was a bit more work, of course, but he kept himself entertained chatting in local with his neighbors. ...Then along came the Big Bad Ganker, in a Tornado, saying "Little miner, little miner, I'm going to ******* do you in." The second miner, said "Not by the hair of my chinny, chin chin," aligns, and turned on his Small Booster II. So the Ganker loaded and overheated and blew the Hulk in. The frightened miner flees in his pod, broke, but alive. The Third Little Miner went to Jita and fit his Hulk with a DCII, MSE, Invulnerability Fields, and Shield Extender Rigs. Wisely, he sets his Hulk to orbit a nearby asteroid, and always kept an wary eye on his surroundings. ...Then along came the Big Bad Ganker, in a T2 Talos, saying "Little miner, little miner, I'm going to ******* do you in." The Third miner chuckles to himself, overheats his Invulnerability Fields and aligns to the nearest station. So the Ganker loaded, and overheated, and simply CANNOT blow the Hulk in.Defeated, the ganker slinks off in his pod, and the smart little Miner scoops the Talos wreckage and sells it for a tidy profit." THE END********** Cargo Hulk, Yield Hulk, Tank Hulk, those were the choices - all with drawbacks. Cargo - for a Hybrid Exhumer/Hauler, with a risky AFK 'cruise control' option. Yield - to maximize returns with friends providing transport. Tank - 30-40K EHP to discourage/thwart gankers. (and really, one could still put up a reasonable tank on either Cargo or Yield fit Hulks, if they used the mid-slots.... ) But choices are dangerous things. Given the choice, miners will take cargo/yield every time - and then throw a tantrum when they are ganked. The rare, clever miner who tanked his Hulk; well, he weathered the storm - and reaped the benefits as mineral prices rose. But throw that out the window, just give the whining miners all three. Notice how CCP put quite a bit of care into saving miners from their own bad choices. This is more than a buff - this is CCP acknowledging that miners, as a group, are too stupid to make the correct fitting choices.Step 1: Idiot miners don't even use the slots they have - so slap stupid amounts of EHP directly to the hull, rather than give them additional slots/PG or CPU. Frigate-size Skiff, Orca EHP. Really? Step 2: Idiot miners keep sacking their EHP with Cargo Expanders - so make Cargo Expanders pointless with the Ore Bay. (And I doubt the DEVs will get around to fixing the 'special cargo bays don't drop loot' bug, either - simply because fixing THAT bug would benefit the wrong kinds of players, I suppose.....) So, good game, CCP. Good to know we are still steaming, full speed ahead! - towards Hello-Kitty highsec, a paradise for bots and stupidass gameplay. Hard to hear myself say it, but I'm now officially nostalgic for the days of Incarna and WiS development. At least back then, the DEVs were merely wasting their own time.
*YAWN* Another whine thread about miners. Nothing to see here, move along. |
Suqq Madiq
Amarr Empire
270
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 05:44:00 -
[2636] - Quote
Gorinia Sanford wrote:*YAWN* Another whine thread about miners. Nothing to see here, move along.
This has been said in this thread, literally, HUNDREDS of times. Those exact same words. But, it's ok. This thread serves the purpose of driving the pigs to the forums. And what could possibly be wrong with that? Not Bacon, that's for sure.
rodyas wrote:Canadian pigs, are the worst. Yet the best things.
Mmmmm, Canadian Bacon, SO GOOD.
The food, not the John Candy movie.
But, John Candy, SO GOOD.
But so dead, so sad.
But, Bacon.
SO GOOD.
Mmmmm.
Bacon.
Brb. |
Suqq Madiq
Amarr Empire
270
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 05:47:00 -
[2637] - Quote
Bacon. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
601
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 09:26:00 -
[2638] - Quote
oh, John Candy +1
Can we rename this thread. Space Balls: CCP saving overly entusiastic Yogurt fans from themselves.
(p.s. cookie is better then yogurt.) I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
845
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 09:55:00 -
[2639] - Quote
There is no way we can read all the feedback here, but for spearheading the ship / mining barge rebalancing plans I will just reply to the thread as a whole.
What is the current problem with mining barges and exhumers?
ItGÇÖs pretty simple; they offer no role choice in any shape of form. As part of the tiericide effort, we want to promote usefulness of ships that are currently underpowered due to an arbitrary position in a tier system that doesnGÇÖt fit in a sandbox game. The current, TQ version of the mining barges and exhumers strongly encourage progression toward the Hulk, while skipping the others completely except for a few specialized niche roles: not only is the Hulk just plain better in most attributes next to the other versions, but the skill system itself is flawed as the Covetor requires Mining Barge skill at 5, only a few hours away from its Tech 2 counterpart.
Why are we doing this?
As explained in the Dev Blog, we wanted to encourage various choices depending on the role you want to fulfill.
GÇóProcurer / Skiff: supposed to be mainly aimed for protection, with great EHP to defend from assaults GÇóRetriever / Mackinaw: designed for autonomy, with a cargohold at least equal with jet cans GÇóCovetor / Hulk: aimed for group operations with the best yield of them all
However, while we looked at them it quickly became apparent that they were just too fragile as a whole. A properly fit Tornado delivers a volley of at least 9000 damage, which was far enough to destroy an untanked Hulk before it could react. We thus wanted to buff resilience on them a bit to make it less easy to do so, especially considering it was the most viable high-end ship available for mining.
And notice we said GÇ£less easyGÇ¥, not GÇ£impossibleGÇ¥. Suicide ganking was, is and will remain a proper endorsed activity in EVE. However, the idea behind the GÇ£risk versus rewardGÇ¥ motto so often used here is that it should apply to everyone GÇô including to the side suicide ganking for shiny loot. We do not contest the profitability of the profession, nor do we deny Hulk pilots had the option to fit a tank to protect themselves (which they often failed to do indeed), what we wanted to achieve here is to give more time for them to react if they donGÇÖt fit one.
GÇ£Is CCP trying to save stupid pigs from themselves?GÇ¥ We are attempting to give the pigs in question a chance to react and chose a path other that the one leading to the slaughterhouse. It doesnGÇÖt change the fact the slaughterhouse still exists, that there still a path to it, and that this path is very easy to fall into, even after the changes.
Because, once again, this has proven how dangerous it is to jump to conclusions from a work-in-progress Singularity build; Mining Barges and Exhumer numbers are still being adjusted as we speak. EHP, cargohold, ore bay values are still up in the air. What we can tell though, is that when we are done with the ship class there will still be targets to gank, even if it is more time consuming and more demanding to do so - as it should be.
And all of this is without to say our player base has proven many times it is capable of overcoming any change we throw at them and fill the sandbox with creative, new ingenuous solutions. Smart players in all concerned sides, should they be suicide ganker or miner, will eventually adapt and most likely profit from the situation. |
|
Zhogon Tahll
Republic University Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 10:16:00 -
[2640] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:lip service.
yeah you say that... but you've forgotten about the abomination that is the Orca. 99.975% Unsuicidable it could scoop any of those "vulnerable" ships that "don't have time to react".
Also you've forgotten that there is no dedicated suicide ganking ship. How about you make Skiffs suicide ganking ships? 1000% damage output 1000% tracking penalty.
Oh wait, that's not going to help the piglets to suckle now is it? That's not going to bring any soft hearted NeX store customers into the game. NO CAN DO. +1 protection all day err day. Soon we will have gold ammo back once the whole customer base wants it. |
|
gfldex
573
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 10:23:00 -
[2641] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: However, while we looked at them it quickly became apparent that they were just too fragile as a whole. A properly fit Tornado delivers a volley of at least 9000 damage, which was far enough to destroy an untanked Hulk before it could react.
Tanking a Hulk was indeed not easy to do. Esp. for those who used not so well skilled alts to pilot them. Sadly you choose to make it hard to gank without any fitting decisions on side of the pilot. You made the game easy. You could have turned them into armor tanks and give them enough PG to fit a plate instead of filling all lowslots with mining upgrades.
You can take sand out of the sandbox if you like. Just keep in mind that when the sand is all gone only the cat poo will remain.
When someone burns down your sandcastle, bring sausages. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
601
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 10:29:00 -
[2642] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: GÇ£Is CCP trying to save stupid pigs from themselves?GÇ¥ We are attempting to give the pigs in question a chance to react and chose a path other that the one leading to the slaughterhouse. It doesnGÇÖt change the fact the slaughterhouse still exists, that there still a path to it, and that this path is very easy to fall into, even after the changes.
Of course the slaughter house still exist. This certain little piggy tastes delicious, and sure is salted well, after mining hard for hours. totally AFK mining, untanked as well. supported with botting software, slots fitted with cargo expanders and MLUs,Helping bring down mineral prices to an unfair state, just mining for hours, for the best salted taste. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1540
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 10:30:00 -
[2643] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:A properly fit Tornado delivers a volley of at least 9000 damage, which was far enough to destroy an untanked Hulk before it could react.
What's the problem? EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
601
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 10:31:00 -
[2644] - Quote
Zhogon Tahll wrote: Oh wait, that's not going to help the piglets to suckle now is it? That's not going to bring any soft hearted NeX store customers into the game. NO CAN DO. +1 protection all day err day. Soon we will have gold ammo back once the whole customer base wants it.
Look what you brought into the thread, CCP. I think there are more then just pigs as the basic farm animal in this game that needs saving. I think the donkeys, are getting too ******** as well. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
601
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 10:31:00 -
[2645] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:A properly fit Tornado delivers a volley of at least 9000 damage, which was far enough to destroy an untanked Hulk before it could react. What's the problem?
CCP answer his question, this piggy can't do it. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
349
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 10:42:00 -
[2646] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:A properly fit Tornado delivers a volley of at least 9000 damage, which was far enough to destroy an untanked Hulk before it could react. What's the problem?
that bit, i'd imagine. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1540
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 10:42:00 -
[2647] - Quote
rodyas wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:A properly fit Tornado delivers a volley of at least 9000 damage, which was far enough to destroy an untanked Hulk before it could react. What's the problem? CCP answer his question, this piggy can't do it.
The typical response is usually "well hurr the ISK loss isn't balanced" - since when is anything in this game balanced around cost? The Hulk is a 300M ship, sure, but at the moment it can out-mine literally any conceivable setup on any ship in the game even without a single MLU fit. An untanked T3 or recon will also die to one 1400 volley of RF EMP L. Should that be changed as well? EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1540
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 10:43:00 -
[2648] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:A properly fit Tornado delivers a volley of at least 9000 damage, which was far enough to destroy an untanked Hulk before it could react. What's the problem? that bit, i'd imagine.
that's how alpha works, hope this helps EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
349
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 10:45:00 -
[2649] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Dave stark wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:A properly fit Tornado delivers a volley of at least 9000 damage, which was far enough to destroy an untanked Hulk before it could react. What's the problem? that bit, i'd imagine. that's how alpha works, hope this helps
sure it's how it works, obviously ccp aren't happy with that. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1540
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 10:50:00 -
[2650] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:sure it's how it works, obviously ccp aren't happy with that.
getting blown up and podded before you can react is something that does not just happen to miners
the hulk miner also has the option of reacting by seeing a tornado landing and getting out of there - of course, he's AFK and sitting still, but if they're really accounting for bad choices, well, 'heh' EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
|
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
601
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 10:52:00 -
[2651] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Dave stark wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:A properly fit Tornado delivers a volley of at least 9000 damage, which was far enough to destroy an untanked Hulk before it could react. What's the problem? that bit, i'd imagine. that's how alpha works, hope this helps
So many good quotes you have, and so hard to multi-quote.
You bringing up alpha and how awesome it is, might be a bit foolhardy. CCP just stated they are for tiericide, since it allows other ships to shine, that were once shafted. If alpha is too good, then CCP might tiericide it, so other ships will be used.
Yeah the isk stuff, True a Hulk mines more then a destoyer, so its fair for the destroyer to blow it up. But effort then (like you goons like) to build and have a hulk, takes alot more effort, then to build and have then whatever ship you talk about. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
349
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 10:52:00 -
[2652] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Dave stark wrote:sure it's how it works, obviously ccp aren't happy with that. getting blown up and podded before you can react is something that does not just happen to miners the hulk miner also has the option of reacting by seeing a tornado landing and getting out of there - of course, he's AFK and sitting still, but if they're really accounting for bad choices, well, 'heh'
perhaps not so valid when we're talking about nados but i'm almost sure a destroyer can land on grid and bump a miner before they're aligned? Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1540
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 10:53:00 -
[2653] - Quote
rodyas wrote:Yeah the isk stuff, True a Hulk mines more then a destoyer, so its fair for the destroyer to blow it up. But effort then (like you goons like) to build and have a hulk, takes alot more effort, then to build and have then whatever ship you talk about.
Who ever said this game was supposed to be fair?
You work for what you have in this game, just like in life, and anybody can come by and ruin it all, just like in life. EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1540
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 10:54:00 -
[2654] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:perhaps not so valid when we're talking about nados but i'm almost sure a destroyer can land on grid and bump a miner before they're aligned?
Let me tell you about Orca bonuses and being aligned (i.e. moving) EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
349
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 10:59:00 -
[2655] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Dave stark wrote:perhaps not so valid when we're talking about nados but i'm almost sure a destroyer can land on grid and bump a miner before they're aligned? Let me tell you about Orca bonuses and being aligned (i.e. moving) implying you must be in a fleet or you deserve to be ganked? Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
601
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 11:01:00 -
[2656] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:rodyas wrote:Yeah the isk stuff, True a Hulk mines more then a destoyer, so its fair for the destroyer to blow it up. But effort then (like you goons like) to build and have a hulk, takes alot more effort, then to build and have then whatever ship you talk about. Who ever said this game was supposed to be fair? You work for what you have in this game, just like in life, and anybody can come by and ruin it all, just like in life.
So you do support this patch then? With how this buff makes it unfair to you? And how this patch ruins all you worked for? Maybe we should change the mascot for this patch from pigs, to you. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
601
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 11:03:00 -
[2657] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Dave stark wrote:perhaps not so valid when we're talking about nados but i'm almost sure a destroyer can land on grid and bump a miner before they're aligned? Let me tell you about Orca bonuses and being aligned (i.e. moving) implying you must be in a fleet or you deserve to be ganked?
You deserve to be working hard in your farm, in over 100 degree heat, just to have bandits come in and **** all your family and burn all your crops down. That is what must happen, fleet up or face the consequence. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1540
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 11:04:00 -
[2658] - Quote
rodyas wrote:So you do support this patch then? With how this buff makes it unfair to you? And how this patch ruins all you worked for? Maybe we should change the mascot for this patch from pigs, to you.
I haven't ganked miners since the interdiction but I don't believe that they should be given the ability to AFK mine without worries because anything that sneezes at them will be nerfed. EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1540
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 11:05:00 -
[2659] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Dave stark wrote:perhaps not so valid when we're talking about nados but i'm almost sure a destroyer can land on grid and bump a miner before they're aligned? Let me tell you about Orca bonuses and being aligned (i.e. moving) implying you must be in a fleet or you deserve to be ganked?
orca bonuses give you extra strip miner range
please don't put words in my mouth EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Syphon Lodian
Fabled Enterprises
43
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 11:08:00 -
[2660] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote: You work for what you have in this game, just like in life, and anybody can come by and ruin it all, just like in life.
You ugh.. you're um, blending a reality with a non-reality. You probably shouldn't be doing that.
Besides, in "real life", most places have sec status too. You know, it tends to separate the pissholes from the productive environments.
- "Should I rob my neighbor's house, and deal with the concordokken that soon follows?" - "My neighbor could be armed, and might shoot me without fear of concordokken, when I get flagged for can-flipping his house." - "I could get a machine gun that volleys over 9000dps, but people in certain houses might see that as unfair." - Not everyone likes live in a Renter Alliance country, and other countries might take offense to their breached sovereignty.
(Also, obligatory mention that people complaining about barge changes - spend more time posting about mining than the amount of time the majority of players actually mine.) |
|
Syphon Lodian
Fabled Enterprises
43
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 11:12:00 -
[2661] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote: I haven't ganked miners since the interdiction but I don't believe that they should be given the ability to AFK mine without worries because anything that sneezes at them will be nerfed.
This has never been, and will never be the case, ever.
You can be popped anywhere.
This update really changes nothing, even in the smallest sense. It just encourages the use of other barges, and is obviously a step in changing not only barges but everything else that is affected by limited "progression tiers". It's been explained, a lot.
Essentially, "Adding more ships to EVE, without having to actually add more ships to EVE." |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
601
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 11:12:00 -
[2662] - Quote
^ What is your opinion about blobs perhaps. If you ruin my AFK mining, I might just join a blob and AFK during that for my precious EVE time. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
601
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 11:15:00 -
[2663] - Quote
Syphon Lodian wrote:Richard Desturned wrote: You work for what you have in this game, just like in life, and anybody can come by and ruin it all, just like in life.
You ugh.. you're um, blending a reality with a non-reality. You probably shouldn't be doing that.
Alchemy pooper. How games should follow the real world and so basic professions should be more real thread
is over ---> I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
601
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 11:21:00 -
[2664] - Quote
Also, you guys should quit trolling. Otherwise, CCP Ytterrbium won't come back and give us more fun things to talk about. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Jagoff Haverford
The Terrifying League Of Dog Fort Get Off My Lawn
20
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 11:23:00 -
[2665] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Because, once again, this has proven how dangerous it is to jump to conclusions from a work-in-progress Singularity build; Mining Barges and Exhumer numbers are still being adjusted as we speak. EHP, cargohold, ore bay values are still up in the air. . Who, us? Jump to conclusions? Why, that would be pointless! That would be like producing pages and pages of argument concerning the benefits and detriments of Singularity specifications that we've already been told are going to change. Which is exactly what happened when I tried to post some questions about cargohold size.
So, I'm totally onboard with the fact that things are still up in the air. But I am also trying to understand the goal of the Hulk's relatively tiny cargohold size, especially in relation to size of it's "ammunition" (i.e., mining crystals), and in the other Exhumers, which have fewer strip miners to be kept fed with mining crystals.
As things stand at the moment, the Hulk's cargohold is 350m and each T2 mining crystal takes up 25m of space. At least 25m of space has be remain "open" in order to have space to change out crystals. So, the cargohold can hold 13 crystals to cover 3 strip miners. A player can therefore carry a full set of 3 crystals for one ore type in the strip miners themselves, plus another 4 full sets for 4 other ore types in the cargohold (plus one other spare crystal, in case one of those 12 other crystals should expire).
In other words, each Hulk can head out to the belts with enough crystals to fully cover 5 different kinds or ore. Which sounds like a lot, until you realize that there are 16 different types of ore in the game, and 12 different ore types in the Large Ore Clusters that appear in null space. Being able to hit only 5 different types of ore is perfectly fine in hisec -- where the belts have, at most, only 4 types at a time -- but it's pretty limiting when mining in null or in wormholes.
This limitation might be totally intentional. The idea may be that, since the Hulk is a ship that needs fleet support, haulers should be required to both take the ore away and to deliver new crystals as needed. If so, I'm totally cool with that, although it has to be said that the speeds of barges, exhumers, and haulers are such that these delivery times are likely to be exceptionally slow. But since you've already addressed a few questions in this thread, could you possibly have a go at a few other questions?
1. What is the goal of limiting Hulks to just 5 full sets of crystals at a time?
2. Shouldn't Hulk be given 3 times more space for crystals than the Skiff, since it has 3 times more strip miners? Or at least twice as much?
3. Is there any chance that the mining crystals will be shrunk from 25 m3 to something more in line with combat laser crystals?
Thanks in advance! |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1540
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 11:26:00 -
[2666] - Quote
Syphon Lodian wrote:Richard Desturned wrote: You work for what you have in this game, just like in life, and anybody can come by and ruin it all, just like in life.
You ugh.. you're um, blending a reality with a non-reality. You probably shouldn't be doing that. Besides, in "real life", most places have sec status too. You know, it tends to separate the pissholes from the productive environments. - "Should I rob my neighbor's house, and deal with the concordokken that soon follows?" - "My neighbor could be armed, and might shoot me without fear of concordokken, when I get flagged for can-flipping his house." - "I could get a machine gun that volleys over 9000dps, but people in certain houses might see that as unfair." - Not everyone likes live in a Renter Alliance country, and other countries might take offense to their breached sovereignty. (Also, obligatory mention that people complaining about barge changes - spend more time posting about mining than the amount of time the majority of players actually mine.)
except the AFK hulk miner is more like the guy who lives in a double-wide on the outskirts of town, 30 minutes away from the nearest police officer and leaves his house unlocked and doesn't have homeowner's insurance because he has an alarm
then he gets robbed, the burglars take all of his stuff and even have time to drink some coffee before getting out of there and never being caught - then the guy complains about how poor the crime protection is in his area EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
601
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 11:32:00 -
[2667] - Quote
^ How would he get robbed though? Black people don't live or travel to the outskirts of a town. Mostly likely it might be someone he knows or trusts. Suppose the only foolish thing he did, was grow close to people. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Benny Ohu
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
245
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 11:36:00 -
[2668] - Quote
rodyas wrote:^ How would he get robbed though? Black people don't live or travel to the outskirts of a town. Mostly likely it might be someone he knows or trusts. Suppose the only foolish thing he did, was grow close to people. What. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1540
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 11:36:00 -
[2669] - Quote
because the burglars are actually spreadsheet wizards who determined that his place would be the best target in town given the long police response time and his terrible security practices and the 60" TV in his living room that goes right through his big window
you could say they are RL minmaxers EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Cede Forster
EVE University Ivy League
11
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 11:39:00 -
[2670] - Quote
rodyas wrote:^ How would he get robbed though? Black people don't live or travel to the outskirts of a town. Mostly likely it might be someone he knows or trusts. Suppose the only foolish thing he did, was grow close to people.
EDIT: or drink coffee
wow, the bottom line, now featuring a cellar
|
|
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
601
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 11:39:00 -
[2671] - Quote
^ You should take his tractor as well as his big screen tv.
You make it sound like they are more like hackers then common criminals as well. Which is true, hackers like money, and anyone who has it they will hack. So that guy living far from police will be helpless to a hack. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
601
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 11:40:00 -
[2672] - Quote
Cede Forster wrote:rodyas wrote:^ How would he get robbed though? Black people don't live or travel to the outskirts of a town. Mostly likely it might be someone he knows or trusts. Suppose the only foolish thing he did, was grow close to people.
EDIT: or drink coffee wow, the bottom line, now featuring a cellar
The bottom line is that black unemployment is a lot lower, then your unemployment. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Cede Forster
EVE University Ivy League
11
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 11:42:00 -
[2673] - Quote
rodyas wrote:Cede Forster wrote:rodyas wrote:^ How would he get robbed though? Black people don't live or travel to the outskirts of a town. Mostly likely it might be someone he knows or trusts. Suppose the only foolish thing he did, was grow close to people.
EDIT: or drink coffee wow, the bottom line, now featuring a cellar The bottom line is that black unemployment is a lot lower, then your unemployment.
yes, that must be it |
Suqq Madiq
Amarr Empire
270
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 12:09:00 -
[2674] - Quote
You PIGS missed the point.
Bacon. |
Yokai Mitsuhide
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 13:11:00 -
[2675] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Dave stark wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:A properly fit Tornado delivers a volley of at least 9000 damage, which was far enough to destroy an untanked Hulk before it could react. What's the problem? that bit, i'd imagine. that's how alpha works, hope this helps
Does indeed help. I had heard Goonswarm whined a lot, you helped confirm it for me. Thank you for putting the rumors to rest. |
Yokai Mitsuhide
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 13:13:00 -
[2676] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:You named the things I would have named. They don't have to be something totally different than the 3 exhumers. Just slightly different styles of ships. Faster ships, super long range ships, doesn't matter...give them different looks, sizes, and slight changes from the pre existing exhumers and you at least give more variety and choices of ships to choose from. This could really apply to all categories of ships, I can't see more variety in the ways mentioned above being a bad thing. The universe is huge, I just think seeing the same handful of ships doing everything gets a little old. Except for the combat implications, I wouldn't care if all mining barges had unlimited lock ranges and could motor around at 100km/s. The reason there aren't variety is that 99% of miners will either pick a Tanky Mining ship, a Convenient Mining ship, or a high Yield Mining ship because there's no rational reason to care about any other stat. There's no reason to bother spending a huge amount of Dev and Art team time on ships that nobody's going to use. The bad thing is that variety takes an enormous amount of Dev and Art Dept time. If you want something other than the 6 mining barges, you've got plenty of choices. You can mine in any ship that can fit drones or has a turret slot. Since you don't care about Yield, they'll all work great and that gives you an enormous amount of variety.
But I like strip miners :( so choices are rather limited. |
Sarik Olecar
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
29
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 14:29:00 -
[2677] - Quote
rodyas wrote:^ How would he get robbed though? Black people don't live or travel to the outskirts of a town.
Is this 'Ground Floor'???
|
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
350
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 14:49:00 -
[2678] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Dave stark wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Dave stark wrote:perhaps not so valid when we're talking about nados but i'm almost sure a destroyer can land on grid and bump a miner before they're aligned? Let me tell you about Orca bonuses and being aligned (i.e. moving) implying you must be in a fleet or you deserve to be ganked? orca bonuses give you extra strip miner range please don't put words in my mouth
i didn't put words in your mouth, you're saying you've got to be in a fleet, a very specific fleet, with an orca. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
|
ISD TYPE40
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
57
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 15:13:00 -
[2679] - Quote
This thread has been cleaned numerous times, trolling posts removed and off topic rubbish trimmed. I have asked nicely for people to post responsibly but sadly this has not happened. Therefore I am going to lock it as it seems destined to only slip further down the drain.
Thread locked for repeated trolling, personal attacks and off topic posting - ISD Type40. ISD Type40 Ensign Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
|
ISD TYPE40
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
58
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 20:23:00 -
[2680] - Quote
Putting the thread back to the front page - ISD Type40. ISD Type40 Ensign Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
|
Pipa Porto
612
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 20:25:00 -
[2681] - Quote
ISD TYPE40 wrote:Thank you for your patience - ISD Type40.
Thanks very much for your patience in cleaning and scrubbing the thread repeatedly. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Pipa Porto
612
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 20:27:00 -
[2682] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:You named the things I would have named. They don't have to be something totally different than the 3 exhumers. Just slightly different styles of ships. Faster ships, super long range ships, doesn't matter...give them different looks, sizes, and slight changes from the pre existing exhumers and you at least give more variety and choices of ships to choose from. This could really apply to all categories of ships, I can't see more variety in the ways mentioned above being a bad thing. The universe is huge, I just think seeing the same handful of ships doing everything gets a little old. Except for the combat implications, I wouldn't care if all mining barges had unlimited lock ranges and could motor around at 100km/s. The reason there aren't variety is that 99% of miners will either pick a Tanky Mining ship, a Convenient Mining ship, or a high Yield Mining ship because there's no rational reason to care about any other stat. There's no reason to bother spending a huge amount of Dev and Art team time on ships that nobody's going to use. The bad thing is that variety takes an enormous amount of Dev and Art Dept time. If you want something other than the 6 mining barges, you've got plenty of choices. You can mine in any ship that can fit drones or has a turret slot. Since you don't care about Yield, they'll all work great and that gives you an enormous amount of variety. But I like strip miners :( so choices are rather limited.
I thought you didn't care about Yield, and the only significant difference between strip miners and Mining lasers is yield.
So yes, if you limit yourself to high yield ships, your choices are limited, because there are so few variables affecting the usefulness of a mining ship besides Yield, Cargo, and Tank (actually, there are no variables affecting the usefulness of a mining ship besides those three things). EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
|
ISD TYPE40
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
58
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 20:28:00 -
[2683] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:ISD TYPE40 wrote:Thank you for your patience - ISD Type40. Thanks very much for your patience in cleaning and scrubbing the thread repeatedly.
You are most welcome. Happy posting. ISD Type40 Ensign Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
Pipa Porto
612
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 20:32:00 -
[2684] - Quote
Jagoff Haverford wrote: 2. Shouldn't Hulk be given 3 times more space for crystals than the Skiff, since it has 3 times more strip miners? Or at least twice as much?
The Skiff's designed to be somewhat self sufficient. The Hulk is designed to rely on other ships to allow it to focus solely on mining yield.
Compare RL mining equipment. The biggest equipment, capable of shoveling vast amount of Ore can't actually do anything under their own power. They have to be hooked up to an electrical grid, they need a fleet of Dump trucks to keep up with their output, they need constant maintenance, they have to be disassembled to move any sort of distance, they're generally an incredible pain to set up, but they compensate by moving more earth than any other machine.
Smaller equipment is much less reliant on other equipment, but doesn't move as much earth. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Arec Bardwin
Perkone Caldari State
696
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 20:35:00 -
[2685] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:ISD TYPE40 wrote:Thank you for your patience - ISD Type40. Thanks very much for your patience in cleaning and scrubbing the thread repeatedly. Too bad all the tears, snot and phlegm from the gankers, really made the thread come alive |
Hypercake Mix
Magical Rainbow Bakery
7
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 20:36:00 -
[2686] - Quote
I think they need to bring the tank of the Exhumers up a few more notches. We still don't know what the Destroyer rebalancing and beyond will bring. |
Jim Era
The Syndicate Inc En Garde
56
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 20:37:00 -
[2687] - Quote
Buff exhumers more imo. Its not enough. |
Anvil44
Independent Traders and Builders MPA
107
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 20:38:00 -
[2688] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Jagoff Haverford wrote: 2. Shouldn't Hulk be given 3 times more space for crystals than the Skiff, since it has 3 times more strip miners? Or at least twice as much?
The Skiff's designed to be somewhat self sufficient. The Hulk is designed to rely on other ships to allow it to focus solely on mining yield. Compare RL mining equipment. The biggest equipment, capable of shoveling vast amount of Ore can't actually do anything under their own power. They have to be hooked up to an electrical grid, they need a fleet of Dump trucks to keep up with their output, they need constant maintenance, they have to be disassembled to move any sort of distance, they're generally an incredible pain to set up, but they compensate by moving more earth than any other machine. Smaller equipment is much less reliant on other equipment, but doesn't move as much earth. That....is a good example. +1 from me.
I may not like you or your point of view but you have a right to voice it. |
Anvil44
Independent Traders and Builders MPA
107
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 20:45:00 -
[2689] - Quote
Hypercake Mix wrote:I think they need to bring the tank of the Exhumers up a few more notches. We still don't know what the Destroyer rebalancing and beyond will bring. This sure sounds like troll to me...however, I will bite. What destroyer rebalancing are you referring to? I haven't heard of anything to change what was done not too long ago.
The more I think on things, the more I would like to see being able to buff exhumers by choice as opposed to such a huge jump on the inherent tanks. They did need some improving for sure, (excluding Hulk) but doing too much of it for the miners is not right. Give them the good base that a nice solid ship should have (it should be strong and bulky by nature, able to stand up to a fair bit of damage by sheer bulk) but nothing too extreme. Then make the give them special bonuses for PowerGrid and/or CPU bonus when using specific types of modules, much as the latest BCs have it with their BS sized guns. So a miner can choose between maximum yield or that great tank...or a nice balance.
I may not like you or your point of view but you have a right to voice it. |
Pipa Porto
613
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 20:45:00 -
[2690] - Quote
Hypercake Mix wrote:I think they need to bring the tank of the Exhumers up a few more notches. We still don't know what the Destroyer rebalancing and beyond will bring.
The Skiff can put up some 80k EHP with MLUs. That's plenty of Tank for any imaginable mining situation.
The point of the change is so that you change ships when your needs change, not just change fits. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
|
Hypercake Mix
Magical Rainbow Bakery
7
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 20:48:00 -
[2691] - Quote
Anvil44 wrote:Hypercake Mix wrote:I think they need to bring the tank of the Exhumers up a few more notches. We still don't know what the Destroyer rebalancing and beyond will bring. This sure sounds like troll to me...however, I will bite. What destroyer rebalancing are you referring to? I haven't heard of anything to change what was done not too long ago. The more I think on things, the more I would like to see being able to buff exhumers by choice as opposed to such a huge jump on the inherent tanks. They did need some improving for sure, (excluding Hulk) but doing too much of it for the miners is not right. Give them the good base that a nice solid ship should have (it should be strong and bulky by nature, able to stand up to a fair bit of damage by sheer bulk) but nothing too extreme. Then perhaps give them special bonuses for PowerGrid and/or CPU bonus when using specific types of modules, much as the latest BCs have it with their BS sized guns. So a miner can choose between maximum yield or that great tank...or a nice balance.
The whole Tiericide thing? They're going up from Frigates and slowly making every ship worth flying? The thing where they're thinking of splitting Destroyers and Battlecruisers skills into separate racial skills? The possibility of having more T1 Destroyers exist in the future? |
Pipa Porto
614
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 20:55:00 -
[2692] - Quote
Hypercake Mix wrote:The whole Tiericide thing? They're going up from Frigates and slowly making every ship worth flying? The thing where they're thinking of splitting Destroyers and Battlecruisers skills into separate racial skills? The possibility of having more T1 Destroyers exist in the future?
Somehow I doubt any of the new Dessies will be 5 times cheaper or 5 times gankier (at the same price) to make the Skiff a viable gank target. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Anvil44
Independent Traders and Builders MPA
107
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 20:56:00 -
[2693] - Quote
Hypercake Mix wrote:Anvil44 wrote:Hypercake Mix wrote:I think they need to bring the tank of the Exhumers up a few more notches. We still don't know what the Destroyer rebalancing and beyond will bring. This sure sounds like troll to me...however, I will bite. What destroyer rebalancing are you referring to? I haven't heard of anything to change what was done not too long ago. The more I think on things, the more I would like to see being able to buff exhumers by choice as opposed to such a huge jump on the inherent tanks. They did need some improving for sure, (excluding Hulk) but doing too much of it for the miners is not right. Give them the good base that a nice solid ship should have (it should be strong and bulky by nature, able to stand up to a fair bit of damage by sheer bulk) but nothing too extreme. Then perhaps give them special bonuses for PowerGrid and/or CPU bonus when using specific types of modules, much as the latest BCs have it with their BS sized guns. So a miner can choose between maximum yield or that great tank...or a nice balance. The whole Tiericide thing? They're going up from Frigates and slowly making every ship worth flying? The thing where they're thinking of splitting Destroyers and Battlecruisers skills into separate racial skills? The possibility of having more T1 Destroyers exist in the future? Ah that skill split off. Don't see that specifically as causing buff nor nerf. Possibility of future destroyers happening? Well, that's the same as saying they are thinking of coming up with more exhumers. No details = no worries. If they were saying "we're looking at another destroyer designed around using medium sized guns - perfect for high alphas" then I would be worried. As it is now, there is too little information to worry about or to allow one to begin designing some sort of 'ship design response' to deal with this perceived threat.
I may not like you or your point of view but you have a right to voice it. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
131
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 21:00:00 -
[2694] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:The Skiff can put up some 80k EHP with MLUs.
Assuming no fleet boost and overheating. No, it can't with T1 shield resists profile. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
35
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 21:06:00 -
[2695] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:The Skiff can put up some 80k EHP with MLUs. Assuming no fleet boost and overheating. No, it can't with T1 shield resists profile.
Show some proof. You come onto these forums and post but never bask them up. You were already proved wrong in a different forum when you said that the Hulk had a 25% reduction in EHP. |
Pipa Porto
614
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 21:09:00 -
[2696] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:The Skiff can put up some 80k EHP with MLUs. Assuming no fleet boost and overheating. No, it can't with T1 shield resists profile.
I'm repeating numbers from a thread with people who have modified their Pyfa. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Hypercake Mix
Magical Rainbow Bakery
7
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 21:13:00 -
[2697] - Quote
Anvil44 wrote:Ah that skill split off. Don't see that specifically as causing buff nor nerf. Possibility of future destroyers happening? Well, that's the same as saying they are thinking of coming up with more exhumers. No details = no worries. If they were saying "we're looking at another destroyer designed around using medium sized guns - perfect for high alphas" then I would be worried. As it is now, there is too little information to worry about or to allow one to begin designing some sort of 'ship design response' to deal with this perceived threat.
If they're designing the EHP of Hulks, Mackinaws, Covetors, and Retrievers around suicide ganking, while designing the Skiff and Procurer to survive fights in low-sec and beyond, the appearance of a medium gun destroyer would mean having to redo the those EHP numbers again, requiring CCP's math squad to set aside work-hours to essentially redo something they just recently did. IF the EHP was designed around suicide ganking. But yeah. Doing something and then redoing shortly after is bad design and wasted resources that could be better put to use say... making Orca's fully scanable. |
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
159
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 21:22:00 -
[2698] - Quote
highsec mining is low reward, imo it deserves to be low risk. I feel like a small fitting increase and/or slight EHP buff would do, imo it is just silly that a hulk can die to a solo destroyer. okay okay tbh I don't really have much pity for people that don't train any core skills and fit 2 expanders and 2 cargo optimizers. but I just don't buy that the only viable highsec mining fit is nothing but buffer/fitting mods.
and yes a t3 with no tank (and/or gaping resist hole) can die to 1-2 tornado volleys rather easily, but their options for tanking are so much greater than on a hulk. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
351
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 21:27:00 -
[2699] - Quote
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:highsec mining is low reward, imo it deserves to be low risk. I feel like a small fitting increase and/or slight EHP buff would do, imo it is just silly that a hulk can die to a solo destroyer. okay okay tbh I don't really have much pity for people that don't train any core skills and fit 2 expanders and 2 cargo optimizers. but I just don't buy that the only viable highsec mining fit is nothing but buffer/fitting mods.
and yes a t3 with no tank (and/or gaping resist hole) can die to 1-2 tornado volleys rather easily, but their options for tanking are so much greater than on a hulk.
3rd most profitable ore is a high sec ore. if high sec mining is low reward that just means mining is low reward. not really relevant but i thought it needed pointing out. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Hypercake Mix
Magical Rainbow Bakery
7
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 21:36:00 -
[2700] - Quote
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:okay okay tbh I don't really have much pity for people that don't train any core skills and fit 2 expanders and 2 cargo optimizers. A new player with a set interest in mining approaches your mining corp. Do you tell him that he needs to make a choice between being useless or being a liability for a month?
I know it's an extreme case, but it sucks when you can't convince people to keep playing EVE for these reasons. |
|
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
35
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 21:44:00 -
[2701] - Quote
Hypercake Mix wrote:Chainsaw Plankton wrote:okay okay tbh I don't really have much pity for people that don't train any core skills and fit 2 expanders and 2 cargo optimizers. A new player with a set interest in mining approaches your mining corp. Do you tell him that he needs to make a choice between being useless or being a liability for a month? I know it's an extreme case, but it sucks when you can't convince people to keep playing EVE for these reasons.
they can fly a covetor until there secondary skills are up to par. There are always other options for players. Hulk and Exumers are the end of the road mining ships. You are not supposed to fly them in a few weeks |
Hypercake Mix
Magical Rainbow Bakery
7
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 21:56:00 -
[2702] - Quote
MIrple wrote:they can fly a covetor until there secondary skills are up to par. There are always other options for players. Hulk and Exumers are the end of the road mining ships. You are not supposed to fly them in a few weeks It was an example of the past. |
Pipa Porto
614
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 22:05:00 -
[2703] - Quote
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:highsec mining is low reward, imo it deserves to be low risk. I feel like a small fitting increase and/or slight EHP buff would do, imo it is just silly that a hulk can die to a solo destroyer. okay okay tbh I don't really have much pity for people that don't train any core skills and fit 2 expanders and 2 cargo optimizers. but I just don't buy that the only viable highsec mining fit is nothing but buffer/fitting mods.
and yes a t3 with no tank (and/or gaping resist hole) can die to 1-2 tornado volleys rather easily, but their options for tanking are so much greater than on a hulk.
Then use the Skiff. It's lower yield (ISK Reward) than the Hulk, and lower cargo (Convenience Reward) than the Mackinaw. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
477
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 22:15:00 -
[2704] - Quote
Omg they surgically removed the best part of the OP. it isn't even a fairy tale any more. Of course I wasn't literally calling miners "pigs" it was an analogy!!! Now I want to blow my head off too, just like Jim Era. |
Hypercake Mix
Magical Rainbow Bakery
7
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 22:23:00 -
[2705] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Omg they surgically removed the best part of the OP. it isn't even a fairy tale any more. Of course I wasn't literally calling miners "pigs" it was an analogy!!! Now I want to blow my head off too, just like Jim Era. Hmm... the first post is kind of lacking now. |
Knight Cabbage
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
9
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 22:57:00 -
[2706] - Quote
Dave stark wrote: 3rd most profitable ore is a high sec ore. if high sec mining is low reward that just means mining is low reward. not really relevant but i thought it needed pointing out.
I doubt it would be smart to balance the mining ships around skewed minerals market. If ore in high is more profitable than in low/null then the economy needs a fix not the EHP of mining barges. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
352
|
Posted - 2012.08.02 23:01:00 -
[2707] - Quote
Knight Cabbage wrote:Dave stark wrote: 3rd most profitable ore is a high sec ore. if high sec mining is low reward that just means mining is low reward. not really relevant but i thought it needed pointing out.
I doubt it would be smart to balance the mining ships around skewed minerals market. If ore in high is more profitable than in low/null then the economy needs a fix not the EHP of mining barges.
even without a skewed mineral market, the different secs need looking at in regards to mining.
right now there's absolutely no reason to mine in low sec what so ever. the minerals in low sec are worth the least [granted more of an economy issue than anything else] however it's also the most dangerous. afaik low sec does not have industry indexes like the null sec systems so there's no guaranteed grav sites which are safer to mine in because they have to be scanned down, nor can you put bubbles on gates to give you extra time to get to safety when there's a +1 in local, nor do you have concord around to protect you.
in short low sec is a high risk practically bugger all reward place to mine and that needs looking at imo. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Ris Dnalor
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
403
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 01:00:00 -
[2708] - Quote
'CSM Meeting Minutes' wrote:Before moving on CCP Ytterbium asked if there were any concerns, and Two step did raise one: the HP of Barges. With Destroyers being buffed, Two step was worried that it would make Barges more vulnerable to small ships. Two step said that Tornados suiciding Barges was acceptable, but buffed Destroyers doing the same would be bad.
CCP Soundwave and CCP Ytterbium both agreed that an HP buff for Barges was well within reason.
CCP Soundwave: GÇ£I like suicide ganking, but I donGÇÖt like the risk-reward where it is now. You should be able to kill anyone anywhere, but not that cheap.GÇ¥
If you like it or don't like it you can thank Two Step for bringing it up https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=118961
EvE = Everybody Vs. Everybody
- Qolde |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
601
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 03:55:00 -
[2709] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Omg they surgically removed the best part of the OP. it isn't even a fairy tale any more. Of course I wasn't literally calling miners "pigs" it was an analogy!!! Now I want to blow my head off too, just like Jim Era.
GÇ£Is CCP trying to save stupid pigs from themselves?GÇ¥ We are attempting to give the pigs in question a chance to react and chose a path other that the one leading to the slaughterhouse. It doesnGÇÖt change the fact the slaughterhouse still exists, that there still a path to it, and that this path is very easy to fall into, even after the changes.
At least one last shred of magical fairy tale survived the fairy tale like purging of the ISD. And now to say something productive.
I kind of wish fitting options were discussed with the barges a bit perhaps. It seems they filled the roles nicely, maybe it won't be too bad though. I would almost prefere ike hybrid modules. A DCU that also gives ike 2-3% mining amount bonus. Sometimes you go full tank, and no one ganks, makes me feel dumb. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
159
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 04:05:00 -
[2710] - Quote
Dave stark wrote:Chainsaw Plankton wrote:highsec mining is low reward, imo it deserves to be low risk. I feel like a small fitting increase and/or slight EHP buff would do, imo it is just silly that a hulk can die to a solo destroyer. okay okay tbh I don't really have much pity for people that don't train any core skills and fit 2 expanders and 2 cargo optimizers. but I just don't buy that the only viable highsec mining fit is nothing but buffer/fitting mods.
and yes a t3 with no tank (and/or gaping resist hole) can die to 1-2 tornado volleys rather easily, but their options for tanking are so much greater than on a hulk. 3rd most profitable ore is a high sec ore. if high sec mining is low reward that just means mining is low reward. not really relevant but i thought it needed pointing out.
for now thanks to hulkageddon plus drone poo nerf, but that should correct itself once the barge buff goes live. and yes historically mining has been pretty awful. |
|
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
159
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 04:10:00 -
[2711] - Quote
Hypercake Mix wrote:Chainsaw Plankton wrote:okay okay tbh I don't really have much pity for people that don't train any core skills and fit 2 expanders and 2 cargo optimizers. A new player with a set interest in mining approaches your mining corp. Do you tell him that he needs to make a choice between being useless or being a liability for a month? I know it's an extreme case, but it sucks when you can't convince people to keep playing EVE for these reasons.
I'd accept them and pod them as my mining corp is just a front for killing noobs obviously
slightly more seriously: at the very least they can fly cheaper ships or fit a buffer, if they just straight up powered through the prereqs for a hulk. and if they said hey I'm 2 weeks old and can fly a battleship I wouldn't want them in my pvp corp either |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
601
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 04:21:00 -
[2712] - Quote
^ What about a new player, you want him to have core skills as well as mining skills, before he can mine with you.
You tell him to set skill queue for two months, with out playing the game.
Tell him to join later, and let him mine noobily and get ganked easily.
Tell him, yes this game does suck, and you should just skill queue and mostly chat. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
pussnheels
505
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 04:46:00 -
[2713] - Quote
some of you gankers really are acting as pathetic crybabies you are acting like this is the end of the universe , all because now you have to work a bit harder to gank your favorite victims Screaming loud that this is the end of all pvp and that it will crash the economy and promote AFK mining... bah bupkes i say
I am still waiting for a solid answer why people should not be allowed to AFK mine if they wanted to , none of you have answered that These changes doesn't only affect highsec mining , it will probably turn out to be a huge boost for low sec and especially null sec mining especially with the new skiff stats and anything that promotes more variation in how people play in nullsec is positive news for all
bet there will be still alot of people mining untanked even in the buffed up ships with a false sense of security So yes i do not even understand what the problem is besides you guys had your new toy tier 3 BC s last winter, now it is the miners turn or do you really think that this game is only about ganking exhumers some of you seems to think so I do not agree with what you are saying , but i will defend to the death your right to say it...... Voltaire |
Pipa Porto
617
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 05:06:00 -
[2714] - Quote
rodyas wrote:^ What about a new player, you want him to have core skills as well as mining skills, before he can mine with you.
You tell him to set skill queue for two months, with out playing the game.
Tell him to join later, and let him mine noobily and get ganked easily.
Tell him, yes this game does suck, and you should just skill queue and mostly chat.
Tell him "Grab a Procurer or Skiff while you train up for effective use of the Hulk"
You'll be able to get great EHP out of either a procurer or skiff without much more than Tactical Shield Manipulation 1.
Or grab the Ore Frigate.
Miners are the only group in EVE who seem to take it as a requirement for mining at all that you be perfectly efficient in maximizing your income. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Pipa Porto
617
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 05:11:00 -
[2715] - Quote
pussnheels wrote:I am still waiting for a solid answer why people should not be allowed to AFK mine if they wanted to , none of you have answered that
There is no reason at all why people should not be allowed to AFK mine if they want to. Luckily, nobody's disallowing them from AFK mining if they want to.
What's happening is that miners are unable to AFK mine safely, and that's simply because the game does not allow anyone to do anything with perfect safety, and being AFK means they have put themselves in a position where they are unable to react to mitigate or avoid threats to their safety, so those threats become easily realized, and BOOM.
The Miners seem to be unable to accept that EVE is not a safe place, so they get upset when their unattended, untanked, 300m piece of equipment gets blown up. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
601
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 05:26:00 -
[2716] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:rodyas wrote:^ What about a new player, you want him to have core skills as well as mining skills, before he can mine with you.
You tell him to set skill queue for two months, with out playing the game.
Tell him to join later, and let him mine noobily and get ganked easily.
Tell him, yes this game does suck, and you should just skill queue and mostly chat. Tell him "Grab a Procurer or Skiff while you train up for effective use of the Hulk" You'll be able to get great EHP out of either a procurer or skiff without much more than Tactical Shield Manipulation 1. Or grab the Ore Frigate. Miners are the only group in EVE who seem to take it as a requirement for mining at all that you be perfectly efficient in maximizing your income.
Yeah I forgot about the new mining barges. Mostly asked that question with the older barges in mind. I do see though, that the procurer would be a nice cocoon, for a new player to develop in. Much like a drake I suppose. Especially, with the mining yeild buff. Lots of armor and mining amount for a new player to have, while training other support skills. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Pipa Porto
618
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 06:45:00 -
[2717] - Quote
rodyas wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:rodyas wrote:^ What about a new player, you want him to have core skills as well as mining skills, before he can mine with you.
You tell him to set skill queue for two months, with out playing the game.
Tell him to join later, and let him mine noobily and get ganked easily.
Tell him, yes this game does suck, and you should just skill queue and mostly chat. Tell him "Grab a Procurer or Skiff while you train up for effective use of the Hulk" You'll be able to get great EHP out of either a procurer or skiff without much more than Tactical Shield Manipulation 1. Or grab the Ore Frigate. Miners are the only group in EVE who seem to take it as a requirement for mining at all that you be perfectly efficient in maximizing your income. Yeah I forgot about the new mining barges. Mostly asked that question with the older barges in mind. I do see though, that the procurer would be a nice cocoon, for a new player to develop in. Much like a drake I suppose. Especially, with the mining yeild buff. Lots of armor and mining amount for a new player to have, while training other support skills.
For the current TQ barges, suggest that they use the Retriever and teach them how to effectively pay attention to their surroundings/mine aligned. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
607
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 06:55:00 -
[2718] - Quote
Yeah, but I wouldn't teach them anything, I hate doing though. Otherwise it could be nice as well. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Bunolagus
NIPTO
8
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 09:36:00 -
[2719] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:[quote=pussnheels]The Miners seem to be unable to accept that EVE is not a safe place, so they get upset when their unattended, untanked, 300m piece of equipment gets blown up.
I was under the false impression that Hisec was highly secure. I was also under the impression that low sec had some kind of security and that null sec had none. |
Shalua Rui
FEROX AQUILA
106
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 09:39:00 -
[2720] - Quote
Bunolagus wrote:I was under the false impression that Hisec was highly secure. I was also under the impression that low sec had some kind of security and that null sec had none.
Yea, that was the plan, once... but then people came along who's soul purpous in the game was it, to find and exploit loopholes in that concept to prove they are "better" then CCP... in essence, even if said people would claim otherwise.^^ "I wish to have no Connection with any Ship that does not Sail fast for I intend to go in harm's way."
Captain John Paul Jones, 16 November 1778 |
|
Pipa Porto
619
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 09:42:00 -
[2721] - Quote
Bunolagus wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:[quote=pussnheels]The Miners seem to be unable to accept that EVE is not a safe place, so they get upset when their unattended, untanked, 300m piece of equipment gets blown up. I was under the false impression that Hisec was highly secure. I was also under the impression that low sec had some kind of security and that null sec had none.
High Sec has a high presence of security forces. High Security. They work just like the Police in the real world, only unimaginably faster and more efficiently. That is to say, they punish criminals by blowing up their ship, and there's no way to escape that punishment. In addition, CONCORD keeps a list of all laws broken, so transgressors end up Outlaw, subject to summary execution by their fellow capsuleers.
Lowsec has gate guns, limiting the types of engagements that can happen on gates and stations, and has the same sec status system as HS. It also has prohibitions on Titan DDs, Bubbles, and Bombs.
You're confusing "Security" and "Safety." EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
607
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 09:49:00 -
[2722] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:
High Sec has a high presence of security forces. High Security. They work just like the Police in the real world, only unimaginably faster and more efficiently. That is to say, they punish criminals by blowing up their ship, and there's no way to escape that punishment. In addition, CONCORD keeps a list of all laws broken, so transgressors end up Outlaw, subject to summary execution by their fellow capsuleers.
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. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Pipa Porto
619
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 10:12:00 -
[2723] - Quote
rodyas wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:
High Sec has a high presence of security forces. High Security. They work just like the Police in the real world, only unimaginably faster and more efficiently. That is to say, they punish criminals by blowing up their ship, and there's no way to escape that punishment. In addition, CONCORD keeps a list of all laws broken, so transgressors end up Outlaw, subject to summary execution by their fellow capsuleers.
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.
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? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Shalua Rui
FEROX AQUILA
106
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 10:18:00 -
[2724] - Quote
rodyas wrote: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.
While I don't wanna speculate on Pipa's intentions... yup, that's about it.
CCP made the game as open and free as possible, ok, but not only has lowsec been off limits for miners and haulers for years now, even highsec is becoming more and more hostile... where is our freedom in that? Might makes right? Hoo-tsuh! "I wish to have no Connection with any Ship that does not Sail fast for I intend to go in harm's way."
Captain John Paul Jones, 16 November 1778 |
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
681
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 10:22:00 -
[2725] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:rodyas wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:
High Sec has a high presence of security forces. High Security. They work just like the Police in the real world, only unimaginably faster and more efficiently. That is to say, they punish criminals by blowing up their ship, and there's no way to escape that punishment. In addition, CONCORD keeps a list of all laws broken, so transgressors end up Outlaw, subject to summary execution by their fellow capsuleers.
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. 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?
Hey I want my expensive PvP ships to be "safe" from miners "PvP", let's put all mineral prices at a zero value!
..more serious note, I can't understand why people seriously argue isk (one way or another). It's always been the fact in EVE that the more expensive ship you fly, the 'weaker' you get proportionally. Ask CCP why supercapitals are not balanced based on their cost, and they'll laugh at you. Ask any PvPer that fly a cheap ship killing an expensive and ask him why that is even possible. Miners seems to be under the impression that they are different somehow. Friendly tip, either tank your ship (like Pipa and many other suggested), or take other precautions, or.. how about flying you know, something disposable, like, say a Barge? How many hours of mining do you have to spend to make up for that Hulk loss anyway? The added income from the bigger yield has to take quite alot of hours to make it worth it to begin with.. shiptoastin' liek a baws |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
609
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 10:23:00 -
[2726] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:rodyas wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:
High Sec has a high presence of security forces. High Security. They work just like the Police in the real world, only unimaginably faster and more efficiently. That is to say, they punish criminals by blowing up their ship, and there's no way to escape that punishment. In addition, CONCORD keeps a list of all laws broken, so transgressors end up Outlaw, subject to summary execution by their fellow capsuleers.
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. 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?
Well yeah, CCP should add rear view mirrors, so we can watch you better. Also the tank stuff is alright, just that you don't always get ganked while you mine, so it feels sort of dumb, to always have a tank, if you never have to use it.
I almost don't mind that you gank miners, just was hoping to mine myself, so its a bit annoying. I know you guys have your own personal vendetta, but it just spills over into my game time. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
March rabbit
R.I.P. Legion Red Alliance
238
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 10:26:00 -
[2727] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Bunolagus wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:The Miners seem to be unable to accept that EVE is not a safe place, so they get upset when their unattended, untanked, 300m piece of equipment gets blown up. I was under the false impression that Hisec was highly secure. I was also under the impression that low sec had some kind of security and that null sec had none. High Sec has a high presence of security forces. High Security. They work just like the Police in the real world, only unimaginably faster and more efficiently. That is to say, they punish criminals by blowing up their ship, and there's no way to escape that punishment. In addition, CONCORD keeps a list of all laws broken, so transgressors end up Outlaw, subject to summary execution by their fellow capsuleers. yea. and when well known outlaw takes gun and goes into nearest bank police does nothing. outlaw shoots people, grabs money, gives stolen stuff to his buddy waiting around and then..... police takes outlaw gun, kicks his ass.... and outlaw buddy goes freely with stolen stuff - he did nothing offensive!
yea. this is how police works in RL for sure
|
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
609
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 10:32:00 -
[2728] - Quote
Misanth wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:rodyas wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:
High Sec has a high presence of security forces. High Security. They work just like the Police in the real world, only unimaginably faster and more efficiently. That is to say, they punish criminals by blowing up their ship, and there's no way to escape that punishment. In addition, CONCORD keeps a list of all laws broken, so transgressors end up Outlaw, subject to summary execution by their fellow capsuleers.
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. 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? Hey I want my expensive PvP ships to be "safe" from miners "PvP", let's put all mineral prices at a zero value! ..more serious note, I can't understand why people seriously argue isk (one way or another). It's always been the fact in EVE that the more expensive ship you fly, the 'weaker' you get proportionally. Ask CCP why supercapitals are not balanced based on their cost, and they'll laugh at you. Ask any PvPer that fly a cheap ship killing an expensive and ask him why that is even possible. Miners seems to be under the impression that they are different somehow. Friendly tip, either tank your ship (like Pipa and many other suggested), or take other precautions, or.. how about flying you know, something disposable, like, say a Barge? How many hours of mining do you have to spend to make up for that Hulk loss anyway? The added income from the bigger yield has to take quite alot of hours to make it worth it to begin with..
I thought you said isk didn't matter? why bring it up at the end? Well for the pvp side of things, skills, some players do bad fits, or they buy too expensive fits, with holes missing. I don't really fly the expensive tengu, but that does seem to mimic mining with a tank would save you. I just don't what the answer to the tengu problem is.
Pipa will tell us about the tengu and its weak tank. He doesn't like anyone to feel safe in hi sec, or at the log in screen. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Phill Esteen
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
109
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 10:34:00 -
[2729] - Quote
rodyas wrote:Pipa is just too angry as a ganker or pvper, to let us miners mine in peace. Why should you get to do anything in peace? GÇô postum faex est GÇô-á
never forget
|
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
609
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 10:36:00 -
[2730] - Quote
Because its enjoyable. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
|
Shalua Rui
FEROX AQUILA
110
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 10:51:00 -
[2731] - Quote
Turifica wrote:For a bad guy pirate type, you've got zero balls and zero imagination. You're problem isn't that its being rebalanced, its that you know you can't put together a group of ten people who would give you the ******* time of day, never mind listen to your pathetic drivel.
Yea, well, that's the breed of "pirates" that populate the game these days... every respectible outlaw will probably cringe in disgust. "I wish to have no Connection with any Ship that does not Sail fast for I intend to go in harm's way."
Captain John Paul Jones, 16 November 1778 |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
36
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 13:45:00 -
[2732] - Quote
rodyas wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:rodyas wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:
High Sec has a high presence of security forces. High Security. They work just like the Police in the real world, only unimaginably faster and more efficiently. That is to say, they punish criminals by blowing up their ship, and there's no way to escape that punishment. In addition, CONCORD keeps a list of all laws broken, so transgressors end up Outlaw, subject to summary execution by their fellow capsuleers.
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. 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? Well yeah, CCP should add rear view mirrors, so we can watch you better. Also the tank stuff is alright, just that you don't always get ganked while you mine, so it feels sort of dumb, to always have a tank, if you never have to use it. I almost don't mind that you gank miners, just was hoping to mine myself, so its a bit annoying. I know you guys have your own personal vendetta, but it just spills over into my game time.
Here is a real world example of what you just said. Every time you get into a car you put your seat belt on you never really need to wear it but that one time you get into an accident your glad as hell you had it on. |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
96
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 16:49:00 -
[2733] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:
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?
Emphasizing something important. Goonwaffe is now recruiting feel free to message me in game for information about joining! |
Hammer Borne
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
8
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 17:10:00 -
[2734] - Quote
rodyas wrote:Because its enjoyable.
How dare you attempt such blasphemy. |
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
549
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 18:07:00 -
[2735] - Quote
March rabbit wrote:yea. and when well known outlaw takes gun and goes into nearest bank police does nothing. outlaw shoots people, grabs money, gives stolen stuff to his buddy waiting around and then..... police takes outlaw gun, kicks his ass.... and outlaw buddy goes freely with stolen stuff - he did nothing offensive! yea. this is how police works in RL for sure
Ok... I've noticed that you have a bit of trouble separating REAL LIFE from a computer game set umpteen gazillion years in the future, where your consciousness can be stripped from your dying shell of a body and transported instantly a gazillion light years away, instantly.
I've got news for you, the game isn't balanced on Real Life...
Honestly, the more I read this thread, the more I'm tempted to drop corp and go rogue on all these idiots...
Ganking =/= Griefing, Blowing up Miners =/= Greifing, Blowing up Miners =/= "exploiting" anything.
Don't be stupid, fit a tank to your dam ship and don't be stupid. FFS, you guys are getting a dam free HP buff . . .
Interdict Hi-Sec - it's the only way to be sure... |
Pipa Porto
623
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 20:01:00 -
[2736] - Quote
rodyas wrote:Because its enjoyable.
EvE has a PvE server, you know. Where you can mine in peace and petition anyone who bothers you. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
baltec1
Bat Country
1794
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 20:07:00 -
[2737] - Quote
rodyas wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:
High Sec has a high presence of security forces. High Security. They work just like the Police in the real world, only unimaginably faster and more efficiently. That is to say, they punish criminals by blowing up their ship, and there's no way to escape that punishment. In addition, CONCORD keeps a list of all laws broken, so transgressors end up Outlaw, subject to summary execution by their fellow capsuleers.
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.
Can only make money when other people are stupid. |
Pipa Porto
623
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 20:13:00 -
[2738] - Quote
rodyas wrote:He doesn't like anyone to feel safe in hi sec, or at the log in screen.
Neither does CCP.
CCP Wrangler wrote:EVE is a dark and harsh world, you're supposed to feel a bit worried and slightly angry when you log in, you're not supposed to feel like you're logging in to a happy, happy, fluffy, fluffy lala land filled with fun and adventures, that's what hello kitty online is for.
If you want to mine in peace, on a server where you will not get ganked, CCP has very kindly made such a Server available to you. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Hypercake Mix
Magical Rainbow Bakery
7
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 21:02:00 -
[2739] - Quote
Uh oh... thread is running out of gas. Hmm...
Guess miners will now be PAYING gankers to get rid of other miners... and all those betrayal shenanigans too.
And... I just spoiled the surprise |
Bootleg Jack
Potters Field
219
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 21:05:00 -
[2740] - Quote
I always thought they were too light, I mean it is a ship filled with rocks, it should be kind of tough... I'm an American, English is my second language... |
|
Shalua Rui
FEROX AQUILA
127
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 21:08:00 -
[2741] - Quote
Hypercake Mix wrote:Uh oh... thread is running out of gas. Hmm... Guess miners will now be PAYING gankers to get rid of other miners... and all those betrayal shenanigans too. And... I just spoiled the surprise
You know what? THAT would be far better suited with the concepts of the game.. "I wish to have no Connection with any Ship that does not Sail fast for I intend to go in harm's way."
Captain John Paul Jones, 16 November 1778 |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
611
|
Posted - 2012.08.04 06:48:00 -
[2742] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:rodyas wrote:He doesn't like anyone to feel safe in hi sec, or at the log in screen. Neither does CCP. CCP Wrangler wrote:EVE is a dark and harsh world, you're supposed to feel a bit worried and slightly angry when you log in, you're not supposed to feel like you're logging in to a happy, happy, fluffy, fluffy lala land filled with fun and adventures, that's what hello kitty online is for. If you want to mine in peace, on a server where you will not get ganked, CCP has very kindly made such a Server available to you.
But come on admit, me just happily mining away, AFK watching youtube videos of other miners getting ganked, while I keep say "won't happen to me, life sure is good" just get a little too much. And you would come down and gank me? Me just happily afk mining away, playing minecraft, and having to avoid screechers more then ganks. Almost close to, with that last one, but I want to make isk. SISI isn't very good for it.
Why doesn't CCP make the login in screen and new intro to log in screen, much more scary then? Seems more, friendly, business oreintated and fun more then scary. Makes me wonder if rated-R movies can be made in iceland or not. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Pipa Porto
626
|
Posted - 2012.08.04 07:03:00 -
[2743] - Quote
rodyas wrote:But come on admit, me just happily mining away, AFK watching youtube videos of other miners getting ganked, while I keep say "won't happen to me, life sure is good" just get a little too much. And you would come down and gank me? Me just happily afk mining away, playing minecraft, and having to avoid screechers more then ganks. Almost close to, with that last one, but I want to make isk. SISI isn't very good for it.
Why doesn't CCP make the login in screen and new intro to log in screen, much more scary then? Seems more, friendly, business oreintated and fun more then scary. Makes me wonder if rated-R movies can be made in iceland or not.
You're complaining about getting hurt because you didn't prepare your ship to protect itself while you're off doing something completely different?
Again, nothing at all is stopping you from mining AFK. Gankers just make sure that doing so isn't particularly safe.
I find it telling that the only time miners complain that the Barges need a Buff (besides the constant "I want more Yield" guys), is when the gank tempo picks up. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
611
|
Posted - 2012.08.04 07:27:00 -
[2744] - Quote
Well I was over-reacting a bit. Some places in EVE are safe enough to suit my mining, so it propably won't even be a big deal.
The good news is I am playing with some of you pvper's dumb ideas. Not the more tank, but to go to more recluse places, and rely on a frieghter to make it economically feasible. If you can't tank, get more cargo room, apperently. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Pipa Porto
627
|
Posted - 2012.08.04 07:35:00 -
[2745] - Quote
rodyas wrote:Well I was over-reacting a bit. Some places in EVE are safe enough to suit my mining, so it propably won't even be a big deal.
The good news is I am playing with some of you pvper's dumb ideas. Not the more tank, but to go to more recluse places, and rely on a frieghter to make it economically feasible. If you can't tank, get more cargo room, apperently.
There's an old saying where I'm from: "If it's stupid, but it works, it aint stupid"
I gave some 17 suggestions in a list once. Some of them work fine for AFK mining. The ones that didn't mostly allowed for max yield. All of them worked, but required some sort of sacrifice. I got shouted down. Vigorously. By the Miners. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
611
|
Posted - 2012.08.04 07:48:00 -
[2746] - Quote
Well, I came up with a solution, that allows max yeild. Of course, I didn't start it with a quote, so touche.
Well some sacrifice, one of my alts, will have to be the frieghter, so both can't mine now. But perhaps I will save the ore in the station, till I am bored and naturally want to haul ore around. Maybe both pilots will be frieghters someday. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Pipa Porto
627
|
Posted - 2012.08.04 08:25:00 -
[2747] - Quote
rodyas wrote:Well, I came up with a solution, that allows max yeild. Of course, I didn't start it with a quote, so touche.
Well some sacrifice, one of my alts, will have to be the frieghter, so both can't mine now. But perhaps I will save the ore in the station, till I am bored and naturally want to haul ore around. Maybe both pilots will be frieghters someday.
Red Frog or Push. Or Scout some more to find an equally backwater system with a refinery station and get standings, then you'll just have to do one hauling run every 1-2b ISK of minerals you mine (ISK value of your freighter cargo depends entirely on your risk tolerance) or set up a courier every 1b.
I'm trying to help you refine () your solution. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Aurelius Valentius
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
159
|
Posted - 2012.08.04 08:27:00 -
[2748] - Quote
The avalanche has already started, it is too late for the pebbles to vote. To mine or not to mine... that is the quesiton. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
612
|
Posted - 2012.08.04 08:48:00 -
[2749] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:rodyas wrote:Well, I came up with a solution, that allows max yeild. Of course, I didn't start it with a quote, so touche.
Well some sacrifice, one of my alts, will have to be the frieghter, so both can't mine now. But perhaps I will save the ore in the station, till I am bored and naturally want to haul ore around. Maybe both pilots will be frieghters someday. Red Frog or Push. Or Scout some more to find an equally backwater system with a refinery station and get standings, then you'll just have to do one hauling run every 1-2b ISK of minerals you mine (ISK value of your freighter cargo depends entirely on your risk tolerance) or set up a courier every 1b. I'm trying to help you refine ( ) your solution.
Sorry, but I lose ISK paying others to haul for me, though if I something better else to do, I would be tempted to. The 1-2 billion, could work, since I don't have more accounts. Kind of had a small hope, you pvpers would convince CCP to add more fitting options to freighters, as it stands now I will be forced to AFK haul or something. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
694
|
Posted - 2012.08.04 08:55:00 -
[2750] - Quote
rodyas wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:rodyas wrote:Well, I came up with a solution, that allows max yeild. Of course, I didn't start it with a quote, so touche.
Well some sacrifice, one of my alts, will have to be the frieghter, so both can't mine now. But perhaps I will save the ore in the station, till I am bored and naturally want to haul ore around. Maybe both pilots will be frieghters someday. Red Frog or Push. Or Scout some more to find an equally backwater system with a refinery station and get standings, then you'll just have to do one hauling run every 1-2b ISK of minerals you mine (ISK value of your freighter cargo depends entirely on your risk tolerance) or set up a courier every 1b. I'm trying to help you refine ( ) your solution. Sorry, but I lose ISK paying others to haul for me, though if I something better else to do, I would be tempted to. The 1-2 billion, could work, since I don't have more accounts. Kind of had a small hope, you pvpers would convince CCP to add more fitting options to freighters, as it stands now I will be forced to AFK haul or something.
Back in the day people used to mine in groups, help eachother haul, sell, maximize profits. There was even alot of apps for the IGB, where these groups could calculate how much part of the profits each of them would get.
Hell, even self-proclaimed PvP pilots like me, used to occationally haul or protect the guys in corp who were interested in mining. I even got my first battlecruiser built because I hauled for a guy in lowsec. But nowadays miners just want everything served on a silver platter and do it solo. Just like missionrunners. Not like when we used to do corp-ops in lv4 (and even having people dying, before lv4's were nerfed).
This game has watered out, people don't want to interact or co-operate: other than in PvP, where blobs are dominating. Nice 'evolution' there. AFK-cloaking in a system near you. |
|
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
612
|
Posted - 2012.08.04 09:03:00 -
[2751] - Quote
All I read there, was a story of man who got tired of life, and wanted to quit.
I like being versatile, working in a group is nice, but its hard to find others with common goals. Usually everyone has things they would rather do, and go seperate ways. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Pipa Porto
628
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 00:08:00 -
[2752] - Quote
rodyas wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:rodyas wrote:Well, I came up with a solution, that allows max yeild. Of course, I didn't start it with a quote, so touche.
Well some sacrifice, one of my alts, will have to be the frieghter, so both can't mine now. But perhaps I will save the ore in the station, till I am bored and naturally want to haul ore around. Maybe both pilots will be frieghters someday. Red Frog or Push. Or Scout some more to find an equally backwater system with a refinery station and get standings, then you'll just have to do one hauling run every 1-2b ISK of minerals you mine (ISK value of your freighter cargo depends entirely on your risk tolerance) or set up a courier every 1b. I'm trying to help you refine ( ) your solution. Sorry, but I lose ISK paying others to haul for me, though if I something better else to do, I would be tempted to. The 1-2 billion, could work, since I don't have more accounts. Kind of had a small hope, you pvpers would convince CCP to add more fitting options to freighters, as it stands now I will be forced to AFK haul or something.
How long does it take to run a Freighter to Jita? During that time, you can be mining more. So most likely, if you can make more than ~3-4m an hour mining, you'll be better off hiring someone else to do it. Also, you don't have to invest in a 1.4b ISK ship.
Just like Minerals you mine aren't free, time you spend isn't free. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
615
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 03:42:00 -
[2753] - Quote
But blowing ISK on overblown ships is what this game is about though. :(
Why go to jita, lots of other market places up.
I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1714
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 05:37:00 -
[2754] - Quote
Hypercake Mix wrote:Guess miners will now be PAYING gankers to get rid of other miners... and all those betrayal shenanigans too.
A few of the industrialists I know donated something to Hulkageddon over the years. Hulkageddon is good for business.
Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Beekeeper Bob
Beekeepers Anonymous
214
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 10:03:00 -
[2755] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:rodyas wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:rodyas wrote:Well, I came up with a solution, that allows max yeild. Of course, I didn't start it with a quote, so touche.
Well some sacrifice, one of my alts, will have to be the frieghter, so both can't mine now. But perhaps I will save the ore in the station, till I am bored and naturally want to haul ore around. Maybe both pilots will be frieghters someday. Red Frog or Push. Or Scout some more to find an equally backwater system with a refinery station and get standings, then you'll just have to do one hauling run every 1-2b ISK of minerals you mine (ISK value of your freighter cargo depends entirely on your risk tolerance) or set up a courier every 1b. I'm trying to help you refine ( ) your solution. Sorry, but I lose ISK paying others to haul for me, though if I something better else to do, I would be tempted to. The 1-2 billion, could work, since I don't have more accounts. Kind of had a small hope, you pvpers would convince CCP to add more fitting options to freighters, as it stands now I will be forced to AFK haul or something. How long does it take to run a Freighter to Jita? During that time, you can be mining more. So most likely, if you can make more than ~3-4m an hour mining, you'll be better off hiring someone else to do it. Also, you don't have to invest in a 1.4b ISK ship. Just like Minerals you mine aren't free, time you spend isn't free.
Attempting to keep this thread alive single-handedly? Face it, you simply want easy mode ganking noobs, and your bent over the fact that you can't have that anymore.... Go learn to fight real ships, it's much more entertaining.
"CCP, is a cutting edge developer, they have found a way to sell lag to their customers, and make them believe it's a feature." |
Shalua Rui
FEROX AQUILA
208
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 11:40:00 -
[2756] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:So whats the verdict on the final Exhumer stats?
Sure looks like a nice bait and switch. Greyscales' balancing adjustments seemed to go out the window and they more or less just went with the original iteration....
Personally, I'm quite happy with them... can't wait 'till Wednesday.^^ "I wish to have no Connection with any Ship that does not Sail fast for I intend to go in harm's way."
Captain John Paul Jones, 16 November 1778 |
Arkturus McFadden
Sonoran Shadow Black Mesa Complex
173
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 11:43:00 -
[2757] - Quote
You know, I sometimes get the views and likes column mixed up on these forums. I truthfully thought it said this thread had 28k + of likes. It baffled me until I looked twice!
Oh and also, I think it'll be awesome for mining barges to sit there and laugh as they traverse low sec in giant herds. It'll be fun shooting them too. |
Dave stark
Bombardier Inc
360
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 12:10:00 -
[2758] - Quote
Arkturus McFadden wrote:You know, I sometimes get the views and likes column mixed up on these forums. I truthfully thought it said this thread had 28k + of likes. It baffled me until I looked twice!
Oh and also, I think it'll be awesome for mining barges to sit there and laugh as they traverse low sec in giant herds. It'll be fun shooting them too.
why would any one go to low sec in a mining ship? there's nothing there worth mining. Reading my posts is like panning for gold; most it will be useless, but occasionally you'll find a nugget of gold. |
Blastcaps Madullier
Celestial Horizon Corp. Ethereal Dawn
76
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 15:29:00 -
[2759] - Quote
Hypercake Mix wrote:Uh oh... thread is running out of gas. Hmm... Guess miners will now be PAYING gankers to get rid of other miners... and all those betrayal shenanigans too. And... I just spoiled the surprise
nope you are however going to see a lot more ganking as the gankers rework the isk/ vs potential drops/salvage worth of ganked barge to worth out what point it becomes economical again to gank mining barges, something in the CSM minutes iirc was CCP soundwave said was not intended, ganking is not supposed to be profitable though thats debatable/arguable with regards to trade hubs, but mining barges were not supposed to be profitable bar player bounties placed on them. |
Pipa Porto
631
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 18:47:00 -
[2760] - Quote
Beekeeper Bob wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:rodyas wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:rodyas wrote:Well, I came up with a solution, that allows max yeild. Of course, I didn't start it with a quote, so touche.
Well some sacrifice, one of my alts, will have to be the frieghter, so both can't mine now. But perhaps I will save the ore in the station, till I am bored and naturally want to haul ore around. Maybe both pilots will be frieghters someday. Red Frog or Push. Or Scout some more to find an equally backwater system with a refinery station and get standings, then you'll just have to do one hauling run every 1-2b ISK of minerals you mine (ISK value of your freighter cargo depends entirely on your risk tolerance) or set up a courier every 1b. I'm trying to help you refine ( ) your solution. Sorry, but I lose ISK paying others to haul for me, though if I something better else to do, I would be tempted to. The 1-2 billion, could work, since I don't have more accounts. Kind of had a small hope, you pvpers would convince CCP to add more fitting options to freighters, as it stands now I will be forced to AFK haul or something. How long does it take to run a Freighter to Jita? During that time, you can be mining more. So most likely, if you can make more than ~3-4m an hour mining, you'll be better off hiring someone else to do it. Also, you don't have to invest in a 1.4b ISK ship. Just like Minerals you mine aren't free, time you spend isn't free. Attempting to keep this thread alive single-handedly? Face it, you simply want easy mode ganking noobs, and your bent over the fact that you can't have that anymore.... Go learn to fight real ships, it's much more entertaining.
That was me trying to help Rodyas refine his method of avoiding Suicide Ganks. Good job with the reading. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
|
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
484
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 19:58:00 -
[2761] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote: That was me trying to help Rodyas refine his method of avoiding Suicide Ganks. Good job with the reading.
The sad part? All this hard work we did, separating the idiots from the clever miners is going right out the window. Some of them were actually learning to make their Exhumers gank-resistant and raking in record ISK.
But now? All those hard choices? Gone.
Now its 'gee, how much EHP can I squeeze out of this Max-Yield fit?
Balancing Yield with Cargo and EHP? Nope, too hard for miners. CCP says: we are sick of listening to your whines when you gamble and lose, so we are making those decisions for you.
So CCP makes all miners 'winners' - and crush your income into the mud, as they balance around the lowest common denominator, and AFK mining, 50K EHP Mackinaws flood the zone. |
Shukuzen Kiraa
Neurodyne
197
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 20:02:00 -
[2762] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Pipa Porto wrote: That was me trying to help Rodyas refine his method of avoiding Suicide Ganks. Good job with the reading.
The sad part? All this hard work we did, separating the idiots from the clever miners is going right out the window. Some of them were actually learning to make their Exhumers gank-resistant and raking in record ISK. But now? All those hard choices? Gone. Now its 'gee, how much EHP can I squeeze out of this Max-Yield fit? Balancing Yield with Cargo and EHP? Nope, too hard for miners. CCP says: we are sick of listening to your whines when you gamble and lose, so we are making those decisions for you. So CCP makes all miners 'winners' - and crush your income into the mud, as they balance around the lowest common denominator, and AFK mining, 50K EHP Mackinaws flood the zone.
So round up a couple more guys and kill them some more....damn man if you spent any time at all thinking of ways to adapt to the changes instead of all of your time whining about them you would see that you're still going to be able to kill the ones who don't bother tanking easily enough. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
485
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 20:23:00 -
[2763] - Quote
Shukuzen Kiraa wrote:
So round up a couple more guys and kill them some more....damn man if you spent any time at all thinking of ways to adapt to the changes instead of all of your time whining about them you would see that you're still going to be able to kill the ones who don't bother tanking easily enough. And give me a break "all the hard work we did" Dude... suicide ganking untanked afk miners and bots is just about the furthest you can get from hard work. Adapt or quit, I prefer you quit. Not gonna ask for your stuff though...all your tears have soaked into everything you own and ruined them.
Its called, "providing consequences" for botting and AFK mining.
And yes, training miners to tank is very hard work.
They are very slow learners. It often takes 4 or 5 kills on the same miner before they figure it out. |
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
597
|
Posted - 2012.08.05 21:48:00 -
[2764] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:[...]
Balancing Yield with Cargo and EHP? Nope, too hard for miners. CCP says: we are sick of listening to your whines when you gamble and lose, so we are making those decisions for you.
[...]
^^That^^ is the real problem here.
If I may say so myself, I think my sig. pretty much covers it.
Meta-gaming for carebears:
Whine on the forums like a little ***** until CCP gets sick of you and hands you everything you ask for just to shut you up. |
GetSirrus
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
9
|
Posted - 2012.08.06 01:08:00 -
[2765] - Quote
Let me pose a Hypothetical for you OP:
What is your future in Eve if CCP removed all ORE faction vessels from the game? |
Pipa Porto
633
|
Posted - 2012.08.06 01:11:00 -
[2766] - Quote
GetSirrus wrote:Let me pose a Hypothetical for you OP:
What is your future in Eve if CCP removed all ORE faction vessels from the game?
Welcome to EVE 2004, where Mining is one of the more profitable pastimes in EVE.
Also, who's proposing that? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Shukuzen Kiraa
Neurodyne
198
|
Posted - 2012.08.06 02:11:00 -
[2767] - Quote
Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:[...]
Balancing Yield with Cargo and EHP? Nope, too hard for miners. CCP says: we are sick of listening to your whines when you gamble and lose, so we are making those decisions for you.
[...]
^^That^^ is the real problem here. If I may say so myself, I think my sig. pretty much covers it.
I don't think CCP did it because people whined...otherwise griefers would be getting everything they want and then some since its all they do. They are rebalancing ALL ship classes...it was simply the barges turn. When a combat ship gets buffed next and people think its over powered....you all will have nothing to say other then "deal with it"
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1240
|
Posted - 2012.08.06 02:22:00 -
[2768] - Quote
Shukuzen Kiraa wrote:I don't think CCP did it because people whined...otherwise griefers would be getting everything they want and then some since its all they do. They are rebalancing ALL ship classes...it was simply the barges turn. When a combat ship gets buffed next and people think its over powered....you all will have nothing to say other then "deal with it" Now if the buffed ship is somehow able to now go about ganking ~profitably~. Like, you know, the Catalyst buff. Maybe some Amarr BC will become the top ganking ship (with lazerzzzz)
Then they can whine.
Or, you know, ~certain blobbers~ might make fleets of the ship and soon the world degenerates into blobs of ~that one ship~. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1240
|
Posted - 2012.08.06 02:25:00 -
[2769] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Balancing Yield with Cargo and EHP? Nope, too hard for miners. CCP says: we are sick of listening to your whines when you gamble and lose, so we are making those decisions for you. Oh that's a pity.
Now people won't be cargohold expanding their hulk, but they can still try to cram in the MLUs and use the rig slots for overclocks, right? Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
615
|
Posted - 2012.08.06 04:02:00 -
[2770] - Quote
Beekeeper Bob wrote:Attempting to keep this thread alive single-handedly? Face it, you simply want easy mode ganking noobs, and your bent over the fact that you can't have that anymore.... Go learn to fight real ships, it's much more entertaining.
Well for good reason too. The OP came back and started discussin real issues. Was just being a good custodian.
Yeah the hulk stats look a bit weak really. Guess I shouldn't be surprised though. I fly gallente, and shouldn't have expected more then the gallente buff.
That said, it does depend on remote locations and how often they come for ganks. Gonna take me a while to get a final decision made. Just won't be risking a hulk until I see how things pan out. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
132
|
Posted - 2012.08.06 04:22:00 -
[2771] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Now if the buffed ship is somehow able to now go about ganking ~profitably~. Like, you know, the Catalyst buff. Maybe some Amarr BC will become the top ganking ship (with lazerzzzz)
In case you didn't know Amarr ships are only good for showing off (statue shooting and such).
Alavaria Fera wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:Balancing Yield with Cargo and EHP? Nope, too hard for miners. CCP says: we are sick of listening to your whines when you gamble and lose, so we are making those decisions for you. Oh that's a pity. Now people won't be cargohold expanding their hulk, but they can still try to cram in the MLUs and use the rig slots for overclocks, right?
In case you didn't know some of the tank setups require ACR rig. |
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
601
|
Posted - 2012.08.06 04:24:00 -
[2772] - Quote
Shukuzen Kiraa wrote:Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:[...]
Balancing Yield with Cargo and EHP? Nope, too hard for miners. CCP says: we are sick of listening to your whines when you gamble and lose, so we are making those decisions for you.
[...]
^^That^^ is the real problem here. If I may say so myself, I think my sig. pretty much covers it. I don't think CCP did it because people whined...otherwise griefers would be getting everything they want and then some since its all they do. They are rebalancing ALL ship classes...it was simply the barges turn. When a combat ship gets buffed next and people think its over powered....you all will have nothing to say other then "deal with it"
You might have convinced me there (<---Sarcasm, OK? Sarcasm!)...Might have, except for one thing:
The so-called "griefers" (Read the EULA, OK? It's not griefing, it's 100% legitimate gameplay in an open-world sandbox built entirely around non-consensual competition at all levels of gameplay) have been taking nerf after nerf after nerf in just my 3.5 years playing, with no sign of let-up anytime soon, with no corresponding buffs.
With possibly, if CCPGreyscale's utter pants-on-head drug-dream of a proposal during the CSM Summit is to be believed, even worse to come.
So where's the balance?
Or, Satan forbid new content, especially exclusive to losec? Because what we have, its age is starting to show, to put it mildly. Meta-gaming for carebears:
Whine on the forums like a little ***** until CCP gets sick of you and hands you everything you ask for just to shut you up. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
615
|
Posted - 2012.08.06 04:26:00 -
[2773] - Quote
And now you are being griefed. Or have been griefed for the last 3.5 years. I don't know why you are complaining, escpecially since the EULA allows you "griefers" to be griefed. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
601
|
Posted - 2012.08.06 04:31:00 -
[2774] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:
[...] Maybe some Amarr BC will become the top ganking ship (with lazerzzzz)
Then they can whine.
Or, you know, ~certain blobbers~ might make fleets of the ship and soon the world degenerates into blobs of ~that one ship~.
My testing has shown that the tank-fit barges will be weakest to Kinetics, though, secondary Explosive, at least for the Tech I barges. (Assuming 2x EM, 1x Thermic resist rig plus Invuln and DCU II)
Sui-Manticore and/or -Hound gank-squad, X up! Meta-gaming for carebears:
Whine on the forums like a little ***** until CCP gets sick of you and hands you everything you ask for just to shut you up. |
Soundwave Plays Diablo
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
76
|
Posted - 2012.08.06 04:34:00 -
[2775] - Quote
Shalua Rui wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:So whats the verdict on the final Exhumer stats?
Sure looks like a nice bait and switch. Greyscales' balancing adjustments seemed to go out the window and they more or less just went with the original iteration.... Personally, I'm quite happy with them... can't wait 'till Wednesday.^^
WTF? I thought this was going in the winter expansion? Its a couple months late for this expansion?
Really? Its an INFERNO update?
Am I missing something?
|
Pipa Porto
633
|
Posted - 2012.08.06 04:37:00 -
[2776] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:Now if the buffed ship is somehow able to now go about ganking ~profitably~. Like, you know, the Catalyst buff. Maybe some Amarr BC will become the top ganking ship (with lazerzzzz) In case you didn't know Amarr ships are only good for showing off (statue shooting and such).
Nope.
Quote:Alavaria Fera wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:Balancing Yield with Cargo and EHP? Nope, too hard for miners. CCP says: we are sick of listening to your whines when you gamble and lose, so we are making those decisions for you. Oh that's a pity. Now people won't be cargohold expanding their hulk, but they can still try to cram in the MLUs and use the rig slots for overclocks, right? In case you didn't know some of the tank setups require ACR rig.
So? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
601
|
Posted - 2012.08.06 04:41:00 -
[2777] - Quote
rodyas wrote:And now you are being griefed. Or have been griefed for the last 3.5 years. I don't know why you are complaining, escpecially since the EULA allows you "griefers" to be griefed.
Except that I'm not complaining that I'm being griefed.
I have never once been griefed in this game, nor have I done so to anyone else, nor would I.
Guess what?
Neither have you, unless you can prove that someone is following/harassing you on an extended basis solely for malicious enjoyment, or if an experienced player tried to can-/wreck-bait you in a starter system when you were new.
These are griefing as CCP defines it, and can get a person banned.
What is so hard about this?
The "less-savoury" aspects of EVE play-styles are not griefing, and never were.
Kindly take your other-MMO-informed preconceptions, and put them somewhere far away from this one, please, EVE =/= WoW and clones, nor will it ever.
Next! Meta-gaming for carebears:
Whine on the forums like a little ***** until CCP gets sick of you and hands you everything you ask for just to shut you up. |
Soundwave Plays Diablo
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
76
|
Posted - 2012.08.06 04:52:00 -
[2778] - Quote
Quote:escpecially since the EULA allows you "griefers" to be griefed.
Lets face it, anyone who has both read the EULA AND played the game knows...
1. "Grief Play" is a banable offense. 2. It is at CCP's discretion. 3. CCP bans no one for "grief play"
That being said, eventually there will be a harassment lawsuit because of said policy. While grief play is tolerated, harassment is illegal in most halfway decent places.
|
Lilianna Star
State War Academy Caldari State
21
|
Posted - 2012.08.06 04:53:00 -
[2779] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:[quote=Pipa Porto] The sad part? All this hard work we did, separating the idiots from the clever miners is going right out the window. Some of them were actually learning to make their Exhumers gank-resistant and raking in record ISK. But now? All those hard choices? Gone. Now its 'gee, how much EHP can I squeeze out of this Max-Yield fit? Balancing Yield with Cargo and EHP? Nope, too hard for miners. CCP says: we are sick of listening to your whines when you gamble and lose, so we are making those decisions for you. So CCP makes all miners 'winners' - and crush your income into the mud, as they balance around the lowest common denominator, and AFK mining, 50K EHP Mackinaws flood the zone.
The entire basis for your argument seems to be that they shouldn't be designing mining in high security around the brainless people.
My question is: Why is this a problem? |
Soundwave Plays Diablo
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
76
|
Posted - 2012.08.06 05:12:00 -
[2780] - Quote
Lilianna Star wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:[quote=Pipa Porto] The sad part? All this hard work we did, separating the idiots from the clever miners is going right out the window. Some of them were actually learning to make their Exhumers gank-resistant and raking in record ISK. But now? All those hard choices? Gone. Now its 'gee, how much EHP can I squeeze out of this Max-Yield fit? Balancing Yield with Cargo and EHP? Nope, too hard for miners. CCP says: we are sick of listening to your whines when you gamble and lose, so we are making those decisions for you. So CCP makes all miners 'winners' - and crush your income into the mud, as they balance around the lowest common denominator, and AFK mining, 50K EHP Mackinaws flood the zone. The entire basis for your argument seems to be that they shouldn't be designing mining in high security around the brainless people. My question is: Why is this a problem?
What brainless people?
The only brainless people I have seen in this thread are the ones that think there is some amount of tank one can put on a ship to block any amount of alpha, even though Titans are not even that powerful.
|
|
Lilianna Star
State War Academy Caldari State
21
|
Posted - 2012.08.06 05:15:00 -
[2781] - Quote
Soundwave Plays Diablo wrote:
What brainless people?
The only brainless people I have seen in this thread are the ones that think there is some amount of tank one can put on a ship to block any amount of alpha, even though Titans are not even that powerful.
I don't think anyone is that stupid.
Tank fits are to deter gankers by increasing the cost of said gank. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
615
|
Posted - 2012.08.06 05:25:00 -
[2782] - Quote
Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:rodyas wrote:And now you are being griefed. Or have been griefed for the last 3.5 years. I don't know why you are complaining, escpecially since the EULA allows you "griefers" to be griefed. Except that I'm not complaining that I'm being griefed. I have never once been griefed in this game, nor have I done so to anyone else, nor would I. Guess what? Neither have you, unless you can prove that someone is following/harassing you on an extended basis solely for malicious enjoyment, or if an experienced player tried to can-/wreck-bait you in a starter system when you were new. These are griefing as CCP defines it, and can get a person banned. What is so hard about this? The "less-savoury" aspects of EVE play-styles are not griefing, and never were. Kindly take your other-MMO-informed preconceptions, and put them somewhere far away from this one, please, EVE =/= WoW and clones, nor will it ever. Next!
Oh it does seem like we have a vocabulary problem. How smart of you to see it and call it out.
Hm, will be hard to say it now. Lets see, I was equating griefing to ganking, to CCP ignoring you and not buffing you at all.
So in a way CCP has been ganking you for 3.5 years. Just how hard it sounded, made me think of griefing, but in the legal sense it is not. So welcome to CCP ignoring you for the next 3.5 years, since that is the EULA at work. (and they are not griefing you) I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
601
|
Posted - 2012.08.06 05:47:00 -
[2783] - Quote
rodyas wrote:
Oh it does seem like we have a vocabulary problem. How smart of you to see it and call it out.
Hm, will be hard to say it now. Lets see, I was equating griefing to ganking, so CCP ganking you when they ignored you and not buffed you at all.
So in a way CCP has been ganking you for 3.5 years. Just how hard it sounded, made me think of griefing, but in the legal sense it is not. So welcome to CCP ignoring you for the next 3.5 years, since that is the EULA at work. (and they are not griefing you)
Except that ganking isn't griefing.
CCP defines what griefing is, and they have never said "suicide ganking = griefing," in fact just the opposite somewhere, IIRC.
And no, CCP isn't "griefing" us the way you put it, because we will adapt, after some grumbling. That's what proper MMOG sandbox players do. Because, you know, EVE Is Hard (TM), and that's what makes it good.
Except that you lot have just had an easy-button handed to you, which I thought CCP was dealing with (ref.: Blap-Titans nerf, logoff-under-aggro mechanics)?
Something you lot utterly refuse to do, unless you count this now year-plus old Whinge-Baby Jihad(TM) as "adapting." (Hint: It's not.)
As for the gankers?
Bring Kinetics. Lots of it!
E:
Oh, much longer than that, 3.5 years-plus is just my time in EVE.
Long before my time, you could tank, fight, and destroy CONCORD, although I think that they'd finish you eventually, and escape them through a BLOPs portal (as you can BLOPs bridge from hisec just fine, just not into it.) before CCP hard-coded that out.
It sounds to me like you would have really had something to whinge about then, bru. Meta-gaming for carebears:
Whine on the forums like a little ***** until CCP gets sick of you and hands you everything you ask for just to shut you up. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
132
|
Posted - 2012.08.06 05:51:00 -
[2784] - Quote
Why Amarr ships were only seen in comedy setups in ATX matches? Every time I see Amarr ship used in large fleets they are shooting their own drones and use 8 different crystals or they are shooting structures (mostly statues).
"Fitting mods and rigs are very bad idea!" |
Pipa Porto
633
|
Posted - 2012.08.06 05:55:00 -
[2785] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Why Amarr ships were only seen in comedy setups in ATX matches? Every time I see Amarr ship used in large fleets they are shooting their own drones and use 8 different crystals or they are shooting structures (mostly statues). "Fitting mods and rigs are very bad idea!"
Because the AT is a realistic representation of the rest of EVE, which is why you can never have more than one Logistics ship in a fleet normally. Of course.
Hellcats, Slowcats, AHAX. What do these all have in common? They're primarily Amarr fleet comps.
Where did I say fitting mods and rigs are a bad idea? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
615
|
Posted - 2012.08.06 06:00:00 -
[2786] - Quote
Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:rodyas wrote:
Oh it does seem like we have a vocabulary problem. How smart of you to see it and call it out.
Hm, will be hard to say it now. Lets see, I was equating griefing to ganking, so CCP ganking you when they ignored you and not buffed you at all.
So in a way CCP has been ganking you for 3.5 years. Just how hard it sounded, made me think of griefing, but in the legal sense it is not. So welcome to CCP ignoring you for the next 3.5 years, since that is the EULA at work. (and they are not griefing you)
Except that ganking isn't griefing. CCP defines what griefing is, and they have never said "suicide ganking = griefing," in fact just the opposite somewhere, IIRC. And no, CCP isn't "griefing" us the way you put it, because we will adapt, after some grumbling. That's what proper MMOG sandbox players do. Because, you know, EVE Is Hard (TM), and that's what makes it good. Except that you lot have just had an easy-button handed to you, which I thought CCP was dealing with (ref.: Blap-Titans nerf, logoff-under-aggro mechanics)? Something you lot utterly refuse to do, unless you count this now year-plus old Whinge-Baby Jihad(TM) as "adapting." (Hint: It's not.) As for the gankers? Bring Kinetics. Lots of it! E: Oh, much longer than that, 3.5 years-plus is just my time in EVE. Long before my time --so grandma tells me, anyway -- you could tank, fight, and destroy CONCORD, although I think that they'd finish you eventually, and escape them through a BLOPs portal (as you can BLOPs bridge from hisec just fine, just not into it.) before CCP hard-coded that out. It sounds to me like you would have really had something to whinge about then, bru.
eh, I 'll take it. The mining barge buff. Sounds better then what you have to do.
Also us just agreeing on vocabulary mistakes, doesn't makes us brus. That takes time, effort, and alot of AFK mining together to make us brus. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
132
|
Posted - 2012.08.06 06:02:00 -
[2787] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Hellcats
Maels...
Ishtars and armor Lokis... |
Pipa Porto
633
|
Posted - 2012.08.06 06:08:00 -
[2788] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Hellcats Maels... Ishtars and armor Lokis...
Ah, no. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Blastcaps Madullier
Celestial Horizon Corp. Ethereal Dawn
79
|
Posted - 2012.08.06 15:13:00 -
[2789] - Quote
Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:have been taking nerf after nerf after nerf in just my 3.5 years playing, with no sign of let-up anytime soon, with no corresponding buffs. *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? :) |
baltec1
Bat Country
1815
|
Posted - 2012.08.06 15:14:00 -
[2790] - Quote
Blastcaps Madullier wrote:Tarryn Nightstorm wrote:have been taking nerf after nerf after nerf in just my 3.5 years playing, with no sign of let-up anytime soon, with no corresponding buffs. *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? :)
Shh, dont show him how adaptable we are. |
|
Blastcaps Madullier
Celestial Horizon Corp. Ethereal Dawn
79
|
Posted - 2012.08.06 15:15:00 -
[2791] - Quote
Lilianna Star wrote:Soundwave Plays Diablo wrote:
What brainless people?
The only brainless people I have seen in this thread are the ones that think there is some amount of tank one can put on a ship to block any amount of alpha, even though Titans are not even that powerful.
I don't think anyone is that stupid. Tank fits are to deter gankers by increasing the cost of said gank.
Though on occasions they wont care about profit and go for a straight up gank "for fun" like using a Tier 3 BC to burn down a hulk |
Alexzandvar Douglass
NUTS AND BOLTS MANUFACTURING En Garde
68
|
Posted - 2012.08.06 15:23:00 -
[2792] - Quote
Ugh, this thread is just a whole load of Derp.
Mineral Prices in High Sec =/= Prices in Null Sec.
Ganking =/= profit killing
Not to mention people who AFK mined before will AFK mine after this. Bots botted before this and will after.
And the sky will be blue, grass will grow, and life will go on. |
NEONOVUS
Perkone Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2012.08.06 15:52:00 -
[2793] - Quote
So why is all the focus on the t2 ships? Is it that the t1s are not worried about or something? Also from the gankers camp this is my feeling http://i1246.photobucket.com/albums/gg602/NEONOVUS/1343600928428.jpg |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
486
|
Posted - 2012.08.06 16:06:00 -
[2794] - Quote
Alexzandvar Douglass wrote:Ugh, this thread is just a whole load of Derp.
Mineral Prices in High Sec =/= Prices in Null Sec.
Ganking =/= profit killing
Not to mention people who AFK mined before will AFK mine after this. Bots botted before this and will after.
And the sky will be blue, grass will grow, and life will go on.
Aside from your multiple factual errors, you are missing the point.
Ganking was a method - the only method - of punishing players for botting and AFKing in highsec. This threat - the ONLY threat - miners faced is now getting a major nerf.
Result, bots and AFKers with have it easier than ever. Some (rich) gankers may continue, but many cannot afford to throw away hundreds of millions for a single popped barge. And almost nobody ganks targets if it costs more in hulls to kill than the target is worth.
As it is, ice botters just shrug and buy a new Mack. Now they won't even have to do that. And seeing as how Screegs has gone back into hibernation....there will be no way to combat them outside of the petition process. |
Alexzandvar Douglass
NUTS AND BOLTS MANUFACTURING En Garde
71
|
Posted - 2012.08.06 16:11:00 -
[2795] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Alexzandvar Douglass wrote:Ugh, this thread is just a whole load of Derp.
Mineral Prices in High Sec =/= Prices in Null Sec.
Ganking =/= profit killing
Not to mention people who AFK mined before will AFK mine after this. Bots botted before this and will after.
And the sky will be blue, grass will grow, and life will go on. Aside from your multiple factual errors, you are missing the point. Ganking was a method - the only method - of punishing players for botting and AFKing in highsec. This threat - the ONLY threat - miners faced is now getting a major nerf. Result, bots and AFKers with have it easier than ever. Some (rich) gankers may continue, but many cannot afford to throw away hundreds of millions for a single popped barge. And almost nobody ganks targets if it costs more in hulls to kill than the target is worth. As it is, ice botters just shrug and buy a new Mack. Now they won't even have to do that. And seeing as how Screegs has gone back into hibernation....there will be no way to combat them outside of the petition process.
Your not actually punishing them, because if they went AFK then they understand there is the risk of loosing there ship and they will be able to replace it, and botters are not actually people so they won't feel punished by a loss. Both parties will just get another hulk.
Unless your worried that the Hulk market will become glutted due to lack of demand, that's legit I guess.
Funny that you also said my post was full of errors because you didn't point a single one. |
Lilianna Star
State War Academy Caldari State
22
|
Posted - 2012.08.06 16:13:00 -
[2796] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:
Aside from your multiple factual errors, you are missing the point.
Ganking was a method - the only method - of punishing players for botting and AFKing in highsec. This threat - the ONLY threat - miners faced is now getting a major nerf.
Result, bots and AFKers with have it easier than ever. Some (rich) gankers may continue, but many cannot afford to throw away hundreds of millions for a single popped barge. And almost nobody ganks targets if it costs more in hulls to kill than the target is worth.
As it is, ice botters just shrug and buy a new Mack. Now they won't even have to do that. And seeing as how Screegs has gone back into hibernation....there will be no way to combat them outside of the petition process.
Okay then, why is this a problem?
It's not taking away any depth since this kind of decision making is still present in low and null sec. It just looks like you're trying to dictate how high sec miners should play.
Your entire argument seems to hinge on the idea that AFKers and botters are scum and should be purged. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
486
|
Posted - 2012.08.06 16:46:00 -
[2797] - Quote
Alexzandvar Douglass wrote: Ugh, this thread is just a whole load of Derp.
Mineral Prices in High Sec =/= Prices in Null Sec.
Ganking =/= profit killing
Not to mention people who AFK mined before will AFK mine after this. Bots botted before this and will after.
Your not actually punishing them, because if they went AFK then they understand there is the risk of loosing there ship and they will be able to replace it, and botters are not actually people so they won't feel punished by a loss. Both parties will just get another hulk.
Unless your worried that the Hulk market will become glutted due to lack of demand, that's legit I guess.
Funny that you also said my post was full of errors because you didn't point a single one.
Thread is a whole load of Derp is a matter of opinion.
Mineral prices in highsec vs nulsec: pretty obvious point.
Ganking <> profit killing: Ganking is generally done for profit - in fact, that is the motive for most of them. Ganking miners often is/was profitable as well, though profit in the strictest sense (salvage worth more than expenses) isn't always necessary, as long as the target is losing more than you.
And even a casual reading of this thread reveals that many, many miners expect to be able to AFK mine. They expect to be able to mine without fitting a tank, either. VV posted page after page arguing this.
And botters are actually people. People who are willing to cheat for a profit, whether its hardcore RMT or just casual subsidizing other activities while doing other things.
And yes, we will see a glut of Hulks because I think the 50K EHP AFK-Mackinaw will be the wave of the future. Ganks will be fairly far and few between when gankers realize 2-3 Tornados or a gang of 5+ Catalysts in 0.7-0.8 space is just not cost/time effective for bothering with a 280M ISK ship, AFK or otherwise.
|
Alexzandvar Douglass
NUTS AND BOLTS MANUFACTURING En Garde
71
|
Posted - 2012.08.06 16:48:00 -
[2798] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:Alexzandvar Douglass wrote: Ugh, this thread is just a whole load of Derp.
Mineral Prices in High Sec =/= Prices in Null Sec.
Ganking =/= profit killing
Not to mention people who AFK mined before will AFK mine after this. Bots botted before this and will after.
Your not actually punishing them, because if they went AFK then they understand there is the risk of loosing there ship and they will be able to replace it, and botters are not actually people so they won't feel punished by a loss. Both parties will just get another hulk.
Unless your worried that the Hulk market will become glutted due to lack of demand, that's legit I guess.
Funny that you also said my post was full of errors because you didn't point a single one. Thread is a whole load of Derp is a matter of opinion. Mineral prices in highsec vs nulsec: pretty obvious point. Ganking <> profit killing: Ganking is generally done for profit - in fact, that is the motive for most of them. Ganking miners often is/was profitable as well, though profit in the strictest sense (salvage worth more than expenses) isn't always necessary, as long as the target is losing more than you. And even a casual reading of this thread reveals that many, many miners expect to be able to AFK mine. They expect to be able to mine without fitting a tank, either. VV posted page after page arguing this. And botters are actually people. People who are willing to cheat for a profit, whether its hardcore RMT or just casual subsidizing other activities while doing other things. And yes, we will see a glut of Hulks because I think the 50K EHP AFK-Mackinaw will be the wave of the future. Ganks will be fairly far and few between when gankers realize 2-3 Tornados or a gang of 5+ Catalysts in 0.7-0.8 space is just not cost/time effective for bothering with a 280M ISK ship, AFK or otherwise.
If you think this thread is any indicator of what Miners through out this game will do, you are very deluded.
|
Sarik Olecar
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
63
|
Posted - 2012.08.06 16:52:00 -
[2799] - Quote
Previously on GÇ£Tanks of Our Hulks: The Mining Barge Buff StoryGÇ¥
***
GǣGǪAnd it is with this that I, CCP Soundwave, decree that from this moment on, no Hulk shall be ganked for profit - ever again!
*Rabble! Rabble! Rabble!*
***
GÇ£Did yeah hear Joe, they say not no one ever gonna gank a barge again!GÇ¥
GÇ£Ahhh doe worry lilGÇÖ Tommy, CCP wouldnGÇÖt ever let us down like datGǪGÇ¥
GǣOh yeah, well maybe you should take a look at the forumsGǪGǥ
***
GǣGǪAdmiral, if they go through with this, Highsec ganking will be dead as we know it.Gǥ
GǣMy god, the botsGǪ Jenkins, get me the Mitanni!Gǥ
GÇ£Aye aye Sir!GÇ¥
***
GǣOrder! Order! I will have order in my courtroom! Now continue Mr. MunroeGǪGǥ
GǣIf the people will your honor, Article 21, Section 12 strictly states that GǣGankingGǥ and GǣGriefingGǥ are viewed as distinct and separate entities in the eyes of the EULA. And thatGǪGǥ
*Masked man pulls a gun and fires two shots into the lawyers chest; Hysteric screams ensue.*
***
GÇ£Its total anarchy out there Mr. Matanni, we have to get you to the safe house!GÇ¥
GǣI will not abandon my people in their time of need! Now more than ever they need the guidance of a strong leaderGǪGǥ
*A brick bounces off the window of the motorcade, leaving fractures in the glass*
GÇ£And what if that strong leader isnGÇÖt you, sir..?GÇ¥
Gǣ...Then all hope is lostGǪGǥ
***
And Now...
|
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
486
|
Posted - 2012.08.06 16:56:00 -
[2800] - Quote
Alexzandvar Douglass wrote:
If you think this thread is any indicator of what Miners through out this game will do, you are very deluded.
Hardly. I am well aware of miner's shortcomings when it comes to fittings, and general game awareness. There will be a fair number of 'legacy' hulks/Macks out there with Cargo Expanders.
But I expect those numbers to drop quite a bit as the low-hanging fruit is stripped, as even the dullest miner will quickly figure out that the Ore Bay is not effected by Cargo Expanders.
And most of the buff (as I noted in the OP) cleverly was done in a way that makes ganking far more expensive - while not requiring miners to make a single fitting adjustment - or even be aware of the patch at all. (ie, massive amounts of EHP slapped directly to the hull, rather than a slot/PG/CPU buff...)
|
|
Pipa Porto
633
|
Posted - 2012.08.06 19:56:00 -
[2801] - Quote
Alexzandvar Douglass wrote: If you think this thread is any indicator of what Miners through out this game will do, you are very deluded.
The Bat Country Killboard is an indicator of how many Hulk pilots don't bother to fit a tank while AFK.
My experience has been that I can usually warp to a Hulk, have ~2-3 Cats slowboat into perfect range, target, then countdown so we fire at the same time, all with no reaction whatsoever from the untanked Hulk pilot. (and then sometimes even kill the Pod as well) I assume that means they're AFK. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
pussnheels
509
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 07:13:00 -
[2802] - Quote
why is the OP still allowed to post his junk It is obvious he is not capable of anything beyond griefing others with battleclinic fits and then dare to call it PVP
He is the kind of people that is killing this game , not the profesional ganker not the lowsec pirates not the nullsec pvper nor the carebear People like him who only thoughts of the day is to ruin somebody else his or her playing experience by demanding that it his divine right to do so and his alone
He called us pigs , i call him a egocentric arrogant selfish noob who is unable to learn something more complex than blowing up things that can't shoot back
CCP he is not the majority of your subscribers far from they are a minority only a very small minority but a loud one don't listen to them if it was up to them ythis game would be only a arcade game with only one playstyle and that is to shoot others when they can't shoot back I do not agree with what you are saying , but i will defend to the death your right to say it...... Voltaire |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1248
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 07:53:00 -
[2803] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Alexzandvar Douglass wrote: If you think this thread is any indicator of what Miners through out this game will do, you are very deluded.
The Bat Country Killboard is an indicator of how many Hulk pilots don't bother to fit a tank while AFK. My experience has been that I can usually warp to a Hulk, have ~2-3 Cats slowboat into perfect range, target, then countdown so we fire at the same time, all with no reaction whatsoever from the untanked Hulk pilot. (and then sometimes even kill the Pod as well) I assume that means they're AFK. Good pods? Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1610
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 07:55:00 -
[2804] - Quote
pussnheels wrote:why is the OP still allowed to post his junk It is obvious he is not capable of anything beyond griefing others with battleclinic fits and then dare to call it PVP
He is the kind of people that is killing this game , not the profesional ganker not the lowsec pirates not the nullsec pvper nor the carebear People like him who only thoughts of the day is to ruin somebody else his or her playing experience by demanding that it his divine right to do so and his alone
He called us pigs , i call him a egocentric arrogant selfish noob who is unable to learn something more complex than blowing up things that can't shoot back
CCP he is not the majority of your subscribers far from they are a minority only a very small minority but a loud one don't listen to them if it was up to them ythis game would be only a arcade game with only one playstyle and that is to shoot others when they can't shoot back
yeah he can't do anything complex like mining EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Pipa Porto
637
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 07:55:00 -
[2805] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Alexzandvar Douglass wrote: If you think this thread is any indicator of what Miners through out this game will do, you are very deluded.
The Bat Country Killboard is an indicator of how many Hulk pilots don't bother to fit a tank while AFK. My experience has been that I can usually warp to a Hulk, have ~2-3 Cats slowboat into perfect range, target, then countdown so we fire at the same time, all with no reaction whatsoever from the untanked Hulk pilot. (and then sometimes even kill the Pod as well) I assume that means they're AFK. Good pods?
Eh. I think they may have finally learned that leaving Michi's in an AFK Hulk is stupid. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
616
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 07:55:00 -
[2806] - Quote
Buff pods. Tiericide them and give us different options, as well as more fitting options. I am tired of going AFK and someone pods me. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1610
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 07:56:00 -
[2807] - Quote
rodyas wrote:I am tired of going AFK and someone pods me.
maybe you shouldn't go AFK EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Pipa Porto
637
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 07:56:00 -
[2808] - Quote
rodyas wrote:Buff pods. Tiericide them and give us different options, as well as more fitting options. I am tired of going AFK and someone pods me.
Don't go AFK in your lifeboat. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
616
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 08:00:00 -
[2809] - Quote
Its entirely the fault that single play pods bring. Only one option, and only one option to fly them. By actually looking at the screen and clicking buttons. I need one with armor/bigger fluid hold to support my body, from the heavy duress AFK puts me in.
Would AFKing in a shuttle help? What do I have to AFK in before I get respect? I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Pipa Porto
637
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 08:02:00 -
[2810] - Quote
rodyas wrote:Its entirely the fault that single play pods bring. Only one option, and only one option to fly them. By actually looking at the screen and clicking buttons. I need one with armor/bigger fluid hold to support my body, from the heavy duress AFK puts me in.
Would AFKing in a shuttle help? What do I have to AFK in before I get respect?
AFK in a Damnation. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
|
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
499
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 08:02:00 -
[2811] - Quote
pussnheels wrote:why is the OP still allowed to post his junk It is obvious he is not capable of anything beyond griefing others with battleclinic fits and then dare to call it PVP
Oh, I don't know about that. Last time I posted about 'griefing' CCP had to emergency patch the game and buff Concord again. But you know, thats what happens when gankers adapt to adverse conditions. Patches and nerfs. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1248
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 08:04:00 -
[2812] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:pussnheels wrote:why is the OP still allowed to post his junk It is obvious he is not capable of anything beyond griefing others with battleclinic fits and then dare to call it PVP Oh, I don't know about that. Last time I posted about 'griefing' CCP had to emergency patch the game and buff Concord again. My my, that sounds like a powerful weapon.
Don't use it for evil. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8909
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 08:05:00 -
[2813] - Quote
pussnheels wrote:why is the OP still allowed to post his junk Why wouldn't he be?
Quote:CCP he is not the majority of your subscribers far from GǪso tell me, what is the majority of the subscribers, according to you?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
616
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 08:06:00 -
[2814] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Herr Wilkus wrote:pussnheels wrote:why is the OP still allowed to post his junk It is obvious he is not capable of anything beyond griefing others with battleclinic fits and then dare to call it PVP Oh, I don't know about that. Last time I posted about 'griefing' CCP had to emergency patch the game and buff Concord again. My my, that sounds like a powerful weapon. Don't use it for evil.
He already is evil. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
616
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 08:10:00 -
[2815] - Quote
Tippia wrote:pussnheels wrote:why is the OP still allowed to post his junk Why wouldn't he be? Quote:CCP he is not the majority of your subscribers far from GǪso tell me, what is the majority of the subscribers, according to you?
Carebears, and afk miners, as well as poor people, who wanted technetium. As well as a bunch of people to stupid to use a badly designed feature as well as the feature being equally dumb. Blind leading the blind. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1611
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 08:13:00 -
[2816] - Quote
rodyas wrote:Carebears, and afk miners, as well as poor people, who wanted technetium. As well as a bunch of people to stupid to use a badly designed feature as well as the feature being equally dumb. Blind leading the blind.
funny that this game lasted 9 years with an environment where you could be mercilessly murdered in the "safe" area EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1248
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 08:16:00 -
[2817] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:rodyas wrote:Carebears, and afk miners, as well as poor people, who wanted technetium. As well as a bunch of people to stupid to use a badly designed feature as well as the feature being equally dumb. Blind leading the blind. funny that this game lasted 9 years with an environment where you could be mercilessly murdered in the "safe" area In fact, you can still die horribly if ~enough catalysts~ are around. Or ~enough tornados~.
Maybe something needs to be done about that. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8909
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 08:21:00 -
[2818] - Quote
There is no such thing as enuff dakka. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1248
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 08:23:00 -
[2819] - Quote
Tippia wrote:There is no such thing as enuff dakka. Without insane lag, you do reach cases where people press F1 and receive a "no target" message because the target already instadied. Hilarious. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
616
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 08:27:00 -
[2820] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:rodyas wrote:Carebears, and afk miners, as well as poor people, who wanted technetium. As well as a bunch of people to stupid to use a badly designed feature as well as the feature being equally dumb. Blind leading the blind. funny that this game lasted 9 years with an environment where you could be mercilessly murdered in the "safe" area
Not many people played it though. Games like this usually have less players as a trade off. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
|
Pipa Porto
637
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 08:38:00 -
[2821] - Quote
rodyas wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:rodyas wrote:Carebears, and afk miners, as well as poor people, who wanted technetium. As well as a bunch of people to stupid to use a badly designed feature as well as the feature being equally dumb. Blind leading the blind. funny that this game lasted 9 years with an environment where you could be mercilessly murdered in the "safe" area Not many people played it though. Games like this usually have less players as a trade off.
Yes, not many people played EVE in the last 9 years. EVE's only the third largest Paid Western MMO (though, now that I hear SWOTOR's going F2P, I guess EVE's gonna get bumped up a spot there). And only the 6th Largest MMO Worldwide including F2P. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
616
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 08:40:00 -
[2822] - Quote
They don't sell time cards at major stores though, Same with star wars galaxies (And I meant, before they shut that down). They don't even run commercials, like a large entity would.
In a small tank, yes EVE looks big, but in a normal tank, its kind of small. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Shalua Rui
FEROX AQUILA
361
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 08:44:00 -
[2823] - Quote
rodyas wrote:They don't sell time cards at major stores though, Same with star wars galaxies (And I meant, before they shut that down). They don't even run commercials, like a large entity would.
In a small tank, yes EVE looks big, but in a normal tank, its kind of small.
Hm... true... but hey, maybe DUST can fix that? If Sony has one thing, it's serious marketing budget.^^ "I wish to have no Connection with any Ship that does not Sail fast for I intend to go in harm's way."
Captain John Paul Jones, 16 November 1778 |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
616
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 08:49:00 -
[2824] - Quote
True, it could.
But jester has a paranoid blog post. On CCP trying to tame down EVE, so they can get more players from that. I mostly meant its hard to get both. Hard to easily gank or suicide gank, as well as increase playerbase. Gotta choose one or the other. I mostly don't care anyway. But it is annoying if you have to use stores to get a game or time card, and no stores sell the game you want to play. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1611
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 08:49:00 -
[2825] - Quote
rodyas wrote:Not many people played it though. Games like this usually have less players as a trade off.
But they last a goddamn long time as long as the developers keep focus. Games that try to appeal to the "masses" don't tend to last - not every game can be WoW. EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
616
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 09:02:00 -
[2826] - Quote
Well true, I usually thought each development company offered something different or was unique. But WoW was huge, so even with being unique you would grow jealous of it.
Well I mostly see it as investment. If you invest more, you last longer. Games for the masses, don't invest much, but invest in a fun ways. So it can die fast becuase of it.
I mostly joined EVE, cause the devs promised, constant change and content for the game. (Two expansions a year). Sounded sweet. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Shalua Rui
FEROX AQUILA
361
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 09:05:00 -
[2827] - Quote
rodyas wrote:I mostly joined EVE, cause the devs promised, constant change and content for the game. (Two expansions a year). Sounded sweet. I know alot of other players joined EVE for the pirating, but like I said it is hard. You can go that route, but it usually gets smaller.
Well, until reacently, they kept that promise... I think what bumps many people (inclusing me) is that so many of their newer plans don't seam to come to fruiton... "I wish to have no Connection with any Ship that does not Sail fast for I intend to go in harm's way."
Captain John Paul Jones, 16 November 1778 |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1611
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 09:07:00 -
[2828] - Quote
rodyas wrote:Well true, I usually thought each development company offered something different or was unique. But WoW was huge, so even with being unique you would grow jealous of it.
Well I mostly see it as investment. If you invest more, you last longer. Games for the masses, don't invest much, but invest in a fun ways. So it can die fast becuase of it.
I mostly joined EVE, cause the devs promised, constant change and content for the game. (Two expansions a year). Sounded sweet.
One time a company named Sony Online Entertainment thought that changing a game called "Star Wars Galaxies" to reduce the amount of grinding and reduce the complexity of the game would bring in "the masses."
They shut their servers down four years later. EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Pipa Porto
637
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 09:08:00 -
[2829] - Quote
rodyas wrote:Well true, I usually thought each development company offered something different or was unique. But WoW was huge, so even with being unique you would grow jealous of it.
Well I mostly see it as investment. If you invest more, you last longer. Games for the masses, don't invest much, but invest in a fun ways. So it can die fast becuase of it.
I mostly joined EVE, cause the devs promised, constant change and content for the game. (Two expansions a year). Sounded sweet. I know alot of other players joined EVE for the pirating, but like I said it is hard. You can go that route, but it usually gets smaller.
Change isn't the problem. The problem is that all the change is going towards making PvP Opt-In, which is contrary to the fundamental idea of the game. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
616
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 09:11:00 -
[2830] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:rodyas wrote:Well true, I usually thought each development company offered something different or was unique. But WoW was huge, so even with being unique you would grow jealous of it.
Well I mostly see it as investment. If you invest more, you last longer. Games for the masses, don't invest much, but invest in a fun ways. So it can die fast becuase of it.
I mostly joined EVE, cause the devs promised, constant change and content for the game. (Two expansions a year). Sounded sweet. One time a company named Sony Online Entertainment thought that changing a game called "Star Wars Galaxies" to reduce the amount of grinding and reduce the complexity of the game would bring in "the masses." They shut their servers down four years later.
Yeah sadly I wasn't around during that time. What I call european type games were still hard for me to get into. I did pick up Star Wars galaxy the free trial (Nothing else sold in stores) a year and a half ago and I enjoyed it. But it had a bad market, and I couldn't get the Kyshakk expansion where I heard the best spaceship salvage was at.
If anything EVE is the opposite of Star Wars galaxies in a way. Star Wars, had an incredible grind and time sink, for a very worthwhile character. EVE has the kind of similiar grind and time sink, (the titan) but alot of people don't see it as cool as a jedi or sith, when they get there. But perhaps some do think it is as sweet as a jedi, who knows. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1611
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 09:23:00 -
[2831] - Quote
rodyas wrote:If anything EVE is the opposite of Star Wars galaxies in a way. Star Wars, had an incredible grind and time sink, for a very worthwhile character. EVE has the kind of similiar grind and time sink, (the titan) but alot of people don't see it as cool as a jedi or sith, when they get there. But perhaps some do think it is as sweet as a jedi, who knows.
The difference is that EVE has outlived SWG. There's a difference between introducing new content (i.e. new tools, not new "theme park rides") and changing the game entirely, even in one "part" of the game. "Don't fly what you can't afford to lose" should apparently only apply outside of hisec? EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Shalua Rui
FEROX AQUILA
361
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 09:25:00 -
[2832] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Change isn't the problem. The problem is that all the change is going towards making PvP Opt-In, which is contrary to the fundamental idea of the game.
Only in highsec, that is... as it should be. CCP couldn't predict that the players would go and "change the rules" they put up... "I wish to have no Connection with any Ship that does not Sail fast for I intend to go in harm's way."
Captain John Paul Jones, 16 November 1778 |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
616
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 09:31:00 -
[2833] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:rodyas wrote:If anything EVE is the opposite of Star Wars galaxies in a way. Star Wars, had an incredible grind and time sink, for a very worthwhile character. EVE has the kind of similiar grind and time sink, (the titan) but alot of people don't see it as cool as a jedi or sith, when they get there. But perhaps some do think it is as sweet as a jedi, who knows. The difference is that EVE has outlived SWG. There's a difference between introducing new content (i.e. new tools, not new "theme park rides") and changing the game entirely, even in one "part" of the game. "Don't fly what you can't afford to lose" should apparently only apply outside of hisec?
Well I don't really have alot of ISK to see it the way you do. I mostly see it as this. Null sec is hard, and with players dealing with how hard it is, they get new ships and modules. Now does hi-sec deserve to get these new things, to easily, after other people only got them after hard work. Like tech, that stuff is hard to get, so you wouldn't want hi sec, to get it so easily. I don't see it as, hi sec would make more money then we would if they had it. Like it tech, started to be easier to get and to have, then I might not mind that it was open to hi sec. But like I said, it would have to be really easy for null sec to have it, before I would want it in hi sec. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Pipa Porto
637
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 09:49:00 -
[2834] - Quote
Shalua Rui wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Change isn't the problem. The problem is that all the change is going towards making PvP Opt-In, which is contrary to the fundamental idea of the game. Only in highsec, that is... as it should be. CCP couldn't predict that the players would go and "change the rules" they put up...
No, nowhere in EVE has ever had Opt-In PVP (well, besides SISI). Being entirely safe from PvP anywhere is anathema to EVE's core principles. "Don't Fly What you can't afford to lose,"
CCP Wrangler wrote:EVE is a dark and harsh world, you're supposed to feel a bit worried and slightly angry when you log in, you're not supposed to feel like you're logging in to a happy, happy, fluffy, fluffy lala land filled with fun and adventures, that's what hello kitty online is for. http://eve-search.com/thread/528360/page/1#29
CCP Oveur wrote:I'm also against the lack of danger and the awful boring times when you are just chugging along and nothing threatens you.
CCP Explorer wrote:All of it occured in the same framework of unrestricted player movement and limitless player choice in a single, shared game universe. As our senior producer put it 'f*cking brilliant'. -- in reference to Burn Jita
Where does any of this imply "except for HS. HS is supposed to be safe"?
CCP couldn't predict emergent gameplay? Huh, who would have thunk?
Anyway, nobody changed any rules (well, CCP did, to favor the gank victims). We just shot people in legal ways. Then they whined long enough and hard enough that CCP appeased them. Then we adapted and kept shooting them. Then they whined long enough and hard enough that CCP appeased them.... see where this is going? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Shalua Rui
FEROX AQUILA
361
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 09:54:00 -
[2835] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:No, nowhere in EVE has ever had Opt-In PVP (well, besides SISI). Being entirely safe from PvP anywhere is anathema to EVE's core principles. "Don't Fly What you can't afford to lose."
Agreed... but all I can say is: HS always was more or less save... for years. That changed only after Burn Jita and Hulkageddon.
What was CCP supposed to say? "We never intended that to happen and we will do everything to never let that happen again in the future?" That would have been a PR shotgunblast to the head... so to speak.^^ "I wish to have no Connection with any Ship that does not Sail fast for I intend to go in harm's way."
Captain John Paul Jones, 16 November 1778 |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
616
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 09:56:00 -
[2836] - Quote
Yeah but the devs, didn't die in burn jita, and they didn't kill anyone in it. They are just people not apart of it talking about it. Why would I listen to them?
You keep quoting the Devs, but I havn't seen them doing any hardcore, the way you make it seem.
Like when is the last time a dev talked about scamming someone? or suicideing someone? All they did, was pack faction ships full of gear, and float through null, till they were popped. Sure it was fun, but not scary. I don't think anything scared me about that. (Besides how they allowed T2BPOs to drop from their ships.)
If anything pipa, I would say your Gods are dead. Time to find a new religion. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1611
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 09:57:00 -
[2837] - Quote
Shalua Rui wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Change isn't the problem. The problem is that all the change is going towards making PvP Opt-In, which is contrary to the fundamental idea of the game. Only in highsec, that is... as it should be. CCP couldn't predict that the players would go and "change the rules" they put up...
You're misguided if you think hisec was ever intended to be "opt-in" only for PvP. EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1611
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 09:59:00 -
[2838] - Quote
rodyas wrote:Well I don't really have alot of ISK to see it the way you do. I mostly see it as this. Null sec is hard, and with players dealing with how hard it is, they get new ships and modules. Now does hi-sec deserve to get these new things, to easily, after other people only got them after hard work. Like tech, that stuff is hard to get, so you wouldn't want hi sec, to get it so easily. I don't see it as, hi sec would make more money then we would if they had it. Like it tech, started to be easier to get and to have, then I might not mind that it was open to hi sec. But like I said, it would have to be really easy for null sec to have it, before I would want it in hi sec.
Moon mining shouldn't be introduced to hisec simply because towers are virtually immune there. EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Pipa Porto
637
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 10:01:00 -
[2839] - Quote
Shalua Rui wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:No, nowhere in EVE has ever had Opt-In PVP (well, besides SISI). Being entirely safe from PvP anywhere is anathema to EVE's core principles. "Don't Fly What you can't afford to lose." Agreed... but all I can say is: HS always was more or less save... for years. That changed only after Burn Jita and Hulkageddon. What was CCP supposed to say? "We never intended that to happen and we will do everything to never let that happen again in the future?" That would have been a PR shotgunblast to the head... so to speak.^^
Here's what CCP said about HAG and Burn Jita:
Jon Lander wrote:If you pay attention, and youGÇÖve got your wits about you, you can avoid people coming in and ganking, a survival of the fittest kind of thing, and people are now able to actually make a much better living from mining because of things like Hulkageddon and Burn Jita, because minerals are more expensive. http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/06/12/eve-online-interview-betrayal-at-fanfest-burn-jita-virtual-reality-and-the-president-of-iceland/ Jon Lander is the Senior Producer of EvE (He's Soundwave's Boss).
CCP's been pretty pleased with the effects of HAG/Burn Jita.
The only reason HS was safe was because ganking wasn't a fad until recently. Now it's a fad and people noticed that it's an entertaining way to pass the time between roams/fleets. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8913
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 10:04:00 -
[2840] - Quote
Shalua Rui wrote:Agreed... but all I can say is: HS always was more or less save... for years. That changed only after Burn Jita and Hulkageddon. Neither of those events changed that in the slightest.
HS was always entirely open to PvP, in spite of what people like to assume. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
|
Shalua Rui
FEROX AQUILA
361
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 10:05:00 -
[2841] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:The only reason HS was safe was because ganking wasn't a fad until recently. Now it's a fad and people noticed that it's an entertaining way to pass the time between roams/fleets.
Yea... it's an entartaining way to drive non-invantile players, that actually wanna persue other goals in the game then mindless ganking, away... I'm sure CCP was all for that.
Don't believe everything your read...
CCP's rebalancing and tinkering with HS mechanics should be a pretty good indication that not everything that happened was working as intended. "I wish to have no Connection with any Ship that does not Sail fast for I intend to go in harm's way."
Captain John Paul Jones, 16 November 1778 |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
616
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 10:05:00 -
[2842] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:rodyas wrote:Well I don't really have alot of ISK to see it the way you do. I mostly see it as this. Null sec is hard, and with players dealing with how hard it is, they get new ships and modules. Now does hi-sec deserve to get these new things, to easily, after other people only got them after hard work. Like tech, that stuff is hard to get, so you wouldn't want hi sec, to get it so easily. I don't see it as, hi sec would make more money then we would if they had it. Like it tech, started to be easier to get and to have, then I might not mind that it was open to hi sec. But like I said, it would have to be really easy for null sec to have it, before I would want it in hi sec. Moon mining shouldn't be introduced to hisec simply because towers are virtually immune there.
Yeah that fits in with the too easy. It would be too easy to have tech then. No reason to move it there anyhow, if you want tech, there are ways to get it, plus alchemy really. Anymore ideas on it and I would be going over my head. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Pipa Porto
638
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 10:09:00 -
[2843] - Quote
Shalua Rui wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:The only reason HS was safe was because ganking wasn't a fad until recently. Now it's a fad and people noticed that it's an entertaining way to pass the time between roams/fleets. Yea... it's an entartaining way to drive non-invantile players, that actually wanna persue other goals in the game then mindless ganking, away... I'm sure CCP was all for that. Don't believe everything your read... CCP's rebalancing and tinkering with HS mechanics should be a pretty good indication that not everything that happened was working as intended.
Ah, so now you're gonna start with the name calling. Good to know that anyone involved with a suicide gank, or able to deal with the fact that flying in HS comes with some risk (risk that can easily be mitigated) is "invantile." EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Shalua Rui
FEROX AQUILA
361
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 10:15:00 -
[2844] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Ah, so now you're gonna start with the name calling. Good to know that anyone involved with a suicide gank, or able to deal with the fact that flying in HS comes with some risk (risk that can easily be mitigated) is "invantile."
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... "I wish to have no Connection with any Ship that does not Sail fast for I intend to go in harm's way."
Captain John Paul Jones, 16 November 1778 |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
616
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 10:16:00 -
[2845] - Quote
Pipa isn't being infantile, she is just doing what the devs tell her to do. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1611
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 10:22:00 -
[2846] - Quote
Shalua Rui wrote: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...
"let me tell you the mindset of people who play this PvP-centric game differently than I do" EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
baltec1
Bat Country
1822
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 10:32:00 -
[2847] - Quote
Shalua Rui wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Ah, so now you're gonna start with the name calling. Good to know that anyone involved with a suicide gank, or able to deal with the fact that flying in HS comes with some risk (risk that can easily be mitigated) is "invantile." 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...
I do it for money. The tears are a welcome bonus. |
Shalua Rui
FEROX AQUILA
368
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 10:33:00 -
[2848] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:"let me tell you the mindset of people who play this PvP-centric game differently than I do"
Ow, Palpatine is back again...
Ah well, "it's a PvP-centric game* is a nice excuse for everything I guess... "I wish to have no Connection with any Ship that does not Sail fast for I intend to go in harm's way."
Captain John Paul Jones, 16 November 1778 |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8913
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 10:40:00 -
[2849] - Quote
Shalua Rui wrote:Ah well, "it's a PvP-centric game* is a nice excuse for everything I guess... It's not so much an excuse as a simple fact.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Shalua Rui
FEROX AQUILA
370
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 10:44:00 -
[2850] - Quote
Tippia wrote:It's not so much an excuse as a simple fact.
Life is PvP-centric... doesn't mean that might always makes right. "I wish to have no Connection with any Ship that does not Sail fast for I intend to go in harm's way."
Captain John Paul Jones, 16 November 1778 |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8914
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 10:47:00 -
[2851] - Quote
Shalua Rui wrote:Life is PvP-centric. Relevance?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Shalua Rui
FEROX AQUILA
371
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 11:01:00 -
[2852] - Quote
I don't wanna get all sociological now, so let's say... everything one does on the internet reflects back on the persons personality. "I wish to have no Connection with any Ship that does not Sail fast for I intend to go in harm's way."
Captain John Paul Jones, 16 November 1778 |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8914
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 11:03:00 -
[2853] - Quote
Shalua Rui wrote:I don't wanna get all sociological now, so let's say... everything one does on the internet reflects back on the persons personality. No.
More to the point though, that doesn't answer the question. So: relevance?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Shalua Rui
FEROX AQUILA
386
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 11:20:00 -
[2854] - Quote
Gawd, you ARE persistent, are you!?^^
Ok: In the real world, there are those that do stuff and those that help them do stuff... arguably, the latter ones, though they are in the majority, carry less responsibility for their actions. This is all well and good, until the "helpers" start to abuse the power given to them by the "doers"... usually that ends in relvolution OR, if that's not possible, outside intervention.
Notice any similarity to the current state of EVE? "I wish to have no Connection with any Ship that does not Sail fast for I intend to go in harm's way."
Captain John Paul Jones, 16 November 1778 |
Pipa Porto
638
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 11:22:00 -
[2855] - Quote
Shalua Rui wrote:Gawd, you ARE persistent, are you!?^^
Ok: In the real world, there are those that do stuff and those that help them do stuff... arguably, the latter ones, though they are in the majority, carry less responsibility for their actions. This is all well and good, until the "helpers" start to abuse the power given to them by the "doers"... usually that ends in relvolution OR, if that's not possible, outside intervention.
Notice any similarity to the current state of EVE?
I'm not noticing any concrete nouns, let alone something that I can connect to EVE.
Seriously, I have no earthly idea what you're on about. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Shalua Rui
FEROX AQUILA
386
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 11:23:00 -
[2856] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Nope. That's like saying everyone who plays Chess is Regicidal.
*smirks* You know, most semi-professional chess players I know (a good friend of mine was in a club) are analy retentive guys... and VERY bad loosers. "I wish to have no Connection with any Ship that does not Sail fast for I intend to go in harm's way."
Captain John Paul Jones, 16 November 1778 |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8916
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 11:26:00 -
[2857] - Quote
Shalua Rui wrote:Notice any similarity to the current state of EVE? Not really, since the whole GÇ£gameGÇ¥ part kind of overshadows any similarities.
But besides that, you're still not really showing the relevance of your statement. How is life in any way relevant to the simple fact that EVE is PvP-centric, and to the fact that this is not an excuse but rather how the game is designed. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Shalua Rui
FEROX AQUILA
386
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 11:26:00 -
[2858] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Seriously, I have no earthly idea what you're on about.
As I said... I don't wanna go into a sociological discussion... my english would probably fail me half way in. "I wish to have no Connection with any Ship that does not Sail fast for I intend to go in harm's way."
Captain John Paul Jones, 16 November 1778 |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8916
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 11:29:00 -
[2859] - Quote
Shalua Rui wrote:As I said... I don't wanna go into a sociological discussion. You probably should, since you're just spouting nonsensical clich+¬s without any factual basis at the moment.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
442
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 11:29:00 -
[2860] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:You're misguided if you think hisec was ever intended to be "opt-in" only for PvP. Personally I believe ganking in high sec for profit should be a hard find. Its essentially looking for an idiot in a super shiny ship http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=14210105 For example or now that the exhumer change is about to occur people who fly hulks in hi sec. Lets face it if they are still flying a hulk, they are still looking for Maximum yield so therefore will probably have little or no tank, so will still be easy kills.
But I personally do not want to see high sec ganking removed completely from hi-sec, because lets face it, some people just really need to die. It has always been a good way to get in kills on people who war dec you or that you have war deced. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1618
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 11:33:00 -
[2861] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Personally I believe ganking in high sec for profit should be a hard find. Its essentially looking for an idiot in a super shiny ship http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=14210105For example or now that the exhumer change is about to occur people who fly hulks in hi sec. Lets face it if they are still flying a hulk, they are still looking for Maximum yield so therefore will probably have little or no tank, so will still be easy kills. But I personally do not want to see high sec ganking removed completely from hi-sec, because lets face it, some people just really need to die. It has always been a good way to get in kills on people who war dec you or that you have war deced.
I don't think that a Hulk should be a "profitable" gank target unless it's fit in an expensive way (i.e. with expensive named MLUs) so let's just get that out of the way. I also don't believe that a ship should be given a free "idiot tank" because the pilots are generally so complacent that they AFK mine in max yield fits that can only permatank hisec belt rats. EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Pipa Porto
638
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 11:36:00 -
[2862] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:You're misguided if you think hisec was ever intended to be "opt-in" only for PvP. Personally I believe ganking in high sec for profit should be a hard find. Its essentially looking for an idiot in a super shiny ship http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=14210105For example or now that the exhumer change is about to occur people who fly hulks in hi sec. Lets face it if they are still flying a hulk, they are still looking for Maximum yield so therefore will probably have little or no tank, so will still be easy kills. But I personally do not want to see high sec ganking removed completely from hi-sec, because lets face it, some people just really need to die. It has always been a good way to get in kills on people who war dec you or that you have war deced.
You can fit 2 MLUs and enough tank to be an unprofitable gank in the higher sec bands.
You can fit a Hulk with enough tank to be an unprofitable gank in all sec bands.
It is entirely the Miners choice whether he's going to be a profitable gank. Just like any other ship. Where's the problem? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Pipa Porto
638
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 11:38:00 -
[2863] - Quote
Shalua Rui wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Nope. That's like saying everyone who plays Chess is Regicidal. *smirks* You know, most semi-professional chess players I know (a good friend of mine was in a club) are analy retentive guys... and VERY bad loosers.
But are they Regicidal? (Regicide is the act of killing a Monarch).
You compared an in game action to smashing someone's RL toy (when I'd say it's most equivalent to capturing a piece in Chess). You have not provided any evidence to show that your comparison is valid.
EDIT: Since I'm calling on you to show validity: Capturing a Chess Piece: In Game Action -> Causes In Game Harm to other Player Suicide Ganking a Hulk: In Game Action -> Causes In Game Harm to other Player EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
442
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 11:40:00 -
[2864] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote: I don't think that a Hulk should be a "profitable" gank target unless it's fit in an expensive way (i.e. with expensive named MLUs) so let's just get that out of the way. I also don't believe that a ship should be given a free "idiot tank" because the pilots are generally so complacent that they AFK mine in max yield fits that can only permatank hisec belt rats.
When I say profitable I should balance that by saying exactly that a couple of million for a ganker nothing major but still a profit. This due to the cost of T2 strip miners, crystals and MLU's vs the fact there will still be lots that will ahve little tank other than the ships built in ehp.
Personally I like the fact that miner have to choose between tank, storage and yield. It gives the skiff a real role now and while I think the mack is a bit much on what it got, the hulk is about right. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Pipa Porto
638
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 11:42:00 -
[2865] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Richard Desturned wrote: I don't think that a Hulk should be a "profitable" gank target unless it's fit in an expensive way (i.e. with expensive named MLUs) so let's just get that out of the way. I also don't believe that a ship should be given a free "idiot tank" because the pilots are generally so complacent that they AFK mine in max yield fits that can only permatank hisec belt rats.
When I say profitable I should balance that by saying exactly that a couple of million for a ganker nothing major but still a profit. This due to the cost of T2 strip miners, crystals and MLU's vs the fact there will still be lots that will ahve little tank other than the ships built in ehp. Personally I like the fact that miner have to choose between tank, storage and yield. It gives the skiff a real role now and while I think the mack is a bit much on what it got, the hulk is about right.
They already had that choice. It was all in the Hulk's fittings. Now CCP's giving them the fittings for free, along with a Cargo Hulk equivalent that can tank enough to be unprofitable to gank. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
443
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 11:45:00 -
[2866] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote: They already had that choice. It was all in the Hulk's fittings. Now CCP's giving them the fittings for free, along with a Cargo Hulk equivalent that can tank enough to be unprofitable to gank.
Yes but at least with the mackinaw they are at least having to sacrifice some yield compared to the hulk and the base hulk only has 8713 ehp. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8917
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 11:49:00 -
[2867] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:They already had that choice. It was all in the Hulk's fittings. Now CCP's giving them the fittings for free, along with a Cargo Hulk equivalent that can tank enough to be unprofitable to gank. GǪnot to mention that they're also reducing the value of ganks by reducing the value of what can drop GÇö a Mack full of Veldspar is carrying 7M ISK worth of loot that the ganker(s) simply can never get. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
443
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 11:55:00 -
[2868] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:They already had that choice. It was all in the Hulk's fittings. Now CCP's giving them the fittings for free, along with a Cargo Hulk equivalent that can tank enough to be unprofitable to gank. GǪnot to mention that they're also reducing the value of ganks by reducing the value of what can drop GÇö a Mack full of Veldspar is carrying 7M ISK worth of loot that the ganker(s) simply can never get. Does loot from ore holds not drop? Sorry I have never heard that before. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Shalua Rui
FEROX AQUILA
386
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 11:58:00 -
[2869] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:But are they Regicidal? (Regicide is the act of killing a Monarch).
I know the meaning, of course they aren't... the reason to play chess isn't to kill a king, but to win a tactical competition.
Pipa Porto wrote:You compared an in game action to smashing someone's RL toy (when I'd say it's most equivalent to capturing a piece in Chess). You have not provided any evidence to show that your comparison is valid.
Ok then:
Capturing a Chess Piece: In Game Action -> Causes In Game Harm to other Player... in a predifined invironment, where both parties are aware of all the rules AND, more importantly, have the same mindset towards the game.
Suicide Ganking a Hulk: In Game Action -> Causes In Game Harm to other Player... without all the above... atleast as far as the ganker knows or cares.
The chess comparison is abit lacking, though, 'cause nobody playes chess because the peices are so pretty or whatever... your play to win a tactical competition... atleast I think so.^^ In EVE, there are many reasons why people play, and not all of them are combat... but suicide gankers don't care for that... they have the power (cause the Goons schowed them, mind you) so they use it... "I wish to have no Connection with any Ship that does not Sail fast for I intend to go in harm's way."
Captain John Paul Jones, 16 November 1778 |
Pipa Porto
638
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 11:58:00 -
[2870] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Pipa Porto wrote: They already had that choice. It was all in the Hulk's fittings. Now CCP's giving them the fittings for free, along with a Cargo Hulk equivalent that can tank enough to be unprofitable to gank.
Yes but at least with the mackinaw they are at least having to sacrifice some yield compared to the hulk and the base hulk only has 8713 ehp.
The Mack has a functionally identical yield to the Cargo Hulk (especially when you take warping out for dropoffs into account). With enough Tank to be unprofitable to gank. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
445
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 12:05:00 -
[2871] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Pipa Porto wrote: They already had that choice. It was all in the Hulk's fittings. Now CCP's giving them the fittings for free, along with a Cargo Hulk equivalent that can tank enough to be unprofitable to gank.
Yes but at least with the mackinaw they are at least having to sacrifice some yield compared to the hulk and the base hulk only has 8713 ehp. The Mack has a functionally identical yield to the Cargo Hulk (especially when you take warping out for dropoffs into account). With enough Tank to be unprofitable to gank. Why would any one mine solo in a hulk now it only holds one cycle worth of ore so if you included warping out to drop off loot the mack would mine double the hulk and probably more. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Pipa Porto
638
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 12:06:00 -
[2872] - Quote
Shalua Rui wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:But are they Regicidal? (Regicide is the act of killing a Monarch). I know the meaning, of course they aren't... the reason to play chess isn't to kill a king, but to win a tactical competition. Pipa Porto wrote:You compared an in game action to smashing someone's RL toy (when I'd say it's most equivalent to capturing a piece in Chess). You have not provided any evidence to show that your comparison is valid. Ok then: Capturing a Chess Piece: In Game Action -> Causes In Game Harm to other Player... in a predifined invironment, where both parties are aware of all the rules AND, more importantly, have the same mindset towards the game. Suicide Ganking a Hulk: In Game Action -> Causes In Game Harm to other Player... without all the above... atleast as far as the ganker knows or cares. The chess comparison is abit lacking, though, 'cause nobody playes chess because the peices are so pretty or whatever... your play to win a tactical competition... atleast I think so.^^ In EVE, there are many reasons why people play, and not all of them are combat... but suicide gankers don't care for that... they have the power (cause the Goons schowed them, mind you) so they use it...
So now ganking is bad because people don't have the mindset to play the game?
EVE is a predefined environment. Both parties have every opportunity to be aware of the rules (you don't get to cry "No Fair" when you lose because you didn't know how Checkmate worked when the guidebook is on the table next to you). No two Chess players have the same mindset either; some are more aggressive, some less, etc. more importantly, Mindset is not a game mechanic.
You can play EVE for whatever reason you want. But as the Rules clearly allow it (and you have every opportunity to learn the rules), you have to account for the possibility of combat and prepare for that possibility (not necessarily by preparing to fight).
If you would like to play a Consensual PvP Only version of EVE (because the ships are pretty, or whatever), CCP has generously devoted a server to your use: SISI.
If you wish to participate in the market where your actions affect everyone else, it's only fair that other people's actions can affect you. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Pipa Porto
638
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 12:07:00 -
[2873] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Pipa Porto wrote: They already had that choice. It was all in the Hulk's fittings. Now CCP's giving them the fittings for free, along with a Cargo Hulk equivalent that can tank enough to be unprofitable to gank.
Yes but at least with the mackinaw they are at least having to sacrifice some yield compared to the hulk and the base hulk only has 8713 ehp. The Mack has a functionally identical yield to the Cargo Hulk (especially when you take warping out for dropoffs into account). With enough Tank to be unprofitable to gank. Why would any one mine solo in a hulk now it only holds one cycle worth of ore so if you included warping out to drop off loot the mack would mine double the hulk and probably more.
The TQ Cargo Hulk (as in, no Ore Hold change) has roughly the same Yield as the SISI Mackinaw. Yet the SISI Mackinaw has to unload half as often and has a much sturdier tank.
So, no, the people who used the Cargo Hulk are getting a straight buff. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8917
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 12:14:00 -
[2874] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Does loot from ore holds not drop? Sorry I have never heard that before. Special holds (ore, corp hangars, ship bays, fuel bays etc) never drop GÇö only stuff that's actually in the cargo hold or fitted to the ship itself.
That's part of what makes the Orca such a wtfpwnawesome ship: it can happily sport more nearly 300k EHP and even though it can carry 40k m-¦ worth of general junk, 50k m-¦ ore and 400k m-¦ worth of ships, the most expensive thing it's likely to drop is an Invuln II.
Shalua Rui wrote:Capturing a Chess Piece: In Game Action -> Causes In Game Harm to other Player... in a predifined invironment, where both parties are aware of all the rules AND, more importantly, have the same mindset towards the game.
Suicide Ganking a Hulk: In Game Action -> Causes In Game Harm to other Player... without all the above... atleast as far as the ganker knows or cares. Two errors. No, the mindset isn't necessarily the same for both parties in chess, and no, the ganking has the exact same qualifiers as chess: it's a pre-defined environment where both parties are aware of the rules. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Shalua Rui
FEROX AQUILA
386
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 12:22:00 -
[2875] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Two errors. No, the mindset isn't necessarily the same for both parties in chess, and no, the ganking has the exact same qualifiers as chess: it's a pre-defined environment where both parties are aware of the rules.
And that it the big misconception all gankers have... as an example: I was gone from the game for quite some time (years) and didn't hear much about Burn Jita, Hulkageddon, Goonswarm, etc. Back then, when I played regulary, mining highsec (my choosen profession) was relatively save... aside from the odd rats and stuff.
You can imagine my surpize when I resubbed and found that no longer true. Yes, you may argue now that that's my problem... the game has changed and I have to adapt or go... well, not as simple. See, the game hasn't changed, much (the change is only coming now, gradually) the players have... and I am allowed to have a problem with that... no? "I wish to have no Connection with any Ship that does not Sail fast for I intend to go in harm's way."
Captain John Paul Jones, 16 November 1778 |
Pipa Porto
639
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 12:29:00 -
[2876] - Quote
Shalua Rui wrote:Tippia wrote:Two errors. No, the mindset isn't necessarily the same for both parties in chess, and no, the ganking has the exact same qualifiers as chess: it's a pre-defined environment where both parties are aware of the rules. And that it the big misconception all gankers have... as an example: I was gone from the game for quite some time (years) and didn't hear much about Burn Jita, Hulkageddon, Goonswarm, etc. Back then, when I played regulary, mining highsec (my choosen profession) was relatively save... aside from the odd rats and stuff. You can imagine my surpize when I resubbed and found that no longer true. Yes, you may argue now that that's my problem... the game has changed and I have to adapt or go... well, not as simple. See, the game hasn't changed, much (the change is only coming now, gradually) the players have... and I am allowed to have a problem with that... no?
You had every opportunity to learn the new lay of the land (there were login screen adverts for Burn Jita and the Ice Interdictions FFS). It's not reasonable to expect that the game environment will be unchanged after being away for years.
Ganking has been around as long as EVE has. Look up m0o and Zombies (aka the Yulai Incident). Just because it wasn't particularly popular when you were active doesn't mean there's a problem with the game mechanics now.
If you have a problem with the population of EVE, that's fine. But that's not something you fix with game mechanical changes. Really, the only realistic way to deal with not liking the demographics of an MMO is to find one with demographics you like. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8917
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 12:35:00 -
[2877] - Quote
Shalua Rui wrote:And that it the big misconception all gankers have... as an example: I was gone from the game for quite some time (years) and didn't hear much about Burn Jita, Hulkageddon, Goonswarm, etc. Back then, when I played regulary, mining highsec (my choosen profession) was relatively save... aside from the odd rats and stuff. GǪand? How does that represent misconception on the gankers' part? What are they mistaken about?
Quote:You can imagine my surpize when I resubbed and found that no longer true. It is as true as it ever was.
Quote:See, the game hasn't changed, much (the change is only coming now, gradually) the players have... and I am allowed to have a problem with that... no? You're allowed to realise that you have a problem and adapt to make the problem go away, yes (or, for that matter, to not adapt and keep having the problem, if you're the kind who enjoys that). So what? GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Shalua Rui
FEROX AQUILA
389
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 12:37:00 -
[2878] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Ganking has been around as long as EVE has. Look up m0o and Zombies (aka the Yulai Incident). Just because it wasn't particularly popular when you were active doesn't mean there's a problem with the game mechanics now.
I'm not talking about ganking, I'm talking about suicide ganking people in highsec... I mean, seriously, the fact that it's SUIDICE is a dead give away that it's not intended to be used on a regular basis, let alone as a means to make profit!
Nobody can be that naive as to think that CCP intended this mechanic to be used that way... it has been nerfed numerous times already, because of that. "I wish to have no Connection with any Ship that does not Sail fast for I intend to go in harm's way."
Captain John Paul Jones, 16 November 1778 |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8917
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 12:42:00 -
[2879] - Quote
Shalua Rui wrote:I'm not talking about ganking, I'm talking about suicide ganking people in highsec... I mean, seriously, the fact that it's SUIDICE is a dead give away that it's not intended to be used on a regular basis, let alone as a means to make profit! No, it really isn't. It's just a different way of implementing the defining characteristic of highsec: that aggression comes at a cost. That's all highsec is GÇö a place where you have to pay to attack another player. You can pay in ISK or in assets, but as long as you pay the price, you're entirely free to do it. If the target is kind enough to sponsor your attack with enough loot to make it worth the cost, then all the better.
It's entirely intended to happen GÇö even on a regular basis and for profit GÇö or it would simply not be possible to begin with. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Shalua Rui
FEROX AQUILA
389
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 12:45:00 -
[2880] - Quote
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.^^ "I wish to have no Connection with any Ship that does not Sail fast for I intend to go in harm's way."
Captain John Paul Jones, 16 November 1778 |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8917
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 12:54:00 -
[2881] - Quote
Shalua Rui wrote:It still doesn't mean CCP even predicted it would happen like it did. Sure they did. Largely because it was happening from day 1, and instead of just removing the ability outright at some point in the last decade (which would have saved them a heap of work), they ensured that it is, to this day, still a viable tactic.
Suicide ganking is explicitly and intentionally put into the game to ensure that you can always blow people up, no matter what, and to ensure that you are always at risk when undocked. Capships are prohibited in highsec partly because they would provide too much safety against such attacks. If someone chooses to make a gank profitable by fitting or carrying more stuff than the hull can support, then that's their choice and their problem, and not something the game particularly needs to compensate forGǪ
All they did was implement an alternative payment scheme for attacking people. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
baltec1
Bat Country
1822
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 13:08:00 -
[2882] - Quote
Shalua Rui wrote: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.^^
If CCP didnt want it happening then they would have stopped it when they buffed concord back when M0o was camping the trade routes. The fact that they didn't and applaud it when it happens is evidence enough that it is a viable part of the game. |
Blastcaps Madullier
Celestial Horizon Corp. Ethereal Dawn
79
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 13:33:00 -
[2883] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Shalua Rui wrote: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.^^ If CCP didnt want it happening then they would have stopped it when they buffed concord back when M0o was camping the trade routes. The fact that they didn't and applaud it when it happens is evidence enough that it is a viable part of the game.
Yet if you read the CSM minuits iirc CCP soundswave said ganking was never intended to be profitable....
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8918
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 13:38:00 -
[2884] - Quote
Blastcaps Madullier wrote:Yet if you read the CSM minuits iirc CCP soundswave said ganking was never intended to be profitable.... You don't recall correctly.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1629
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 13:38:00 -
[2885] - Quote
Blastcaps Madullier wrote:Yet if you read the CSM minuits iirc CCP soundswave said ganking was never intended to be profitable....
"never intended" to be profitable?
is that why stuff drops when your ship gets killed? because ganking shouldn't be profitable? EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Shalua Rui
FEROX AQUILA
390
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 13:41:00 -
[2886] - Quote
Ok, I give up... EVE's PvP combat is SUPPOSED to be one sided and cheap... got it. "I wish to have no Connection with any Ship that does not Sail fast for I intend to go in harm's way."
Captain John Paul Jones, 16 November 1778 |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1629
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 13:43:00 -
[2887] - Quote
Shalua Rui wrote:Ok, I give up... EVE's PvP combat is SUPPOSED to be one sided and cheap... got it.
It's only one-sided and cheap because the targets choose to make it so. EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Shalua Rui
FEROX AQUILA
390
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 13:45:00 -
[2888] - Quote
Said the spider to the fly. "I wish to have no Connection with any Ship that does not Sail fast for I intend to go in harm's way."
Captain John Paul Jones, 16 November 1778 |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1631
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 13:58:00 -
[2889] - Quote
Shalua Rui wrote:Said the spider to the fly.
"why does it only take one catalyst to gank my untanked expanded badger containing my life's worth eve is so unfair!!!" EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Shukuzen Kiraa
Neurodyne
206
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 13:59:00 -
[2890] - Quote
Shalua Rui wrote:Ok, I give up... EVE's PvP combat is SUPPOSED to be one sided and cheap... got it.
It's only that way if you have no friends to fly with. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8918
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 14:00:00 -
[2891] - Quote
Shalua Rui wrote:Ok, I give up... EVE's PvP combat is SUPPOSED to be one sided and cheap... got it. No. It's supposed to be whatever the involved parties make it be.
If one party ensures that the other will get a good return on their investment, then that other party will probably get their combat rather cheaply. That is their choice, though, and not something the game creates. As for one-sided, that's just how any smart aggressor will try to set up the confrontation, since doing something else is likely to make the costs shoot up more than they need to for no good reason. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Shalua Rui
FEROX AQUILA
397
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 14:02:00 -
[2892] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:"why does it only take one catalyst to gank my untanked expanded badger containing my life's worth eve is so unfair!!!"
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. "I wish to have no Connection with any Ship that does not Sail fast for I intend to go in harm's way."
Captain John Paul Jones, 16 November 1778 |
Pipa Porto
641
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 16:16:00 -
[2893] - Quote
Shalua Rui wrote:Ok, I give up... EVE's PvP combat is SUPPOSED to be one sided and cheap... got it.
EVE's PvP combat is exactly as one sided and cheap as the participants make it.
If White is playing Chess to win, and Black is playing to make a pretty pattern on the chessboard, is it any surprise that White wins effortlessly?
Ganking people is only one sided because they don't bother to try to counter it, even though there are at least a score of ways to do so. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
baltec1
Bat Country
1825
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 16:22:00 -
[2894] - Quote
Shalua Rui wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:"why does it only take one catalyst to gank my untanked expanded badger containing my life's worth eve is so unfair!!!" 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? |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1251
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 16:50:00 -
[2895] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Shalua Rui wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:"why does it only take one catalyst to gank my untanked expanded badger containing my life's worth eve is so unfair!!!" 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? If someone's "life's worth eve" is hundreds of millions and fits in an expanded badger, well ...
Interesting. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Tiak Vendil Isagar
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 17:13:00 -
[2896] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Blastcaps Madullier wrote:Yet if you read the CSM minuits iirc CCP soundswave said ganking was never intended to be profitable.... You don't recall correctly.
CCP Soundwave wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Zagdul wrote:Gone are the days where EVE is a dangerous place. I seem to have missed the part when they made all player ships immune to damage. 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.
Not sayin'... just sayin'... |
baltec1
Bat Country
1825
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 17:21:00 -
[2897] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote: Whats that got to do with some fool transporting hundreds of millions in an untanked badger?
If someone's "life's worth eve" is hundreds of millions and fits in an expanded badger, well ...
Interesting.[/quote]
You will be amazed as what badgers fly around in their holds. Thats where I got my first hulk from |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8924
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 17:34:00 -
[2898] - Quote
Tiak Vendil Isagar wrote:Not sayin'... just sayin'... GǪand the source of that quote isGǪ [drumroll]
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
Tiak Vendil Isagar
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 18:04:00 -
[2899] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Tiak Vendil Isagar wrote:Not sayin'... just sayin'... GǪand the source of that quote isGǪ [drumroll]
Actually, it's post #48 in this thread.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1698538#post1698538
|
Pipa Porto
641
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 18:07:00 -
[2900] - Quote
Tiak Vendil Isagar wrote:
Which is not the CSM Summit Minutes.
It's just Soundwave going off the reservation again. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
|
baltec1
Bat Country
1830
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 18:07:00 -
[2901] - Quote
Tiak Vendil Isagar wrote:
Because he has never been wrong or used the wrong words to say something before... |
Tiak Vendil Isagar
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 18:13:00 -
[2902] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Tiak Vendil Isagar wrote: Because he has never been wrong or used the wrong words to say something before...
Great! Then this is settled! |
Pipa Porto
641
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 18:16:00 -
[2903] - Quote
Tiak Vendil Isagar wrote:Great! Then this is settled!
Yes it is. That quote is not from the CSM Minutes. Settled. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Tiak Vendil Isagar
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 18:23:00 -
[2904] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Tiak Vendil Isagar wrote:Great! Then this is settled! Yes it is. That quote is not from the CSM Minutes. Settled.
Phew! Glad I didn't lose that one!! |
Pipa Porto
641
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 18:35:00 -
[2905] - Quote
Tiak Vendil Isagar wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Tiak Vendil Isagar wrote:Great! Then this is settled! Yes it is. That quote is not from the CSM Minutes. Settled. Phew! Glad I didn't lose that one!!
There (at least to me) is a difference in gravitas between a post that a Dev dashes off in a thread (and doesn't bother defending after people point out that it's ludicrous), and something they say in a CSM meeting that makes it into the minutes.
Devs are Human. They say stupid things sometimes. The CSM minutes process gives them an opportunity to footnote themselves and retract/explain themselves before publication. The Forums don't. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
2330
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 19:47:00 -
[2906] - Quote
I think it's pretty obvious that the "Ganking isn't meant to be profitable" statement is meant to cover your average case with common sense fits involved.
Now if a ganker takes the time to scan carefully and single out the multitude of players that sink way too much isk into way to fragile ships that is a completely different story. Bad fits and bad decisions are the bread and butter of the suicide ganker, as it should be.
Low sec gate camps are not intended on the average to be hilariously profitable either, however nothing stops the occasional freighter pilot screw up. That does not mean that CCP intends that the errant freighter pilot cannot or should not die, just that under "normal" circumstances it is not the normal profit situation for the gate camp.
Suicide gankers should absolutely be able to make a profit at their chosen profession, but (as is CCP's intention) to be profitable they need to take the time to find the ones that Darwin has selected for extinction... not just gain profit from every potential victim that crosses their path. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Pipa Porto
643
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 19:55:00 -
[2907] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:I think it's pretty obvious that the "Ganking isn't meant to be profitable" statement is meant to cover your average case with common sense fits involved.
Now if a ganker takes the time to scan carefully and single out the multitude of players that sink way too much isk into way to fragile ships that is a completely different story. Bad fits and bad decisions are the bread and butter of the suicide ganker, as it should be.
Low sec gate camps are not intended on the average to be hilariously profitable either, however nothing stops the occasional freighter pilot screw up. That does not mean that CCP intends that the errant freighter pilot cannot or should not die, just that under "normal" circumstances it is not the normal profit situation for the gate camp.
Suicide gankers should absolutely be able to make a profit at their chosen profession, but (as is CCP's intention) to be profitable they need to take the time to find the ones that Darwin has selected for extinction... not just gain profit from every potential victim that crosses their path.
And that's true of the current Hulk. Ganking Hulks is unprofitable unless the Hulk pilot fails to tank their ship (the 0 MLU brick is a counter to the "gankers have infinite time and alts, so they'll bring Meta Catalysts". A much weaker tank will dissuade the vast majority of ganks in a .5 system.). In higher sec bands, Hulk pilots can tank their ship sturdily enough to be unprofitable and still fit MLUs. What more do you want?
Just because a lot of miners put themselves in the position of the Dodo (credulous and trusting of the sailors, leading to easy hunting and extinction) doesn't mean there's a problem EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1647
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 20:00:00 -
[2908] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:And that's true of the current Hulk. Ganking Hulks is unprofitable unless the Hulk pilot fails to tank their ship (the 0 MLU brick is a counter to the "gankers have infinite time and alts, so they'll bring Meta Catalysts". A much weaker tank will dissuade the vast majority of ganks in a .5 system.). In higher sec bands, Hulk pilots can tank their ship sturdily enough to be unprofitable and still fit MLUs. What more do you want?
Just because a lot of miners put themselves in the position of the Dodo (credulous and trusting of the sailors, leading to easy hunting and extinction) doesn't mean there's a problem
To be fair I don't believe that a ship should be profitable to suicide gank solely for its salvage (even T2 fit) regardless of how poorly fit it is.
Now, if it's a Hulk with those half-bil MLUs, that's a different story :v EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
272
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 20:05:00 -
[2909] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:I think it's pretty obvious that the "Ganking isn't meant to be profitable" statement is meant to cover your average case with common sense fits involved.
Now if a ganker takes the time to scan carefully and single out the multitude of players that sink way too much isk into way to fragile ships that is a completely different story. Bad fits and bad decisions are the bread and butter of the suicide ganker, as it should be.
Low sec gate camps are not intended on the average to be hilariously profitable either, however nothing stops the occasional freighter pilot screw up. That does not mean that CCP intends that the errant freighter pilot cannot or should not die, just that under "normal" circumstances it is not the normal profit situation for the gate camp.
Suicide gankers should absolutely be able to make a profit at their chosen profession, but (as is CCP's intention) to be profitable they need to take the time to find the ones that Darwin has selected for extinction... not just gain profit from every potential victim that crosses their path. And that's true of the current Hulk. Ganking Hulks is unprofitable unless the Hulk pilot fails to tank their ship (the 0 MLU brick is a counter to the "gankers have infinite time and alts, so they'll bring Meta Catalysts". A much weaker tank will dissuade the vast majority of ganks in a .5 system.). In higher sec bands, Hulk pilots can tank their ship sturdily enough to be unprofitable and still fit MLUs. What more do you want? Just because a lot of miners put themselves in the position of the Dodo (credulous and trusting of the sailors, leading to easy hunting and extinction) doesn't mean there's a problem Yet we've seen a number of ganks in .5's with partially tanked, non expanded hulks as well. Not the majority I'm sure but they have and still are happening. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
2330
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 20:05:00 -
[2910] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:I think it's pretty obvious that the "Ganking isn't meant to be profitable" statement is meant to cover your average case with common sense fits involved.
Now if a ganker takes the time to scan carefully and single out the multitude of players that sink way too much isk into way to fragile ships that is a completely different story. Bad fits and bad decisions are the bread and butter of the suicide ganker, as it should be.
Low sec gate camps are not intended on the average to be hilariously profitable either, however nothing stops the occasional freighter pilot screw up. That does not mean that CCP intends that the errant freighter pilot cannot or should not die, just that under "normal" circumstances it is not the normal profit situation for the gate camp.
Suicide gankers should absolutely be able to make a profit at their chosen profession, but (as is CCP's intention) to be profitable they need to take the time to find the ones that Darwin has selected for extinction... not just gain profit from every potential victim that crosses their path. And that's true of the current Hulk. Ganking Hulks is unprofitable unless the Hulk pilot fails to tank their ship (the 0 MLU brick is a counter to the "gankers have infinite time and alts, so they'll bring Meta Catalysts". A much weaker tank will dissuade the vast majority of ganks in a .5 system.). In higher sec bands, Hulk pilots can tank their ship sturdily enough to be unprofitable and still fit MLUs. What more do you want? Just because a lot of miners put themselves in the position of the Dodo (credulous and trusting of the sailors, leading to easy hunting and extinction) doesn't mean there's a problem
I quite agree with most of that. However CCP in it's infinite wisdom has made it much easier to tell at a glance who the stupid and greedy miners are compared to the intelligent and prudent ones.
Just look for the hulk pilots in busy high sec systems and I have little doubt you will continue to find plentiful poorly fit, profitable targets. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
|
Pipa Porto
643
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 20:07:00 -
[2911] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:And that's true of the current Hulk. Ganking Hulks is unprofitable unless the Hulk pilot fails to tank their ship (the 0 MLU brick is a counter to the "gankers have infinite time and alts, so they'll bring Meta Catalysts". A much weaker tank will dissuade the vast majority of ganks in a .5 system.). In higher sec bands, Hulk pilots can tank their ship sturdily enough to be unprofitable and still fit MLUs. What more do you want?
Just because a lot of miners put themselves in the position of the Dodo (credulous and trusting of the sailors, leading to easy hunting and extinction) doesn't mean there's a problem To be fair I don't believe that a ship should be profitable to suicide gank solely for its salvage (even T2 fit) regardless of how poorly fit it is. Now, if it's a Hulk with those half-bil MLUs, that's a different story :v
Most T2 Cruisers with the same tank that most Hulk pilots fly with (i.e. none) are profitable to suicide gank solely for their salvage. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
2330
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 20:10:00 -
[2912] - Quote
As has been mentioned before, greed and sloth greatly diminish one's survival instinct.
This will not change. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Pipa Porto
643
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 20:10:00 -
[2913] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:I quite agree with most of that. However CCP in it's infinite wisdom has made it much easier to tell at a glance who the stupid and greedy miners are compared to the intelligent and prudent ones.
Just look for the hulk pilots in busy high sec systems and I have little doubt you will continue to find plentiful poorly fit, profitable targets.
And tbh, I'm fine with the idea behind Barge re-balance (get moar viable ships). Atm, the problem with it is that the Mackinaw can get over the magical safety number and still do everything better than the Skiff, rendering the Skiff mostly (well, entirely) useless. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1647
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 20:11:00 -
[2914] - Quote
People will still figure out a way to fit their Mackinaws without a single tank mod beyond "permatank the serpentis spy in the belt" and they'll still die to a few Catalysts. This will not change. EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Pipa Porto
643
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 20:15:00 -
[2915] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Yet we've seen a number of ganks in .5's with partially tanked, non expanded hulks as well. Not the majority I'm sure but they have and still are happening.
Yep. Being less profitable to gank than your neighbor is no guarantee of safety. It does make it less likely though ("Not the majority").
Being unprofitable to gank, is also not a guarantee of safety. It does make getting ganked really unlikely though,
Being aligned and awake at the keyboard is a guarantee of safety (except to Jorma's magical 2km/s cloaked bump ship). It does make mining slightly less convenient though (with some fitting choices and planning, you can mitigate this inconvenience). EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
2330
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 20:16:00 -
[2916] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:I quite agree with most of that. However CCP in it's infinite wisdom has made it much easier to tell at a glance who the stupid and greedy miners are compared to the intelligent and prudent ones.
Just look for the hulk pilots in busy high sec systems and I have little doubt you will continue to find plentiful poorly fit, profitable targets. And tbh, I'm fine with the idea behind Barge re-balance (get moar viable ships). Atm, the problem with it is that the Mackinaw can get over the magical safety number and still do everything better than the Skiff, rendering the Skiff mostly (well, entirely) useless.
I could be mistaken, but I think you are assuming a sensible fit... which for your average AFK miner is not all that likely... to be honest. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Pipa Porto
643
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 20:21:00 -
[2917] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:People will still figure out a way to fit their Mackinaws without a single tank mod beyond "permatank the serpentis spy in the belt" and they'll still die to a few Catalysts. This will not change.
People fly Megas that get killed by Itty Vs. Does that mean CCP should balance the Mega around them?
I'm sure there were some Titan Pilots that didn't understand how to remote AOE DD. Did that mean that was balanced because the least skillful pilot couldn't do it?
Ship Balancing shouldn't be based on what the least skillful player can come up with. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
272
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 20:33:00 -
[2918] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:People will still figure out a way to fit their Mackinaws without a single tank mod beyond "permatank the serpentis spy in the belt" and they'll still die to a few Catalysts. This will not change. Ranger 1 wrote:I could be mistaken, but I think you are assuming a sensible fit... which for your average AFK miner is not all that likely... to be honest People fly Megas that get killed by Itty Vs. Does that mean CCP should balance the Mega around them? I'm sure there were some Titan Pilots that didn't understand how to remote AOE DD. Did that mean that was balanced because the least skillful pilot couldn't do it? Ship Balancing shouldn't be based on what the least skillful player can come up with. If I recall the story behind that kill I'm not sure how it compares to a suicide gank as that was a consensual fight (the Mega engaged the Itty V for stealing loot). If it were a gank situation then the Itty V would have failed despite the fitting of the Mega. |
Pipa Porto
644
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 20:37:00 -
[2919] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:People will still figure out a way to fit their Mackinaws without a single tank mod beyond "permatank the serpentis spy in the belt" and they'll still die to a few Catalysts. This will not change. Ranger 1 wrote:I could be mistaken, but I think you are assuming a sensible fit... which for your average AFK miner is not all that likely... to be honest People fly Megas that get killed by Itty Vs. Does that mean CCP should balance the Mega around them? I'm sure there were some Titan Pilots that didn't understand how to remote AOE DD. Did that mean that was balanced because the least skillful pilot couldn't do it? Ship Balancing shouldn't be based on what the least skillful player can come up with. If I recall the story behind that kill I'm not sure how it compares to a suicide gank as that was a consensual fight (the Mega engaged the Itty V for stealing loot). If it were a gank situation then the Itty V would have failed despite the fitting of the Mega.
Missing the point entirely. Why should ship balancing for Mining barges be based on what the least skillful pilot can dream up? No other ship is balanced that way.
That's why, despite it being likely that plenty of Mack pilots will be untanked, the fact that it can fit above the magic profit line is a problem for the Skiff's chances of being at all useful. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
272
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 20:49:00 -
[2920] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote: Missing the point entirely. Why should ship balancing for Mining barges be based on what the least skillful pilot can dream up? No other ship is balanced that way.
That's why, despite it being likely that plenty of Mack pilots will be untanked, the fact that it can fit above the magic profit line is a problem for the Skiff's chances of being at all useful.
If it were balanced at what the least skillful pilot could think up it would have 40-50k EHP base at low skills. It leaves room to fail, just like other ships.
Edit: If anything equating the 2 situations is like saying the Mega is OP because it could have been fit in such a way to kill the itty V even rail fit just like the Mack can be fit to make a gank unprofitable. |
|
Shalua Rui
FEROX AQUILA
457
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 20:49:00 -
[2921] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Missing the point entirely. Why should ship balancing for Mining barges be based on what the least skillful pilot can dream up? No other ship is balanced that way.
Ok, sorry... but now you are just beeing ignorant... it's one thing to pin all responsibility on the "bad miners" that "are not smart enough to tank their barges" and what not, but it's entirely ridiculous to expect that CCP balances NON combat ships (that, in essence, need no combat skills to be used efficiently) with pure combat vessels...
For once, have the decency and admit that what you (not you specifically, but gankers in gerneral) do is the lowest and cheapest form of PvP short of gate/station camping... admit it, you don't have to spend pages upon pages to justify yourself...
Seriously... "I wish to have no Connection with any Ship that does not Sail fast for I intend to go in harm's way."
Captain John Paul Jones, 16 November 1778 |
Sentamon
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
108
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 20:51:00 -
[2922] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote: Why should ship balancing for Mining barges be based on what the least skillful pilot can dream up? No other ship is balanced that way.
Omg you used mining and skillful pilot in the same sentence. Good show.
~ Professional Forum Alt -á~ |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
617
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 21:00:00 -
[2923] - Quote
Sentamon wrote:Pipa Porto wrote: Why should ship balancing for Mining barges be based on what the least skillful pilot can dream up? No other ship is balanced that way.
Omg you used mining and skillful pilot in the same sentence. Good show.
The drake is balanced that way.
Perhaps minmitar to an extent, with how far their guns can shoot. Also minmitar drones, gets second best dmg, plus speed I think, and shafts another race to get that bonus. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
507
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 21:15:00 -
[2924] - Quote
Shalua Rui wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Missing the point entirely. Why should ship balancing for Mining barges be based on what the least skillful pilot can dream up? No other ship is balanced that way. Ok, sorry... but now you are just beeing ignorant... it's one thing to pin all responsibility on the "bad miners" that "are not smart enough to tank their barges" and what not, but it's entirely ridiculous to expect that CCP balances NON combat ships (that, in essence, need no combat skills to be used efficiently) with pure combat vessels... For once, have the decency and admit that what you (not you specifically, but gankers in gerneral) do is the lowest and cheapest form of PvP short of gate/station camping... admit it, you don't have to spend pages upon pages to justify yourself... Seriously...
You act like it takes a great deal of specilized training to fit a Hulk with a proper tank. News Flash: it doesn't.
T2 shield and T1 shield rig fittings take a trivial amount of time to train for, relative to training into a Hulk.
Now, players can choose to neglect that sort of training in favor of Exhumers V - but if you can't be bothered to spend half a day to train up for a Medium Shield Extender, why throw a fuss when you lose your ship?
Why throw a fuss when you looked at those empty slots and decided to put Cap Rechargers there instead of a tank?
I'm sure its frustrating to lose a couple days worth of mining to replace your ship, but eventually you have to learn to stop pointing fingers at other players and accept it.
YOU are responsible for the loss of your Mining Ship. Nobody else.
After getting ganked, instead of raging, crying on the forums and quitting the game, ALL miners should 1. Stand up. 2. Walk to their bathroom, look in the mirror and point at themselves. 3. Say: "It is MY fault that my Hulk was destroyed. There is nobody else to blame but me." 4. And then learn something from the experience.....
|
Shalua Rui
FEROX AQUILA
457
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 21:20:00 -
[2925] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:YOU are responsible for the loss of your Mining Ship. Nobody else.
Ignorance truly is bliss, I guess... but ok, if that's what gankers like to believe, who am I to shake their opinion? "I wish to have no Connection with any Ship that does not Sail fast for I intend to go in harm's way."
Captain John Paul Jones, 16 November 1778 |
Pipa Porto
644
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 21:24:00 -
[2926] - Quote
Shalua Rui wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Missing the point entirely. Why should ship balancing for Mining barges be based on what the least skillful pilot can dream up? No other ship is balanced that way. Ok, sorry... but now you are just beeing ignorant... it's one thing to pin all responsibility on the "bad miners" that "are not smart enough to tank their barges" and what not, but it's entirely ridiculous to expect that CCP balances NON combat ships (that, in essence, need no combat skills to be used efficiently) with pure combat vessels... For once, have the decency and admit that what you (not you specifically, but gankers in gerneral) do is the lowest and cheapest form of PvP short of gate/station camping... admit it, you don't have to spend pages upon pages to justify yourself... Seriously...
I never said that CCP should make Mining Barges comparable to Combat Vessels.
Efficient Mining requires that you survive long enough that losing your ship will not significantly affect your bottom line. Every other ship in the game requires support skills to do their job effectively, why should mining ships be any different?
Gankers do what they enjoy. Why do miners want to stop other people from playing the game the way they enjoy playing? If you enjoy having e-honor and losing to people who don't, that's your preference, and that's fine.
And again, why should mining ships be balanced against what the least intelligent, least skillful* player can bring to the table?
*Not SP, Player Skill. Being aligned requires 0 SP. A Meta Web requires ~250SP. Complaining about training time taking away from getting Exhumers 5 is a red herring. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
baltec1
Bat Country
1837
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 21:30:00 -
[2927] - Quote
Pankas Carter wrote: The ONLY person responsible for a ship being destroyed are the people shooting at it.
They kill you because you made it worth killing you. That makes it your fault. |
Pipa Porto
644
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 21:32:00 -
[2928] - Quote
Pankas Carter wrote:Guns don't kill people, people letting other people shoot them kill people?
That's some twisted logic you got there.
The ONLY person responsible for a ship being destroyed are the people shooting at it.
Suicide gankers: parasites. Someone get the fungicide creme...
Yes, because the legitimate gameplay of an MMO is a perfect match to RL crime.
Next you're going to tell me that every time I win at Chess, I've overthrown a Monarchy. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1647
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 21:32:00 -
[2929] - Quote
Nerf Burger wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:nobody suicide ganks hulks for a profit, it's for sport
but "suicide ganking shouldn't be profitable" is a bit of a newsflash I thought it was fairly obvious. I guess great minds think alike. Wow, if I was a CCP dev I would def start to hate my player base with all the arrogant, snarky ass-hats who seem to think so highly of themselves, trying to tell the devs what is what.
because suicide ganking is generally done out of spite for the target (i.e. hulk ganks) or to profit off of the loot (i.e. hauler ganks, shiny ganks)
you see, this is why loot drops when you die EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
272
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 21:34:00 -
[2930] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Pankas Carter wrote: The ONLY person responsible for a ship being destroyed are the people shooting at it.
They kill you because you made it worth killing you. That makes it your fault. 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. |
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1647
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 21:35:00 -
[2931] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote: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.
who the **** cares about who is "responsible" for the loss of a ship
if you make yourself a tempting target, don't whine about getting ganked, thanks EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Pankas Carter
Viziam Amarr Empire
24
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 21:35:00 -
[2932] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Pankas Carter wrote:Guns don't kill people, people letting other people shoot them kill people?
That's some twisted logic you got there.
The ONLY person responsible for a ship being destroyed are the people shooting at it. hi, this is a game please leave your silly RL analogies at the door
Hi, this is reality. Please leave your failure to understand logic on your side of the keyboard.
In game or in the real world, logic is logic. My analogy demonstrates the logic, and is just a tool. You're not supposed to read it literally. Adama: Starbuck, what do you hear? Starbuck: Nothing but the rain. Adama: Then grab your gun and bring in the cat. |
Nerf Burger
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
32
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 21:37:00 -
[2933] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Nerf Burger wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:nobody suicide ganks hulks for a profit, it's for sport
but "suicide ganking shouldn't be profitable" is a bit of a newsflash I thought it was fairly obvious. I guess great minds think alike. Wow, if I was a CCP dev I would def start to hate my player base with all the arrogant, snarky ass-hats who seem to think so highly of themselves, trying to tell the devs what is what. because suicide ganking is generally done out of spite for the target (i.e. hulk ganks) or to profit off of the loot (i.e. hauler ganks, shiny ganks) you see, this is why loot drops when you die
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. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
272
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 21:37:00 -
[2934] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote: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. who the **** cares about who is "responsible" for the loss of a ship if you make yourself a tempting target, don't whine about getting ganked, thanks Not whining, but the explicit blame the victim syndrome in the last few post ignores a basic fact of ganking. Granted it's facilitated by the behaviors and fitting of the gankee, but then, if no one cared, why was it brought up? |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1647
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 21:38:00 -
[2935] - Quote
I remember when people would get mocked endlessly when they'd cry about losing their multibillion ISK ships on gates to gankers, having their stuff looted and probably even salvaged. Now everyone just has sympathy for the poor ~victim~ and they bleat risk/reward re: suicide ganking, despite it being literally the only risk left for anybody in hisec that isn't dumb enough to mine/haul/run missions during wardecs. EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Pankas Carter
Viziam Amarr Empire
24
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 21:40:00 -
[2936] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:I remember when people would get mocked endlessly when they'd cry about losing their multibillion ISK ships on gates to gankers, having their stuff looted and probably even salvaged. Now everyone just has sympathy for the poor ~victim~ and they bleat risk/reward re: suicide ganking, despite it being literally the only risk left for anybody in hisec that isn't dumb enough to mine/haul/run missions during wardecs.
Well, lets step back a minute and take stock:
You're a goon. Most of us would probably defend kicking puppies just to contradict you. Hide your corporation/alliance on the forum or post with an alt, if you want to have a rational discussion. I'm sorry, but that's the way things work. You all earned that reputation. Adama: Starbuck, what do you hear? Starbuck: Nothing but the rain. Adama: Then grab your gun and bring in the cat. |
baltec1
Bat Country
1837
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 21:42:00 -
[2937] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote: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.
Yes its really does. He chose not to fit a tank and faces the consiquences of his actions. It is laughably easy to avoid being ganked for profit. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1252
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 21:43:00 -
[2938] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:I remember when people would get mocked endlessly when they'd cry about losing their multibillion ISK ships on gates to gankers, having their stuff looted and probably even salvaged. Now everyone just has sympathy for the poor ~victim~ and they bleat risk/reward re: suicide ganking, despite it being literally the only risk left for anybody in hisec that isn't dumb enough to mine/haul/run missions during wardecs. Oh well, that's just the way that it works nowadays I guess. Gankers are bad people Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Pankas Carter
Viziam Amarr Empire
24
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 21:43:00 -
[2939] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote: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. Yes its really does. He chose not to fit a tank and faces the consiquences of his actions. It is laughably easy to avoid being ganked for profit.
These consequences are completely arbitrary. As he said, he didn't explode for no reason. Someone made a decision to shoot him. The fault lies with the shooter, period.
Lets be clear here: i'm not saying ganking is necessarily wrong. You just need to accept the fact that the ganker is responsible for pulling the trigger. If bitching/whining/patching is the result of abusing it, well, that's your own damn fault. Adama: Starbuck, what do you hear? Starbuck: Nothing but the rain. Adama: Then grab your gun and bring in the cat. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1647
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 21:44:00 -
[2940] - Quote
Nerf Burger wrote: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.
I'm sorry that you're wrong. Any dev who says "suicide ganking was never intended to be profitable" is lying through his teeth.
I'd have more respect for him if he simply said "we no longer feel that suicide ganking should be profitable" because the game is absolutely designed to make ganking loaded haulers and shiny-fit ships profitable. EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
272
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 21:45:00 -
[2941] - Quote
Ok, lets try this one more time.
I'm not saying one should feel sorry for people who mine in untanked ships, move high value cargo while auto piloting or in noobship/untanked haulers, fly overblinged mission ships or whatever else is getting people shot for not thinking before they act. I'm just saying that another, opportunistic party is necessary to bring the event to its logical conclusion and as such fault cannot fall squarely on either party. |
baltec1
Bat Country
1837
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 21:45:00 -
[2942] - Quote
Nerf Burger wrote: 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.
Riddle me this.
If CCP are putting an end to ganking for profit why did they change the stats on barges so most of them can be ganked for profit still? |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1648
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 21:49:00 -
[2943] - Quote
Nerf Burger wrote: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.
please don't say anything regarding "risk" when you're explicitly saying that the only risk left in hisec should be eliminated EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1648
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 21:50:00 -
[2944] - Quote
Pankas Carter wrote:Yea, I admit I'm being contrarian mostly to be a jerk. That said, I really wish you all would stop pretending you're doing nothing "wrong" - it's not the victim's fault. Whether or not what you did is a crime is not my debate, my debate is the fact that the miner didn't grab your hand, push the gun to his head, and pull your trigger.
please keep up these uncreative comparisons of ganking to real-life murder
they are absolutely hilarious EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Pipa Porto
644
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 21:51:00 -
[2945] - Quote
Pankas Carter wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:I remember when people would get mocked endlessly when they'd cry about losing their multibillion ISK ships on gates to gankers, having their stuff looted and probably even salvaged. Now everyone just has sympathy for the poor ~victim~ and they bleat risk/reward re: suicide ganking, despite it being literally the only risk left for anybody in hisec that isn't dumb enough to mine/haul/run missions during wardecs. Well, lets step back a minute and take stock: You're a goon. Most of us would probably defend kicking puppies just to contradict you. Hide your corporation/alliance on the forum or post with an alt, if you want to have a rational discussion. I'm sorry, but that's the way things work. You all earned that reputation.
Well that's some impressive courage of your convictions. You'd condone kicking puppies out of spite for the person saying it's wrong to kick puppies.
You realize, of course that you've gone ahead and conceded the point by saying that? If there is no way you can conceive of changing your mind about a topic (esp just because of the other person's affiliations), you're taking part in an argument anymore. You're just making noise. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Pankas Carter
Viziam Amarr Empire
25
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 21:51:00 -
[2946] - Quote
(edit ate my post)
Just go re-read what I said elsewhere. I'm not going to change my opinion because you said "na-uh!" Adama: Starbuck, what do you hear? Starbuck: Nothing but the rain. Adama: Then grab your gun and bring in the cat. |
Pankas Carter
Viziam Amarr Empire
25
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 21:52:00 -
[2947] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Pankas Carter wrote:Yea, I admit I'm being contrarian mostly to be a jerk. That said, I really wish you all would stop pretending you're doing nothing "wrong" - it's not the victim's fault. Whether or not what you did is a crime is not my debate, my debate is the fact that the miner didn't grab your hand, push the gun to his head, and pull your trigger. please keep up these uncreative comparisons of ganking to real-life murder they are absolutely hilarious
Fine. Replace guns with creme pies if you want. Then there's no crime, real or imagined, but you're still putting someone's face into the pie. Adama: Starbuck, what do you hear? Starbuck: Nothing but the rain. Adama: Then grab your gun and bring in the cat. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
272
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 21:53:00 -
[2948] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Pankas Carter wrote: These consequences are completely arbitrary. As he said, he didn't explode for no reason. Someone made a decision to shoot him. The fault lies with the shooter, period.
Lets be clear here: i'm not saying ganking is necessarily wrong. You just need to accept the fact that the ganker is responsible for pulling the trigger. If bitching/whining/patching is the result of abusing it, well, that's your own damn fault.
The person wouldnt be ganked if it wasnt worth it. It all ends with the victims choice, be it putting too much wealth in a poorly tanked ship or jumping blind into a bubble camp. It was the victim who put the cogs in motion. 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. |
Pipa Porto
644
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 21:54:00 -
[2949] - Quote
Nerf Burger wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:I remember when people would get mocked endlessly when they'd cry about losing their multibillion ISK ships on gates to gankers, having their stuff looted and probably even salvaged. Now everyone just has sympathy for the poor ~victim~ and they bleat risk/reward re: suicide ganking, despite it being literally the only risk left for anybody in hisec that isn't dumb enough to mine/haul/run missions during wardecs. 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.
So, besides Suicide Ganks, what "risks" do miners in HS face? Please note that Miners derive no benefit from being in a Player corp, so AWOAXing isn't a risk, and even if wardecs weren't trivial to avoid, Wardecs aren't a risk.
Belt Rats? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
186
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 21:54:00 -
[2950] - Quote
Pankas Carter wrote: Yea, I admit I'm being contrarian mostly to be a jerk. That said, I really wish you all would stop pretending you're doing nothing "wrong" - it's not the victim's fault. Whether or not what you did is a crime is not my debate, my debate is the fact that the miner didn't grab your hand, push the gun to his head, and pull your trigger.
Firstly there is nothing "wrong" with destroying another pilot's ship so long as you don't use an exploit to do it.
Secondly, you can be at fault without being responsible. You can be at fault without something being your fault. Its not your fault your hulk exploded but you were at fault for not tanking it or watching local or aligning. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country
1837
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 21:55:00 -
[2951] - Quote
Nerf Burger wrote: 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.
suicide ganking involves 100% risk, takes more skill than shown by the victims, in no way hurts the game and benefits lowlifes who dedicate hours to making a fortune in isk. Why would CCP get rid of a corserstone of its gameplay that has been with us for 9 years? |
Pankas Carter
Viziam Amarr Empire
25
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 21:57:00 -
[2952] - Quote
Yeep wrote:Pankas Carter wrote: Yea, I admit I'm being contrarian mostly to be a jerk. That said, I really wish you all would stop pretending you're doing nothing "wrong" - it's not the victim's fault. Whether or not what you did is a crime is not my debate, my debate is the fact that the miner didn't grab your hand, push the gun to his head, and pull your trigger.
Firstly there is nothing "wrong" with destroying another pilot's ship so long as you don't use an exploit to do it. Secondly, you can be at fault without being responsible. You can be at fault without something being your fault. Its not your fault your hulk exploded but you were at fault for not tanking it or watching local or aligning.
Mmm, true enough. ... and I thought I said I didn't think there was anything wrong with it. My problem is with the person doing the shooting pretending they didn't act, and that the target just magically exploded on their own. Adama: Starbuck, what do you hear? Starbuck: Nothing but the rain. Adama: Then grab your gun and bring in the cat. |
Pipa Porto
644
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 21:57:00 -
[2953] - Quote
Pankas Carter wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Pankas Carter wrote:Yea, I admit I'm being contrarian mostly to be a jerk. That said, I really wish you all would stop pretending you're doing nothing "wrong" - it's not the victim's fault. Whether or not what you did is a crime is not my debate, my debate is the fact that the miner didn't grab your hand, push the gun to his head, and pull your trigger. please keep up these uncreative comparisons of ganking to real-life murder they are absolutely hilarious Fine. Replace guns with creme pies if you want. Then there's no crime, real or imagined, but you're still putting someone's face into the pie.
Which is Assault. Which is a Crime.
Since it's an unknown substance, and it's probably gonna get into a mouth, nose, or eye, some states statutes for attempted murder might cover it as well (East Coast states especially take dim views on poisonings, and their laws were written a long time ago, so their murder/attempted murder statutes are pretty fun like that).
If you're talking about a Clown at a Carnival, where he's consented to take part (like the miners consenting when they Log in/Undock), then yes, there's no crime, but then your analogy kind of falls apart. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1648
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 21:58:00 -
[2954] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Belt Rats?
if belt rats provide any risk I guess the chance-based nature of wreck loot is also risk
funny how that works! EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Sentamon
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
108
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 21:59:00 -
[2955] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: suicide ganking involves 0% risk, takes no skill, makes casual players quit, and benefits lowlife scared of real PvP gankers who dedicate hours to making a fortune in isk Why would CCP throw out the trash instead of letting it fester and stink up the place?
I ganked your thoughts, how you like it?
~ Professional Forum Alt -á~ |
baltec1
Bat Country
1837
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 21:59:00 -
[2956] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote: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.
Gankers are not responsable for your actions, just the consiquences |
Pankas Carter
Viziam Amarr Empire
25
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 22:00:00 -
[2957] - Quote
edit: you know what? no. I'm done arguing with trolls and their cousins. Adama: Starbuck, what do you hear? Starbuck: Nothing but the rain. Adama: Then grab your gun and bring in the cat. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1648
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 22:00:00 -
[2958] - Quote
Sentamon wrote:I ganked your thoughts, how you like it?
again I find it hilarious that people bleat "risk/reward" re: the only thing that provides any meaningful risk to hiseccers EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1252
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 22:01:00 -
[2959] - Quote
Sentamon wrote:baltec1 wrote: suicide ganking involves 0% risk, takes no skill, makes casual players quit, and benefits lowlife scared of real PvP gankers who dedicate hours to making a fortune in isk Why would CCP throw out the trash instead of letting it fester and stink up the place?
I ganked your thoughts, how you like it? Oh I'm sure they'll get around to "PvP gankers" soon enough. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
minerdave
Mojave Express
11
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 22:01:00 -
[2960] - Quote
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 |
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1648
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 22:03:00 -
[2961] - Quote
and hey let's turn the tables a bit here
suicide gankers have allegedly enjoyed "risk-free" PvP for years, and crimewatch will allow their looting alts to be shot at by anyone, with neutral RR that they can't shoot
why should the "vigilantes" enjoy risk-free PvP? EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Nerf Burger
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
33
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 22:05:00 -
[2962] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Nerf Burger wrote: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. please don't say anything regarding "risk" when you're explicitly saying that the only risk left in hisec should be eliminated
I'd also hate my player base for all the moronic assumptions.
I never said suicide ganking should be eliminated. I just don't think it should be profitable. Its amazing how so many think catering to d-bags is somehow sustainable in what is supposed to be a sandbox game. You want to see a game population where the wolves outnumber the sheep and no safety zones? Take a look at Darkfall. |
baltec1
Bat Country
1837
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 22:06:00 -
[2963] - Quote
minerdave wrote: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
Funny thing is, most of us are quite happy about the barge changes. |
Pankas Carter
Viziam Amarr Empire
25
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 22:06:00 -
[2964] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:and hey let's turn the tables a bit here
suicide gankers have allegedly enjoyed "risk-free" PvP for years, and crimewatch will allow their looting alts to be shot at by anyone, with neutral RR that they can't shoot
why should the "vigilantes" enjoy risk-free PvP?
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 :) Adama: Starbuck, what do you hear? Starbuck: Nothing but the rain. Adama: Then grab your gun and bring in the cat. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1648
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 22:07:00 -
[2965] - Quote
Nerf Burger wrote:I'd also hate my player base for all the moronic assumptions.
I never said suicide ganking should be eliminated. I just don't think it should be profitable. Its amazing how so many think catering to d-bags is somehow sustainable in what is supposed to be a sandbox game. You want to see a game population where the wolves outnumber the sheep and no safety zones? Take a look at Darkfall.
if it isn't profitable, it's not a viable profession, and you'll be just as "safe" flying in an empty, supertanked occator as you are in an untanked badger with your entire life's worth
please make me laugh some more EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
baltec1
Bat Country
1837
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 22:07:00 -
[2966] - Quote
Nerf Burger wrote: I never said suicide ganking should be eliminated. I just don't think it should be profitable
People dont gank unprofitable things. Theres no profit in it. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1648
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 22:08:00 -
[2967] - Quote
Pankas Carter wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:and hey let's turn the tables a bit here
suicide gankers have allegedly enjoyed "risk-free" PvP for years, and crimewatch will allow their looting alts to be shot at by anyone, with neutral RR that they can't shoot
why should the "vigilantes" enjoy risk-free PvP? 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 :)
the vigilantes themselves are "concord-exempt" but only if the guy they're shooting shoots back - anyone else gets involved and they get concorded
which doesn't really help when the types that engage in this kind of "PvP" have their 2 neutral RR alts trailing behind EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
baltec1
Bat Country
1837
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 22:10:00 -
[2968] - Quote
Pankas Carter wrote: 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 :)
People can already shoot gankers when they hit -5 |
Spector Nightshade
Born Crazy Kadeshians
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 22:10:00 -
[2969] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:I don't want you to stop ganking nor am I going to remove aggression in high sec vOv You got the Insurance Nerf. You got the Suddenly CONCORD fix to aggro kiting. You got the wardec changes that Dramatically favor the defenders. You got the proposed Crimewatch changes that make it essentially impossible to loot the cargo of a ganked Freighter. You got the proposed Crimewatch changes that were originally going to allow RR with CONCORD protection. It all paints a picture, no matter what your stated objectives are. Hulks can be fit such that they are not profitable to gank right now. The others need roles to fill, but if one ship's going to have the role of Tankey Miner, why are they all getting buffs that take away from that role bonus? To fit the roles, the Skiff should have a great Tank, a middling Yield, and a smallish Cargo. The Mackinaw should have a small Tank, a middling Yield, and a Great Cargo. The Hulk should have a small Tank, a Great Yield, and a smallish Cargo. You're giving the Skiff an insane Tank, a middling Yield, and a very good Cargo. The Mackinaw a great Tank, a middling Yield, and a Great Cargo. The Hulk a great Tank, a Great Yield, and a smallish Cargo. When the Mack can have ~60k EHP, why bother with the Skiff? When the Hulk can have ~45k EHP, why bother with the Skiff? 35k EHP is already unprofitable to Gank. The Extra 10k will remove Exhumer ganking entirely. Oh, and the other 2 Exhumers with max MLUs should be able to out-mine a 0 MLU Hulk. Otherwise people are going to keep using the Hulk and tanking it (probably badly).
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.
|
Pipa Porto
644
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 22:13:00 -
[2970] - Quote
Nerf Burger wrote:I never said suicide ganking should be eliminated. Like soundwave, I LOVE that it is possible. I just don't think it should be profitable, easy, and with such a predictable result. This game is easy enough for griefers as it is. Its amazing how so many think catering to d-bags is somehow sustainable in what is supposed to be a sandbox game. You want to see a game population where the wolves outnumber the sheep and no safety zones? Take a look at Darkfall.
Then teach the miners how to fit a tank (lord knows I've tried), and it already isn't profitable. Or easy (try to herd 10 gank pilots together to get a breakeven gank of a proper brick Hulk when there's 5 untanked ones in a belt next door) (or try ganking an aligned Hulk whose owner cares enough about his property to pay attention to the screen on occasion). EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
272
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 22:13:00 -
[2971] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote: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. Gankers are not responsable for your actions, just the consiquences Since the consequence is a gank, that would make gankers responsible for ganking. Others just aid in target selection. |
baltec1
Bat Country
1837
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 22:14:00 -
[2972] - Quote
Spector Nightshade wrote: 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.
My covetor tanks more than 20k... |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1648
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 22:15:00 -
[2973] - Quote
Spector Nightshade wrote: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.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/16196592/Hulk%20-%20catalyst%20tanked.jpg EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Pipa Porto
645
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 22:16:00 -
[2974] - Quote
Spector Nightshade wrote: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.
At the time of that Post, the SISI dump had given the Hulk a big boost to its tank. That has since been rolled back. That's where 45k EHP came from.
As for current TQ Fittings,
39.2k EHP vs Void 39.9k EHP vs AM 45.3k EHP vs Quake 33.6k EHP vs EM 36.7k EHP vs PP 45.7k EHP vs Fusion
Add gang links, and: 47.6k EHP vs Void 55.5k EHP vs Quake 40.3k EHP vs EMP
[Hulk, Tank Fit]
Micro Auxiliary Power Core II Internal Force Field Array I
Medium F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
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 I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Inherent Implants 'Squire' Engineering EG-604 EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
baltec1
Bat Country
1838
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 22:17:00 -
[2975] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Since the consequence is a gank, that would make gankers responsible for ganking. Others just aid in target selection.
Doesnt matter how you try to word it, the problem for the miner always starts with them not fitting a tank. |
Pankas Carter
Viziam Amarr Empire
25
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 22:17:00 -
[2976] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Spector Nightshade wrote: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.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/16196592/Hulk%20-%20catalyst%20tanked.jpg
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. Adama: Starbuck, what do you hear? Starbuck: Nothing but the rain. Adama: Then grab your gun and bring in the cat. |
Pankas Carter
Viziam Amarr Empire
25
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 22:18:00 -
[2977] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Since the consequence is a gank, that would make gankers responsible for ganking. Others just aid in target selection. Doesnt matter how you try to word it, the problem for the miner always starts with them not fitting a tank.
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. Adama: Starbuck, what do you hear? Starbuck: Nothing but the rain. Adama: Then grab your gun and bring in the cat. |
baltec1
Bat Country
1838
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 22:20:00 -
[2978] - Quote
Pankas Carter wrote: 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.
All you need is the tank to make you unprofitable. That kicks in at around 20k. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
272
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 22:20:00 -
[2979] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Since the consequence is a gank, that would make gankers responsible for ganking. Others just aid in target selection. Doesnt matter how you try to word it, the problem for the miner always starts with them not fitting a tank. If there were no gankers tank wouldn't matter. |
baltec1
Bat Country
1838
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 22:21:00 -
[2980] - Quote
Pankas Carter wrote: 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.
It starts with the miner deciding to not fit a tank. |
|
Pipa Porto
645
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 22:22:00 -
[2981] - Quote
Pankas Carter wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Spector Nightshade wrote: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.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/16196592/Hulk%20-%20catalyst%20tanked.jpg 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.
Not really. Shield Tanking's not particularly skill intensive when using Active Hardeners.
Shield Management 5, Tactical Shield Ops 4, Engineering 5, Electronics 5, Exhumers 5, Shield Upgrades 1, Energy Management 5, Hull Upgrades 1, Shield Rigging 1 EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
baltec1
Bat Country
1838
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 22:23:00 -
[2982] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:If there were no gankers tank wouldn't matter.
But there is gankers. Because people do things, silly things, that makes ganking worth doing. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1650
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 22:23:00 -
[2983] - Quote
Pankas Carter wrote: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.
I have all of the skills needed for that tank on both my main and this character. My main has a little short of 30M SP, this character has <25M. EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1650
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 22:26:00 -
[2984] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Shield Management 5, Tactical Shield Ops 4, Engineering 5, Electronics 5, Exhumers 5, Shield Upgrades 1, Energy Management 5, Hull Upgrades 1, Shield Rigging 1
to be fair this tank requires shield upgrades V but that's so trivial that screaming "WELL THAT'S AN ALL LEVEL 5 CHARACTER YOU THEORYCRAFTED IT WITH" is silly
nevermind, works with SU I EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
617
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 22:27:00 -
[2985] - Quote
And becuase they exist, CCP can choose to buff us in response. Surprise I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
617
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 22:28:00 -
[2986] - Quote
Shield upgrades 5 is kind of silly though, unless you fly all shield tank ships. The hulk is shield tanked though, so perhaps not too silly. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Nerf Burger
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
33
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 22:29:00 -
[2987] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Nerf Burger wrote:I'd also hate my player base for all the moronic assumptions.
I never said suicide ganking should be eliminated. I just don't think it should be profitable. Its amazing how so many think catering to d-bags is somehow sustainable in what is supposed to be a sandbox game. You want to see a game population where the wolves outnumber the sheep and no safety zones? Take a look at Darkfall. if it isn't profitable, it's not a viable profession, and you'll be just as "safe" flying in an empty, supertanked occator as you are in an untanked badger with your entire life's worth please make me laugh some more
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. |
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
186
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 22:29:00 -
[2988] - Quote
Nerf Burger wrote: I never said suicide ganking should be eliminated. Like soundwave, I LOVE that it is possible. I just don't think it should be profitable, easy, and with such a predictable result.
Lets say I fully expand an Iteron V and fill it with Estamel's Invulns. Thats 8369 modules at 18bil a piece, or 150,642,000,000,000ISK of value. Lets assume a gank fit Tornado is the best value for money at 150mil a ship it does roughly 10.5k alpha and in low highsec gets 2 shots off before Concord shows up. To lose isk it would take 1,004,280 Tornados. So an untanked, fully expanded Iteron V should have 21,089,880 EHP. Thats just over half the health of a fully officer tanked titan.
But thats ok because ganking isn't supposed to be profitable. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1650
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 22:29:00 -
[2989] - Quote
rodyas wrote:And becuase they exist, CCP can choose to buff us in response. Surprise
because suicide ganking has never been nerfed ever lol EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
617
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 22:31:00 -
[2990] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:rodyas wrote:And becuase they exist, CCP can choose to buff us in response. Surprise because suicide ganking has never been nerfed ever lol
A bit confused on that messageing, unless you count loggofski nerf, making it harder for capitals to gank, or maybe the AOE titan nerf, making it harder for them to gank.
Mostly hear about the nano nerf and other ones, like jump bridges and stuff.
Not up to the times with ganker nerfs. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1650
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 22:31:00 -
[2991] - Quote
Yeep wrote:Nerf Burger wrote: I never said suicide ganking should be eliminated. Like soundwave, I LOVE that it is possible. I just don't think it should be profitable, easy, and with such a predictable result.
Lets say I fully expand an Iteron V and fill it with Estamel's Invulns. Thats 8369 modules at 18bil a piece, or 150,642,000,000,000ISK of value. Lets assume a gank fit Tornado is the best value for money at 150mil a ship it does roughly 10.5k alpha and in low highsec gets 2 shots off before Concord shows up. To lose isk it would take 1,004,280 Tornados. So an untanked, fully expanded Iteron V should have 21,089,880 EHP. Thats just over half the health of a fully officer tanked titan. But thats ok because ganking isn't supposed to be profitable.
oh please, you can fill an expanded Iteron V with GêP titan blueprints so they should have GêP EHP EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
272
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 22:31:00 -
[2992] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Shield Management 5, Tactical Shield Ops 4, Engineering 5, Electronics 5, Exhumers 5, Shield Upgrades 1, Energy Management 5, Hull Upgrades 1, Shield Rigging 1 to be fair this tank requires shield upgrades V but that's so trivial that screaming "WELL THAT'S AN ALL LEVEL 5 CHARACTER YOU THEORYCRAFTED IT WITH" is sillynevermind, works with SU I Wouldn't you also need hull upgrades V and mechanic V to get the full base EHP of the ship as well? |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
617
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 22:33:00 -
[2993] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Yeep wrote:Nerf Burger wrote: I never said suicide ganking should be eliminated. Like soundwave, I LOVE that it is possible. I just don't think it should be profitable, easy, and with such a predictable result.
Lets say I fully expand an Iteron V and fill it with Estamel's Invulns. Thats 8369 modules at 18bil a piece, or 150,642,000,000,000ISK of value. Lets assume a gank fit Tornado is the best value for money at 150mil a ship it does roughly 10.5k alpha and in low highsec gets 2 shots off before Concord shows up. To lose isk it would take 1,004,280 Tornados. So an untanked, fully expanded Iteron V should have 21,089,880 EHP. Thats just over half the health of a fully officer tanked titan. But thats ok because ganking isn't supposed to be profitable. oh please, you can fill an expanded Iteron V with GêP titan blueprints so they should have GêP EHP
well to be fair, There are not basic ships designed to haul titan blueprints, so blaming the pilot is a bit far. They do have the cov-ops hauler. But in a way, the shuttle can be the best hauler, who would have seen that. And perhaps is that bad game design? I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1650
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 22:34:00 -
[2994] - Quote
rodyas wrote:A bit confused on that messageing, unless you count loggofski nerf, making it harder for capitals to gank, or maybe the AOE titan nerf, making it harder for them to gank.
Mostly hear about the nano nerf and other ones, like jump bridges and stuff.
Not up to the times with ganker nerfs.
CONCORD buff that made them instaneut, permajam and instapop you, halving of concord response times for the nth time, across-the-board boost to EHP on all ships "for the sake of increasing the length of fights," the removal of insurance payouts for losses to CONCORD, so on and so on
need I go on?
EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
baltec1
Bat Country
1838
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 22:37:00 -
[2995] - Quote
Nerf Burger wrote:
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.
Acctually before the insurance nerf it was profitable to kill miners with a thorax thanks to the insurance payout. What changed was that my corp went and did it on an industrial scale.
Also if the DEVs are stopping us from ganking for profit why did they alter the stats on barges so that on the 8th they can still be killed for a profit? |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
617
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 22:38:00 -
[2996] - Quote
Yeah forgot about those, just wasn't too much whining about them, so easily forgotten.
But the goons did offer payments to help cover the insurance nerf, so perhaps that kept people from whining too much, and then me forgetting about it.
Well hi sec, is supppose to be more then people ganking others, so those nerfs came. If you choke out the activites in an area, you can pretty much expect a nerf to come.
You guys argue as if, ganking is the only thing that happens in hi sec, so its hard to see why all these nerfs happen to you. Gotta go out and explore and find new things. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Pipa Porto
646
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 22:38:00 -
[2997] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Shield Management 5, Tactical Shield Ops 4, Engineering 5, Electronics 5, Exhumers 5, Shield Upgrades 1, Energy Management 5, Hull Upgrades 1, Shield Rigging 1 to be fair this tank requires shield upgrades V but that's so trivial that screaming "WELL THAT'S AN ALL LEVEL 5 CHARACTER YOU THEORYCRAFTED IT WITH" is sillynevermind, works with SU I Wouldn't you also need hull upgrades V and mechanic V to get the full base EHP of the ship as well?
Not a very big difference.
vs Void, Mechanic 0 and Hull Upgrades 0 only costs you 1900 EHP. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
617
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 22:39:00 -
[2998] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Nerf Burger wrote:
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.
Acctually before the insurance nerf it was profitable to kill miners with a thorax thanks to the insurance payout. What changed was that my corp went and did it on an industrial scale. Also if the DEVs are stopping us from ganking for profit why did they alter the stats on barges so that on the 8th they can still be killed for a profit?
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. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
617
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 22:40:00 -
[2999] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Shield Management 5, Tactical Shield Ops 4, Engineering 5, Electronics 5, Exhumers 5, Shield Upgrades 1, Energy Management 5, Hull Upgrades 1, Shield Rigging 1 to be fair this tank requires shield upgrades V but that's so trivial that screaming "WELL THAT'S AN ALL LEVEL 5 CHARACTER YOU THEORYCRAFTED IT WITH" is sillynevermind, works with SU I Wouldn't you also need hull upgrades V and mechanic V to get the full base EHP of the ship as well? Not a very big difference. vs Void, Mechanic 0 and Hull Upgrades 0 only costs you 1900 EHP.
Well that strategy mostly works, if you use a damage control unit If you don't use one, might not be worth getting the extra life from lvl 5 skills. Even then, you might still be gankable, so the entire effort is worthless. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1650
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 22:40:00 -
[3000] - Quote
rodyas wrote:well to be fair, There are not basic ships designed to haul titan blueprints, so blaming the pilot is a bit far. They do have the cov-ops hauler. But in a way, the shuttle can be the best hauler, who would have seen that. And perhaps is that bad game design?
anybody who needs to move a 65bn isk blueprint should have the means to move it EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
|
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
186
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 22:43:00 -
[3001] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Yeep wrote:Nerf Burger wrote: I never said suicide ganking should be eliminated. Like soundwave, I LOVE that it is possible. I just don't think it should be profitable, easy, and with such a predictable result.
Lets say I fully expand an Iteron V and fill it with Estamel's Invulns. Thats 8369 modules at 18bil a piece, or 150,642,000,000,000ISK of value. Lets assume a gank fit Tornado is the best value for money at 150mil a ship it does roughly 10.5k alpha and in low highsec gets 2 shots off before Concord shows up. To lose isk it would take 1,004,280 Tornados. So an untanked, fully expanded Iteron V should have 21,089,880 EHP. Thats just over half the health of a fully officer tanked titan. But thats ok because ganking isn't supposed to be profitable. oh please, you can fill an expanded Iteron V with GêP titan blueprints so they should have GêP EHP
Ah crap I forgot about blueprints. I guess technically seeing as you can move an infinte number of BPOs in a shuttle we're going to have to just disable pvp in highsec to stop ganking being profitable. |
Pipa Porto
646
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 22:43:00 -
[3002] - Quote
rodyas wrote:Well that strategy mostly works, if you use a damage control unit If you don't use one, might not be worth getting the extra life from lvl 5 skills. Even then, you might still be gankable, so the entire effort is worthless.
So now the problem is being gankable at all. I see. I thought you were OK with suicide ganks, just not profitable ones. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
baltec1
Bat Country
1838
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 22:46:00 -
[3003] - Quote
rodyas wrote: 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.
Or they wanted to balance it right. CCP have improved the barges survivability but not to the point where they are out of reach of ganking. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1650
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 22:46:00 -
[3004] - Quote
Nerf Burger wrote: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.
you're bleating risk/reward while saying "suicide ganking should not be profitable"
do i really need to tell you how damned ironic that is?
also, I don't care what the devs say in this regard because no matter how many times they try to convince us (or themselves) that it was "never intended to be profitable," it was EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Nerf Burger
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
33
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 22:49:00 -
[3005] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Yeep wrote:Nerf Burger wrote: I never said suicide ganking should be eliminated. Like soundwave, I LOVE that it is possible. I just don't think it should be profitable, easy, and with such a predictable result.
Lets say I fully expand an Iteron V and fill it with Estamel's Invulns. Thats 8369 modules at 18bil a piece, or 150,642,000,000,000ISK of value. Lets assume a gank fit Tornado is the best value for money at 150mil a ship it does roughly 10.5k alpha and in low highsec gets 2 shots off before Concord shows up. To lose isk it would take 1,004,280 Tornados. So an untanked, fully expanded Iteron V should have 21,089,880 EHP. Thats just over half the health of a fully officer tanked titan. But thats ok because ganking isn't supposed to be profitable. oh please, you can fill an expanded Iteron V with GêP titan blueprints so they should have GêP EHP
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. And why should gankers have all the advantages without any risk.
ugh, why do i do it? |
baltec1
Bat Country
1838
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 22:51:00 -
[3006] - Quote
Nerf Burger wrote: 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?
Clearly you haven't scanned the haulers going in and out of jita. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
617
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 22:52:00 -
[3007] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:rodyas wrote:Well that strategy mostly works, if you use a damage control unit If you don't use one, might not be worth getting the extra life from lvl 5 skills. Even then, you might still be gankable, so the entire effort is worthless. So now the problem is being gankable at all. I see. I thought you were OK with suicide ganks, just not profitable ones.
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. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
186
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 22:53:00 -
[3008] - Quote
Nerf Burger wrote: 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?
Because most of the people who move 500m ISK of stuff do it in a tanked or cloaked hauler, or something fast enough to not get caught.
The miners still persist in leaving their 500m ISK ships untanked.
The problem here is not game mechanics, the problem is miners. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1254
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 22:54:00 -
[3009] - Quote
Yeep wrote:Nerf Burger wrote: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 Because most of the people who move 500m ISK of stuff do it in a tanked or cloaked hauler, or something fast enough to not get caught. The miners still persist in leaving their 500m ISK ships untanked. The problem here is not game mechanics, the problem is miners. The solution is more buffs. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Pipa Porto
646
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 22:54:00 -
[3010] - Quote
Nerf Burger wrote: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?
The Profit is only reliable because the Miners make it so. Freighter pilots long ago figured out that they usually can't fill their Freighter to the brim and make it where they want to go, so they adapted and limited the amount of ISK worth of cargo. Their cost for that adaptation is making more runs than they would have otherwise.
Miners could have adapted and made the profitability highly unreliable, and then Gankers complaining about profit wouldn't have a leg to stand on. But that's not what the Miners did. Instead, they went to mama CCP and cried for a buff to the poor, untankable () Hulk.
Now they're whining about crystals and cargo space, because the Hulk's no longer super convenient as well as super tanky and the best yielding ship in the game all at the same time. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1650
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 22:57:00 -
[3011] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Now they're whining about crystals and cargo space, because the Hulk's no longer super convenient as well as super tanky and the best yielding ship in the game all at the same time.
they're also whining about CCP "kneeling to the gankers" and mostly taking away the hulk's idiot-proof tank
it's like a massive overload in irony EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Pipa Porto
646
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 22:58:00 -
[3012] - Quote
rodyas wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:rodyas wrote:Well that strategy mostly works, if you use a damage control unit If you don't use one, might not be worth getting the extra life from lvl 5 skills. Even then, you might still be gankable, so the entire effort is worthless. So now the problem is being gankable at all. I see. I thought you were OK with suicide ganks, just not profitable ones. 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.
Well that's just good PR on the gankers part (and a sensible unwillingness of successful, smart miners to pipe up).
Unprofitable Freighter Ganks are vanishingly rare, unprofitable Hulk ganks are hard to find on the KBs. Try mining in a tanked Hulk. Just because you're afraid the gankers are going to throw their money away on you doesn't mean they actually will. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Pipa Porto
646
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 22:59:00 -
[3013] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Now they're whining about crystals and cargo space, because the Hulk's no longer super convenient as well as super tanky and the best yielding ship in the game all at the same time. they're also whining about CCP "kneeling to the gankers" and mostly taking away the hulk's idiot-proof tank it's like a massive overload in irony
I've even got one attacking me via EVEmail. I still can't figure out what I did to **** him off. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
baltec1
Bat Country
1840
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 22:59:00 -
[3014] - Quote
rodyas wrote: 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.
The only place where ganking is overwhelming is these forums. In the game itself ganking is a rather rare event outside hulkageddon. |
Hypercake Mix
Magical Rainbow Bakery
7
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 23:02:00 -
[3015] - Quote
I'm expecting an increase in mining barge/exhumer suicide ganks this month. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
617
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 23:03:00 -
[3016] - Quote
I did mine in a tanked mining vessel once. But no one ganked me so everytime I undocked with a tank on I felt stupid. It felt like fitting bubbles on a hic, but you know you are only flying in low sec space.
If you could promise me everytime I undock someone would attempt to gank me, unprofitalbe or profitable I would fit a tank. (and not feel stupid)
but no one can promise that, so fitting a tank is boring and almost pointless.
Of course I was ice mining, I realized there are only a few places to mine ice, so its popular to go there to gank, Easy to find prey or its automatic to have some. So I will either not mine ice, or perhaps fit a tank to mine ice, depending if I feel a tank keeps me safe enough. Otherwise, I will propably bugger off to places harder to find prey, so gankers lose the sense of excitement, and I can mine in my own fashion. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1650
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 23:04:00 -
[3017] - Quote
rodyas wrote:It felt like fitting bubbles on a hic, but you know you are only flying in low sec space.
let me tell you about the script you fit on that module
as for the rest of your post, I thought ganking was LITERALLY MAKING THE GAME UNPLAYABLE EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
617
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 23:05:00 -
[3018] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:rodyas wrote: 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.
The only place where ganking is overwhelming is these forums. In the game itself ganking is a rather rare event outside hulkageddon.
Yeah true, I am often left feeling that way, which leads to confusion on what to post about. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
617
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 23:06:00 -
[3019] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:rodyas wrote:It felt like fitting bubbles on a hic, but you know you are only flying in low sec space. let me tell you about the script you fit on that module as for the rest of your post, I thought ganking was LITERALLY MAKING THE GAME UNPLAYABLE
It was, but you adapt as you said. Of course parts of mining have to shut down during the adaptation stage (much like in movies in where the humanity is lost during the adaptation stage) So its not a complete adaptation, and still seeing if it is worth it or not. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
186
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 23:07:00 -
[3020] - Quote
rodyas wrote: but no one can promise that, so fitting a tank is boring and almost pointless.
Are you really this dense? You fit a tank so that nobody tries to gank you. Nobody smart is going to see your tank and go for it anyway just to amuse you. |
|
Pipa Porto
646
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 23:08:00 -
[3021] - Quote
rodyas wrote:I did mine in a tanked mining vessel once. But no one ganked me so everytime I undocked with a tank on I felt stupid. It felt like fitting bubbles on a hic, but you know you are only flying in low sec space.
If you could promise me everytime I undock someone would attempt to gank me, unprofitalbe or profitable I would fit a tank. (and not feel stupid)
but no one can promise that, so fitting a tank is boring and almost pointless.
Of course I was ice mining, I realized there are only a few places to mine ice, so its popular to go there to gank, Easy to find prey or its automatic to have some. So I will either not mine ice, or perhaps fit a tank to mine ice, depending if I feel a tank keeps me safe enough. Otherwise, I will propably bugger off to places harder to find prey, so gankers lose the sense of excitement, and I can mine in my own fashion.
Let me tell you about the last time I wore my seatbelt.... Let me tell you about the last time I took an Umbrella along... Let me tell you about the last time I wore a Helmet Skiing (actually, that one, I crashed and broke my arm... [:sigh:])...
A Tank is a safety device that has the added benefit of deterring the same unsafe elements it protects you from. Nobody trying to gank you is OP SUCCESS. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1650
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 23:08:00 -
[3022] - Quote
rodyas wrote:It was, but you adapt as you said.
You can't sit here telling me that miner ganking was making the game unplayable when you're saying that nobody ever bothered you while you mined. EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
452
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 23:12:00 -
[3023] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:rodyas wrote: 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.
The only place where ganking is overwhelming is these forums. In the game itself ganking is a rather rare event outside hulkageddon. Umm you do realize Goonswarm was paying extra bounties for mining barge and exhumer kills? the whole hulkagedon forever thing.
Probably why its members are complaining about the changes so much, less people will gank miners (at their current payout levels), so less exhumers needed to be manufactured, so less tech needed (They have already said that Alchemy will not be a profitable substitute for tech) so less profit for the tech moon owners.
So in the end it comes down to Mining ship changes bad for tech moon owners business. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
1841
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 23:14:00 -
[3024] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Umm you do realize Goonswarm was paying extra bounties for mining barge and exhumer kills? the whole hulkagedon forever thing.
Its amazing how few people have taken up this offer. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1650
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 23:17:00 -
[3025] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Umm you do realize Goonswarm was paying extra bounties for mining barge and exhumer kills? the whole hulkagedon forever thing.
Its amazing how few people have taken up this offer.
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 EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
617
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 23:18:00 -
[3026] - Quote
I was ganked once, it was alright, killed in low sec as well. So those places are in shutdown, till it doesn't happen in a way.
You will have to tell me about wearing a seatbelt, I havn't worn one for awhile, and I forgot what the feel of a collar feels like. As for an umbrella, it sucked carrying it around. As for no helmet while skiing, that is easy, just don't panic when you hit someone, just grab them in yoru arms, and flex to keep them safe and roll with them, using your body to protect them. That is what I do, helmets are for noobs. Though I was hoping to snowboard amongst the trees, and I was hoping to use a helmet for that, since I would be new at it.
The me being dense part is this. Mining while tanked so no one ganks you, is not a victory condition, you don't win EVE for it, then get flown to iceland for people to celebrate your victory. You have to mine on, and when you mine on with a tank and no one ganks you, it gets boring. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1650
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 23:19:00 -
[3027] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:So in the end it comes down to Mining ship changes bad for tech moon owners business.
aaaand here comes the tinfoil
you should ask rubyporto how much tech his alliance holds EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
baltec1
Bat Country
1841
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 23:20:00 -
[3028] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote: 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
I was only expecting the 2 mil for the cyno
|
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
617
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 23:21:00 -
[3029] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:baltec1 wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Umm you do realize Goonswarm was paying extra bounties for mining barge and exhumer kills? the whole hulkagedon forever thing.
Its amazing how few people have taken up this offer. 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.
I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Pipa Porto
646
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 23:22:00 -
[3030] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Umm you do realize Goonswarm was paying extra bounties for mining barge and exhumer kills? the whole hulkagedon forever thing.
Probably why its members are complaining about the changes so much, less people will gank miners (at their current payout levels), so less exhumers needed to be manufactured, so less tech needed (They have already said that Alchemy will not be a profitable substitute for tech) so less profit for the tech moon owners.
So in the end it comes down to Mining ship changes bad for tech moon owners business.
So? Nothing's stopping you from running a counterbounty, paying for people's Hulk losses. Or paying for Goon kills. A Player organization's actions isn't relevant to a discussion of game mechanical balance.
Alchemy doesn't have to be profitable to cut Tech prices down hard (it's already halved Tech Prices just by being announced). It just has to be there, ready to step in to break any price fixing Cartel. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
|
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
617
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 23:22:00 -
[3031] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Frying Doom wrote:So in the end it comes down to Mining ship changes bad for tech moon owners business. aaaand here comes the tinfoil you should ask rubyporto how much tech his alliance holds
But ruby porto is a miner, what would he know about a pvp allaince's finances? I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
187
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 23:23:00 -
[3032] - Quote
rodyas wrote: You will have to tell me about wearing a seatbelt, I havn't worn one for awhile, and I forgot what the feel of a collar feels like.
So I guess when you crash and fly through the windscreen and end up in a wheelchair for life you'll sue the manufacturer of the car you hit for not making it soft enough. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1650
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 23:23:00 -
[3033] - Quote
rodyas wrote:But ruby porto is a miner, what would he know about a pvp allaince's finances?
what EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Pipa Porto
646
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 23:25:00 -
[3034] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Frying Doom wrote:So in the end it comes down to Mining ship changes bad for tech moon owners business. aaaand here comes the tinfoil you should ask rubyporto how much tech his alliance holds
SnigWaffe (aka. Waffles), member of the Your Votes Don't Count Alliance owns (so far as I know) 0 Tech Moons. This massive windfall funds our generous 0% (and abuse for asking) ship reimbursement program.
I know, we all have to have a profit motive in our posting. What other motive could there be? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
baltec1
Bat Country
1841
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 23:25:00 -
[3035] - Quote
rodyas wrote: 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.
That was the welpmega the other day. 45 jumps all alone to get home after stomping on an -A- BS fleet with a vagabond chasing |
Jim Era
The Syndicate Inc En Garde
158
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 23:27:00 -
[3036] - Quote
From the forums over the span of this week, I honestly don't see why people are so angry at goonswarm honestly. They provide (opinionated views of mine only) intellectual discussion, they are good at what they do, and they do what everyone in EVE wants to do, win. Of course strife is necessary in game, or else there would be no content. Why so much QQ? Or am I completely missing the point and the forums are part of the content, to make tensions rise therefore adding to more exhilirating gameplay.
p.s. **** spelling. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
617
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 23:27:00 -
[3037] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:rodyas wrote:But ruby porto is a miner, what would he know about a pvp allaince's finances? what He's talking about how I used to be a Miner. Exhumers 4, Bayyyybe. I have since reformed.
Its an old joke, back when pipa would post in the lame mining thread I created. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
617
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 23:28:00 -
[3038] - Quote
Yeep wrote:rodyas wrote: You will have to tell me about wearing a seatbelt, I havn't worn one for awhile, and I forgot what the feel of a collar feels like.
So I guess when you crash and fly through the windscreen and end up in a wheelchair for life you'll sue the manufacturer of the car you hit for not making it soft enough.
Perhaps, who knows what I will do when the time comes. Most likely I will just get disability ( you paying for me, through your own pocket) then just play EVE all day. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
617
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 23:30:00 -
[3039] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:rodyas wrote:But ruby porto is a miner, what would he know about a pvp allaince's finances? what He's talking about how I used to be a Miner. Exhumers 4, Bayyyybeeee. I have since reformed.
Its kind of funny, my old CEO was the same as you. Started out mining, then moved to pirating and said it was much more fun. I am still kind of expecting that to happen to me someday, Just wake up and turn pirate, but it hasn't happened yet. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Pipa Porto
646
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 23:33:00 -
[3040] - Quote
rodyas wrote:I was ganked once, it was alright, killed in low sec as well. So those places are in shutdown, till it doesn't happen in a way.
You will have to tell me about wearing a seatbelt, I havn't worn one for awhile, and I forgot what the feel of a collar feels like. As for an umbrella, it sucked carrying it around. As for no helmet while skiing, that is easy, just don't panic when you hit someone, just grab them in yoru arms, and flex to keep them safe and roll with them, using your body to protect them. That is what I do, helmets are for noobs. Though I was hoping to snowboard amongst the trees, and I was hoping to use a helmet for that, since I would be new at it.
The me being dense part is this. Mining while tanked so no one ganks you, is not a victory condition, you don't win EVE for it, then get flown to iceland for people to celebrate your victory. You have to mine on, and when you mine on with a tank and no one ganks you, it gets boring.
If you don't like using a safety device, feel free to not use it. Just don't complain when you suffer consequences for not using available safety devices.
By the way, I've worked wrecks with unsecured passengers. Most of them aren't collecting disability. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
|
Pipa Porto
646
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 23:35:00 -
[3041] - Quote
rodyas wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:rodyas wrote:But ruby porto is a miner, what would he know about a pvp allaince's finances? what He's talking about how I used to be a Miner. Exhumers 4, Bayyyybeeee. I have since reformed. Its kind of funny, my old CEO was the same as you. Started out mining, then moved to pirating and said it was much more fun. I am still kind of expecting that to happen to me someday, Just wake up and turn pirate, but it hasn't happened yet.
My Route was Mine > Make friends > Realize that Missions pay better > Get invited to null by acquaintance of Mining Friends > Make friends in WI. > Bump around. Meanwhile, most of my old mining buddies have unsubbed. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1650
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 23:38:00 -
[3042] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:rodyas wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:rodyas wrote:But ruby porto is a miner, what would he know about a pvp allaince's finances? what He's talking about how I used to be a Miner. Exhumers 4, Bayyyybeeee. I have since reformed. Its kind of funny, my old CEO was the same as you. Started out mining, then moved to pirating and said it was much more fun. I am still kind of expecting that to happen to me someday, Just wake up and turn pirate, but it hasn't happened yet. My Route was Mine > Make friends > Realize that Missions pay better > Get invited to null by acquaintance of Mining Friends > Make friends in WI. > Bump around. Meanwhile, most of my old mining buddies have unsubbed.
i tried mining once
i was like "nope" EVE Online: Trammel (or NGE) |
Jimmy Gunsmythe
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
115
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 23:41:00 -
[3043] - Quote
Yay, 150 pages!
Bring in the stiltwalkers! A good predator knows how to live in balance with his prey, lest he follow them into oblivion. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
617
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 23:45:00 -
[3044] - Quote
My route was> mine> realized mining was worthless>move onto missions and do combat> realize different skills branched into other professions and playstyles> train up those other professions> Also make friends during that> mining ops were fun> meet people in null by half the corp going down there> having everyone down there turn into complete dicks over ****> Me leaving the corp and alliance> me enjoying the crack of npc corp> me wanting to start a pos so I left it and started researching>to me trolling the forums a lot, as well as afk mining here and there when I am tired or so.
I also thought about stealing paltry sums of millions when I left the corp, but realized with them even being dicks, I wasn't in leadership, so I thought just blocking them all and leaving would be enough. If I was in leadership and same thing happened, propably would have taken everything I could have. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1254
|
Posted - 2012.08.07 23:56:00 -
[3045] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:My Route was Mine > Make friends > Realize that Missions pay better > Get invited to null by acquaintance of Mining Friends > Make friends in WI. > Bump around. Meanwhile, most of my old mining buddies have unsubbed. WI.
How is it? Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Pipa Porto
646
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 00:06:00 -
[3046] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:My Route was Mine > Make friends > Realize that Missions pay better > Get invited to null by acquaintance of Mining Friends > Make friends in WI. > Bump around. Meanwhile, most of my old mining buddies have unsubbed. WI. How is it?
It got ate. For whatever reason, at the time it got ate, I didn't want to join the GSF. I don't really remember my exact reasons why (something about wololololo Goonz Bad). EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
617
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 00:31:00 -
[3047] - Quote
The goonz are bad, not really, I thought about joining them when I first started. (for the worst reason, just to get easy access to the best roids in null, man would have that blown up in my face.) Mostly didn't join them , since it felt like they warped the game when you played with them, and I wanted to play the game and see what it was like before joining them or other alliances. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
509
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 01:13:00 -
[3048] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:rodyas wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:rodyas wrote:But ruby porto is a miner, what would he know about a pvp allaince's finances? what He's talking about how I used to be a Miner. Exhumers 4, Bayyyybeeee. I have since reformed. Its kind of funny, my old CEO was the same as you. Started out mining, then moved to pirating and said it was much more fun. I am still kind of expecting that to happen to me someday, Just wake up and turn pirate, but it hasn't happened yet. Heheh. My Route was Mine > Make friends > Realize that Missions pay better > Get invited to null by acquaintance of Mining Friends > Make friends in WI. > Bump around. Meanwhile, most of my old mining buddies have unsubbed.
Heh. Ninja salvage/bait and gank haulers for profit>Use first couple billion to buy Fenrir>Trade>Use trade profits to gank miners for occasional fun>Industrial scale miner ganking, Killing the same miners over and over made it insanely profitable through extortion. (Hint: they usually pay after the 2nd or 3rd Exhumer kill - they ARE that gutless. Just make it seem absolutely hopeless for them.)
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1254
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 01:22:00 -
[3049] - Quote
rodyas wrote:The goonz are bad, not really, I thought about joining them when I first started. (for the worst reason, just to get easy access to the best roids in null, man would have that blown up in my face.) Mostly didn't join them , since it felt like they warped the game when you played with them, and I wanted to play the game and see what it was like before joining them or other alliances. This wasn't when you'd have made more money ratting rather than mining out in nullsec, was it? Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
617
|
Posted - 2012.08.08 01:31:00 -
[3050] - Quote
I just started EVE to mine, and the best roids are in null. And goons owned null space. (I also had a somethingawful account, but have forgotten the password. mostly mean that I know now the goons have to worry about spies so you have to be an active member to join GSF, didn't know that at the start as well.) So instant access to what I wanted. This all before I really played much, and knew about the eve economy. I also rolled gallente, so it shows I didn't really know much about this game, before I started. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
|
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
617
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 03:41:00 -
[3051] - Quote
Looks like all the little piggies made it to market this time. Hurray!!!!! I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Kitanga
Lowsec Border Marshals
2
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 05:10:00 -
[3052] - Quote
retriever killed on 5/18
Destroyed: Retriever System: J213932 Security: 0.0 Damage Taken: 999
retriever killed on 7/1
Destroyed: Retriever System: J122712 Security: 0.0 Damage Taken: 1615
retriever killed today
Destroyed: Retriever System: J125449 Security: 0.0 Damage Taken:7690
all with no tank.
no big deal for me but still seems silly. good job dumbing down the game CCP.
suggestion: with the buff to reapers, a large gang of reapers can gank a hulk in highsec....
|
Sarik Olecar
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
108
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 17:46:00 -
[3053] - Quote
What are you doing on page 3???
|
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
10009
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 17:51:00 -
[3054] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:i tried mining once
i was like "nope" Same. Tried it on my first char, it didn't last long.
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
Operative X10-4
The Rejected Ones
6
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 04:55:00 -
[3055] - Quote
Day by day EVE is getting more soft, thats sad man, one day I'll have to find another mmo, one truly hardcore. Burn all those carebears... |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
522
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 05:01:00 -
[3056] - Quote
Operative X10-4 wrote:Day by day EVE is getting more soft, thats sad man, one day I'll have to find another mmo, one truly hardcore. Burn all those carebears... Yes soft...lol because it is harder now for people to kill undefended ships that cannot shoot back. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Jake Rivers
Senex Legio Get Off My Lawn
100
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 05:10:00 -
[3057] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:My Route was Mine > Make friends > Realize that Missions pay better > Get invited to null by acquaintance of Mining Friends > Make friends in WI. > Bump around. Meanwhile, most of my old mining buddies have unsubbed. WI. How is it? It got ate. For whatever reason, at the time it got ate, I didn't want to join the GSF. I don't really remember my exact reasons why (something about wololololo Goonz Bad).
Yeah, Goonz R Bad, so you need to look into a alliance like Gnomes R GUD!
Oh and just posting cause its like 150 pages OMG. Senex Legio Recruiter Team |
Boadicea Wales
Trotters Independant Inc.
10
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 07:45:00 -
[3058] - Quote
Chainsaw Plankton wrote: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.
the words of some one who never mines LOL |
Pipa Porto
772
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 10:53:00 -
[3059] - Quote
Jake Rivers wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:My Route was Mine > Make friends > Realize that Missions pay better > Get invited to null by acquaintance of Mining Friends > Make friends in WI. > Bump around. Meanwhile, most of my old mining buddies have unsubbed. WI. How is it? It got ate. For whatever reason, at the time it got ate, I didn't want to join the GSF. I don't really remember my exact reasons why (something about wololololo Goonz Bad). Yeah, Goonz R Bad, so you need to look into a alliance like Gnomes R GUD! Oh and just posting cause its like 150 pages OMG.
Waffles is fine, thanks. You guys get your Alliance Logo back yet? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
637
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 11:19:00 -
[3060] - Quote
^ But don't you have to step on their lawn, to give their logo back? I am just a simple miner, and those logo placing and lawn treading mechanics are a bit over my head. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
|
Jake Rivers
Senex Legio Get Off My Lawn
100
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 18:52:00 -
[3061] - Quote
rodyas wrote:^ But don't you have to step on their lawn, to give their logo back? I am just a simple miner, and those logo placing and lawn treading mechanics are a bit over my head.
CCP was able to avoid the LAWN simply by sticking the logo on our TCU's.
As can be seen, the GNOME is everywhere now!
http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f336/Mira67/ccpsoundwavewithgnome.png Senex Legio Recruiter Team |
Rats
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
145
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 18:55:00 -
[3062] - Quote
Emergent game play, HTFU I say lolololol
Tal
-áI Fought the Law, and the Law Won... -áTalon Silverhawk-á |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4367
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 18:55:00 -
[3063] - Quote
Kitanga wrote:suggestion: with the buff to reapers, a large gang of reapers can gank a hulk in highsec....
counter-point: a large gang of anything can gank anything anywhere "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Sarik Olecar
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
154
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 19:25:00 -
[3064] - Quote
Yay! I thought this thread had died...
Did you guys notice the parallels between miners getting told to not go all yield and fit a tank, and fleet boosters being told to not go 6 Links and fit a tank? Its kinda weird... Hows my posting? Call 1-800-747-7633 to leave feedback. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
637
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 04:10:00 -
[3065] - Quote
Yeah, but there is like a lot more of us miners, and we are more afky, and carebear, and way more solo, anti-social then those wimpy off grid boosters. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Blastcaps Madullier
Celestial Horizon Corp. Ethereal Dawn
79
|
Posted - 2012.08.19 14:04:00 -
[3066] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote:
Its kind of funny, my old CEO was the same as you. Started out mining, then moved to pirating and said it was much more fun. I am still kind of expecting that to happen to me someday, Just wake up and turn pirate, but it hasn't happened yet.
Heheh. My Route was Mine > Make friends > Realize that Missions pay better > Get invited to null by acquaintance of Mining Friends > Make friends in WI. > Bump around. Meanwhile, most of my old mining buddies have unsubbed.[/quote]
Heh. Ninja salvage/bait and gank haulers for profit>Use first couple billion to buy Fenrir>Trade>Use trade profits to gank miners for occasional fun>Industrial scale miner ganking, Killing the same miners over and over made it insanely profitable through extortion. (Hint: they usually pay after the 2nd or 3rd Exhumer kill - they ARE that gutless. Just make it seem absolutely hopeless for them.) [/quote]
some maybe, others well 2nd or 3rd gank attempt is usually called bait and tanked to hell and back with a fleet waiting either off grid or one system over :) |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
518
|
Posted - 2012.08.22 02:02:00 -
[3067] - Quote
Blastcaps Madullier wrote:
some maybe, others well 2nd or 3rd gank attempt is usually called bait and tanked to hell and back with a fleet waiting either off grid or one system over :)
No, usually the first one is written off as a random event. Second causes them to move to a new ice belt or system. Third makes them start to think about tanking or just paying to be left alone.
And usually their first attempts at tanking leave holes large enough to drive a 1400MM shell through.
|
Sven Viko VIkolander
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
19
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 23:50:00 -
[3068] - 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.........
It is strange that at a time when the MMO market is increasingly seen as dying, the one unique and niche PVP game, EVE, which has managed to see a decade of growth, increasingly decides to jump on the theme park bandwagon of MMO death. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
My progression in eve was mine for a week->quit eve for a year. Then, pvp->sub for 6mos off the bat.
|
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
531
|
Posted - 2012.08.27 23:58:00 -
[3069] - Quote
Ah, was wondering where all the 'likes' were coming from.
Seems that James 351 posted the 2nd part of his excellent series on the inexorable nerfing of highsec aggression.
Read it here....at themittani.com
http://themittani.com/features/road-nerfdom-highsecs-carebear-future |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1288
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 02:09:00 -
[3070] - Quote
Aww yeahhhh~~~ Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
|
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
684
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 05:16:00 -
[3071] - Quote
The only thing that made sense for me with that article (besides the obvious glen beck writing and thinking style) was about BoB. Mostly about how the directors defended themselves form the accusations of CCP help. The thing is (mostly joking) but if a CCP employee helped you out, which they always could, but would it really help you out? Or help out a lot?
Mostly mean is that CCP people probably did help them out, but come on how much could they do? They don't get polaris ships to help out. That is why the directors had to defend somewhat. Sure CCP helps when they join your side, but do they help out that much? Like instant game over? I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
684
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 05:16:00 -
[3072] - Quote
Just meant, CCP joined our side (the miners) but we are still gankable, even with their help. Its not really an instant game over, the way you guys are making it out to be. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
William Walker
House Aratus Fatal Ascension
2
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 06:54:00 -
[3073] - Quote
Buff destroyers! (again) |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
684
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 07:17:00 -
[3074] - Quote
^ They are this winter. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Pipa Porto
841
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 09:07:00 -
[3075] - Quote
rodyas wrote:Just meant, CCP joined our side (the miners) but we are still gankable, even with their help. Its not really an instant game over, the way you guys are making it out to be.
A frog in a pot of cold water over a stove set to high isn't dead yet. But unless the frog figures out why it's getting warmer, it will be. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
684
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 09:11:00 -
[3076] - Quote
But there might be a reason, why someone wants to kill a frog.
Perhaps the frog should learn that as well. To help keep the pot exercise from becoming perpetual. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Pipa Porto
842
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 09:24:00 -
[3077] - Quote
rodyas wrote:But there might be a reason, why someone wants to kill a frog.
Perhaps the frog should learn that as well. To help keep the pot exercise from becoming perpetual.
That's the point. We figured it out. But since we like the pot and have been here for a long time (and frog-kind has been here since Pot-Beta), we'd rather get the psycho-chef to turn off the heat then jump out. (The metaphor's getting a little strained). EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
684
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 09:46:00 -
[3078] - Quote
I suppose the hi sec pot was built on the backs of the frog gankers. I usually see us normal hi seccers as the original hi seccers., but you say the ganking frogs we try to boil, were the first there. Not sure maybe they were, they suck as in frogs were used as a plague, but if plague frogs were there first, they were there first. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Pipa Porto
842
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 09:56:00 -
[3079] - Quote
rodyas wrote:I suppose the hi sec pot was built on the backs of the frog gankers. I usually see us normal hi seccers as the original hi seccers., but you say the ganking frogs we try to boil, were the first there. Not sure maybe they were, they suck as in frogs were used as a plague, but if plague frogs were there first, they were there first.
I'm not saying they were there first. After all, the first EVE player didn't have anyone else to shoot.
What I'm saying is that HS violence has been receiving a steady stream of nerfs over the years and that stream has been increasing in the past ~2. And that HS violence has been an integral part of the game since beta. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
684
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 10:10:00 -
[3080] - Quote
Oh well, who knows. Suppose anything could be patched in in the future. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
|
Yokai Mitsuhide
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
848
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 10:19:00 -
[3081] - Quote
Outside of goonswarm and their pets does anyone really ever go to themittani.com? Have you become a goon pet Herr Wilkus? Can we expect useless link spamming for them on top of your constant complaining? |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
577
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 11:11:00 -
[3082] - Quote
This must be one of the longest, if not the longest whine threads in the history of these forums.
Personally I think its nice if I want to gank someone I still can, even if I can't be penny pinching scum and actually have to fork out real isk to get some real tears.
It is a valid work around the War dec mechanic and as a work around it should not be able to be done on the cheap. You want Hi-sec miner tears, well as they are such a valuable commodity you need to pay for them. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1288
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 12:23:00 -
[3083] - Quote
Andski wrote:Kitanga wrote:suggestion: with the buff to reapers, a large gang of reapers can gank a hulk in highsec.... counter-point: a large gang of anything can gank anything anywhere Maybe now, but I'm sure they can do something about that, given enough time ... Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Pipa Porto
843
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 15:02:00 -
[3084] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Andski wrote:Kitanga wrote:suggestion: with the buff to reapers, a large gang of reapers can gank a hulk in highsec.... counter-point: a large gang of anything can gank anything anywhere Maybe now, but I'm sure they can do something about that, given enough time ...
Can't Suicide Gank a Titan, SuperCarrier, or Rorqual. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1240
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 16:02:00 -
[3085] - Quote
Look at all these suicide ganker tears because they can't fit up a T1 destroyer for little to no ISK and solo gank a ship that cost 200m+ for the hull. Absolutely pathetic.
You can still suicide gank that shinny, but you will need to bring a few friends (you know, the thing you keep telling everyone in high sec to get...) and you will need to pony up a bit of ISK to do it. So dry those eyes already.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Mallak Azaria
588
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 16:08:00 -
[3086] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Look at all these suicide ganker tears because they can't fit up a T1 destroyer for little to no ISK and solo gank a ship that cost 200m+ for the hull. Absolutely pathetic.
You can still suicide gank that shinny, but you will need to bring a few friends (you know, the thing you keep telling everyone in high sec to get...) and you will need to pony up a bit of ISK to do it. So dry those eyes already.
Well you know, miners that fit a good tank pre-patch couldn't be ganked by said solo ganker in a destroyer either. Mining Barge buff: CCP-áhas acknowledged that miners in general-áare too stupid to make the correct fitting choices to make ganking them unprofitable. |
Yokai Mitsuhide
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
869
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 16:51:00 -
[3087] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Look at all these suicide ganker tears because they can't fit up a T1 destroyer for little to no ISK and solo gank a ship that cost 200m+ for the hull. Absolutely pathetic.
You can still suicide gank that shinny, but you will need to bring a few friends (you know, the thing you keep telling everyone in high sec to get...) and you will need to pony up a bit of ISK to do it. So dry those eyes already. Well you know, miners that fit a good tank pre-patch couldn't be ganked by said solo ganker in a destroyer either.
No...it took a whole 2 cheap fit destroyers instead of 1. Barges/Exhumers needed this buff a long time ago. Still gankable, just not at the ridiculous low cost as it was pre patch. |
Pipa Porto
844
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 17:23:00 -
[3088] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:No...it took a whole 2 cheap fit destroyers instead of 1. Barges/Exhumers needed this buff a long time ago. Still gankable, just not at the ridiculous low cost as it was pre patch.
Nope. It took more Isk to gank a properly tanked Hulk pre-1.2 than the Hulk dropped (or, at the very best, with a special snowflake gank squad, the same).
That breakeven, Special Snowflake, only-works-in-0.5-with-everything-in-their-favor gank took many more than 2 catalysts. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
70
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 17:27:00 -
[3089] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:Andski wrote:Kitanga wrote:suggestion: with the buff to reapers, a large gang of reapers can gank a hulk in highsec.... counter-point: a large gang of anything can gank anything anywhere Maybe now, but I'm sure they can do something about that, given enough time ... Can't Suicide Gank a Titan, SuperCarrier, or Rorqual.
Well last time a checked the ships listed above cant make it into Hisec so you would be correct but I am sure you knew that. |
Mallak Azaria
588
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 19:31:00 -
[3090] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Look at all these suicide ganker tears because they can't fit up a T1 destroyer for little to no ISK and solo gank a ship that cost 200m+ for the hull. Absolutely pathetic.
You can still suicide gank that shinny, but you will need to bring a few friends (you know, the thing you keep telling everyone in high sec to get...) and you will need to pony up a bit of ISK to do it. So dry those eyes already. Well you know, miners that fit a good tank pre-patch couldn't be ganked by said solo ganker in a destroyer either. No...it took a whole 2 cheap fit destroyers instead of 1.
Only if the miner sacrificed the tank in favouring max yield/cargo. A good tank did not sacrifice itself for more yield & could not be profitably ganked.
Mining Barge buff: CCP-áhas acknowledged that miners in general-áare too stupid to make the correct fitting choices to make ganking them unprofitable. |
|
Yokai Mitsuhide
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
885
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 19:40:00 -
[3091] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Look at all these suicide ganker tears because they can't fit up a T1 destroyer for little to no ISK and solo gank a ship that cost 200m+ for the hull. Absolutely pathetic.
You can still suicide gank that shinny, but you will need to bring a few friends (you know, the thing you keep telling everyone in high sec to get...) and you will need to pony up a bit of ISK to do it. So dry those eyes already. Well you know, miners that fit a good tank pre-patch couldn't be ganked by said solo ganker in a destroyer either. No...it took a whole 2 cheap fit destroyers instead of 1. Only if the miner sacrificed the tank in favouring max yield/cargo. A good tank did not sacrifice itself for more yield & could not be profitably ganked.
No matter how you look at it, exhumers deserved better tank/ehp than they previously had. They are the highest end mining vessels you can fly, but they were far to weak even with tanks fit. |
veritas primus
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
5
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 19:51:00 -
[3092] - Quote
No OP now you have to work for it. Have you tried scanning barges lately? They are still doing dumb stuff going all yield with no tank.
Before the changes you could roll up on any of the barges and WTFpwn them with a destroyer, if the miner had tank or yield.
Now miners have a choice, and you have to get creative.......B. |
Garreth Vlox
Blackened Skies The Unthinkables
98
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 19:52:00 -
[3093] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Look at all these suicide ganker tears because they can't fit up a T1 destroyer for little to no ISK and solo gank a ship that cost 200m+ for the hull. Absolutely pathetic.
You can still suicide gank that shinny, but you will need to bring a few friends (you know, the thing you keep telling everyone in high sec to get...) and you will need to pony up a bit of ISK to do it. So dry those eyes already. Well you know, miners that fit a good tank pre-patch couldn't be ganked by said solo ganker in a destroyer either. No...it took a whole 2 cheap fit destroyers instead of 1. Only if the miner sacrificed the tank in favouring max yield/cargo. A good tank did not sacrifice itself for more yield & could not be profitably ganked. No matter how you look at it, exhumers deserved better tank/ehp than they previously had. They are the highest end mining vessels you can fly, but they were far to weak even with tanks fit.
If you fit something besides cargo rigs and mining enhancers you can tank mutliple 0.0 BS's with no issue in a hulk. There was never a problem with the tank, people were to stupid to actually put the tank ON the hulk. The LULZ Boat. |
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
548
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 20:10:00 -
[3094] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:
No matter how you look at it, exhumers deserved better tank/ehp than they previously had. They are the highest end mining vessels you can fly, but they were far to weak even with tanks fit.
Hmm.....24K EHP for a Mackinaw and 31K EHP for a Hulk. (with good skills/fitting without fleet boosts).
That seemed pretty decent to me, especially considering tank-fit Exhumers rarely, if ever, got ganked.
Look at the evidence, guy - check the Hulkaggeddon killboard. Show me all the DCII/MSEII equipped Exhumers getting slaughtered.
Miners HAD the tools to protect themselves - but their greed or ignorance always got in the way.
CCP finally decided to save miners from themselves.
If they had just buffed the tanking potential of the Exhumer (ie, more slots or grid....) I'd have been cool with it. But CCP went way further than that.
They slapped massive EHP directly to the hull taking responsibility for the tank out of the hands of the pilot. Then, they made the "Cargo fit" Exhumer impossible, while simultaneously all AFK/botters squeal with delight over the new Mackinaws and Retreivers. Hulks become an endangered species and botting gangs of 2 week old ice-belt Retreivers multiply. Botters are literally saying, "go ahead CCP ban us - we'll just roll up more two week alts and laugh all the way to the RMT bank"
The real tragedy? The miners WERE getting better. Gankers were slowly 'tutoring' miners. How to stay alert, how to tank - they WERE getting better at the game. I've seen far more tanked, attentive and organized miners in the last few months than ever before. (High mineral prices, no doubt) More smart little pigs building houses out of brick and prospering.
Then CCP goes, "Meh, whatever. Here's 4x the EHP, and AFK all you like. No need to play smart, CCP SugarDaddy is here."
|
Garreth Vlox
Blackened Skies The Unthinkables
99
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 21:23:00 -
[3095] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Look at all these suicide ganker tears because they can't fit up a T1 destroyer for little to no ISK and solo gank a ship that cost 200m+ for the hull. Absolutely pathetic.
You can still suicide gank that shinny, but you will need to bring a few friends (you know, the thing you keep telling everyone in high sec to get...) and you will need to pony up a bit of ISK to do it. So dry those eyes already. Well you know, miners that fit a good tank pre-patch couldn't be ganked by said solo ganker in a destroyer either. No...it took a whole 2 cheap fit destroyers instead of 1. Only if the miner sacrificed the tank in favouring max yield/cargo. A good tank did not sacrifice itself for more yield & could not be profitably ganked. No matter how you look at it, exhumers deserved better tank/ehp than they previously had. They are the highest end mining vessels you can fly, but they were far to weak even with tanks fit.
Leaving your tank mods in the station and mining in the same system as that station is not tanking. You have to actually put them on the ship. And if I can tank 3 1.2 mil BS + their escort rats in null and you are dying to destroyers in High Sec then your definition of "tank" and mine are more than a little different. The LULZ Boat. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
2378
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 21:53:00 -
[3096] - Quote
Relax. Most miners will still find ways to make themselves easy to kill. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University Minmatar Republic
352
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 22:56:00 -
[3097] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:This must be one of the longest, if not the longest whine threads in the history of these forums. Impossible! Gankers don't whine. They have said so themselves. It must be something else.
|
Yokai Mitsuhide
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
894
|
Posted - 2012.08.28 23:28:00 -
[3098] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:
If you fit something besides cargo rigs and mining enhancers you can tank mutliple 0.0 BS's with no issue in a hulk. There was never a problem with the tank, people were to stupid to actually put the tank ON the hulk.
Tanking npc rats is nothing NOTHING like tanking to deal with suicide ganks.
|
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
552
|
Posted - 2012.08.29 03:40:00 -
[3099] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:
If you fit something besides cargo rigs and mining enhancers you can tank mutliple 0.0 BS's with no issue in a hulk. There was never a problem with the tank, people were to stupid to actually put the tank ON the hulk.
Tanking npc rats is nothing NOTHING like tanking to deal with suicide ganks.
Sadly, if current trends continue, that is going to be the ONLY threat in high sec.
Perhaps CCP should randomly make Sleepers spawn in 0.7 Ice belts.
That would be radical. |
Pipa Porto
844
|
Posted - 2012.08.29 03:51:00 -
[3100] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:
If you fit something besides cargo rigs and mining enhancers you can tank mutliple 0.0 BS's with no issue in a hulk. There was never a problem with the tank, people were to stupid to actually put the tank ON the hulk.
Tanking npc rats is nothing NOTHING like tanking to deal with suicide ganks.
Ok, so show me all the killmails of well tanked Hulks to prove that they were too weak.
Oh, wait... you can't because there aren't any (relatively speaking). EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
|
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
552
|
Posted - 2012.08.29 04:46:00 -
[3101] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:
If you fit something besides cargo rigs and mining enhancers you can tank mutliple 0.0 BS's with no issue in a hulk. There was never a problem with the tank, people were to stupid to actually put the tank ON the hulk.
Tanking npc rats is nothing NOTHING like tanking to deal with suicide ganks. Ok, so show me all the killmails of well tanked Hulks to prove that they were too weak. Oh, wait... you can't because there aren't any (relatively speaking).
What he means is 'they are too weak to survive ganks because I only fit for max cargo and think mid-slots are for Cap Rechargers'.
Push harder and you'll get VV's answer: I shouldn't have to tank my Exhumer because they aren't meant to be tanked.
|
Mallak Azaria
591
|
Posted - 2012.08.29 09:03:00 -
[3102] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:No matter how you look at it, exhumers deserved better tank/ehp than they previously had. They are the highest end mining vessels you can fly, but they were far to weak even with tanks fit.
People too greedy, stupid or both made them appear too weak. Fitting a shield booster in the mids & continuing to fit cargo rigs & yield lows does not count as tanking your mining ship. Unfortunately a lot of miners could not get this around their heads. If I want to have an awesome armour tank on a ship, I have to sacrifice dps capability & mobility. If I want an awesome shield tank, I have to sacrifice utility & some dps if I want to have more mobility. It was exactly the same for miners.
As it stands now, if a miner wants to have a good tank, he doesn't have to sacrifice a thing because his Mackinaw not only has a carghold that lasts for an hour, but a base tank that rivals battlecruisers before fitting any mods. Please tell me how that makes them balanced? Mining Barge buff: CCP-áhas acknowledged that miners in general-áare too stupid to make the correct fitting choices to make ganking them unprofitable. |
Shalua Rui
FEROX AQUILA
3661
|
Posted - 2012.08.29 09:22:00 -
[3103] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:As it stands now, if a miner wants to have a good tank, he doesn't have to sacrifice a thing because his Mackinaw not only has a carghold that lasts for an hour, but a base tank that rivals battlecruisers before fitting any mods. Please tell me how that makes them balanced?
Sorry, but untrue... the old barges were far too weak for the time and affort you had to put into skilling them. How long do you have to skill for BCs (in example a Drake) to use and tank them efficiently? A month? No comparison possible... concidering that miners have to learn many side skills, like refining and ore specialisation to be really effective at all... a L3 mission runner on the other hand...
Also, you are able to balance out a combat ship to good on dps AND defenses... you couldn't balance barges/exhumers before. Either you had a (still meager) tank OR good yield... and that only on one ship (Hulk). Same goes for ore holds. They where simply missing. Only because JC mining was an astablished MO for miners since EVE came to be, it doesn't mean it ever was intended... I highly doubt it, tbh.
...and besides all that: Why do people care, really? So, mining is "easier" now... maybe AFK mining/botting will increase... the economy can take it. I'll still tank my barges and I'll still not AFK mine... So SGing is no longer cost effective/prfitable... then find a new hobby? Or wait 'till another "trendy past time" comes along. "I wish to have no Connection with any Ship that does not Sail fast for I intend to go in harm's way."
Captain John Paul Jones, 16 November 1778 |
Mallak Azaria
591
|
Posted - 2012.08.29 09:58:00 -
[3104] - Quote
Shalua Rui wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:As it stands now, if a miner wants to have a good tank, he doesn't have to sacrifice a thing because his Mackinaw not only has a carghold that lasts for an hour, but a base tank that rivals battlecruisers before fitting any mods. Please tell me how that makes them balanced? Sorry, but untrue... the old barges were far too weak for the time and affort you had to put into skilling them. How long do you have to skill for BCs (in example a Drake) to use and tank them efficiently? A month? No comparison possible... concidering that miners have to learn many side skills, like refining and ore specialisation to be really effective at all... a L3 mission runner on the other hand...
You're trying to compare T2 hulls with T1 hulls in regards to skilling. Yes, training for T2 hulls does take longer than training for a T1 BC... So yes, you were correct in saying "No comparison possible". However, you can skill for a retriever & use it efficiently in a little over a week. The fact remains that if you want to be good at one thing, you have to sacrifice other capabilities. This no longer applies to mining ships. I mean you can literally make a Skiff tank better than a HIC & it's a fair bit cheaper too, all the while happily chewing away at whatever asteroid. Mining Barge buff: CCP-áhas acknowledged that miners in general-áare too stupid to make the correct fitting choices to make ganking them unprofitable. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
596
|
Posted - 2012.08.29 11:13:00 -
[3105] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Shalua Rui wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:As it stands now, if a miner wants to have a good tank, he doesn't have to sacrifice a thing because his Mackinaw not only has a carghold that lasts for an hour, but a base tank that rivals battlecruisers before fitting any mods. Please tell me how that makes them balanced? Sorry, but untrue... the old barges were far too weak for the time and affort you had to put into skilling them. How long do you have to skill for BCs (in example a Drake) to use and tank them efficiently? A month? No comparison possible... concidering that miners have to learn many side skills, like refining and ore specialisation to be really effective at all... a L3 mission runner on the other hand... You're trying to compare T2 hulls with T1 hulls in regards to skilling. Yes, training for T2 hulls does take longer than training for a T1 BC... So yes, you were correct in saying "No comparison possible". However, you can skill for a retriever & use it efficiently in a little over a week. The fact remains that if you want to be good at one thing, you have to sacrifice other capabilities. This no longer applies to mining ships. I mean you can literally make a Skiff tank better than a HIC & it's a fair bit cheaper too, all the while happily chewing away at whatever asteroid. But are miners not sacrificing something? So tell me were do I put the 8 HAM launchers on a skiff? In normal ships you have tanking and guns but cant mine for crap. Mining barges cant shoot people but why can't they have mining and armour? Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Pipa Porto
844
|
Posted - 2012.08.29 11:31:00 -
[3106] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:But are miners not sacrificing something? So tell me were do I put the 8 HAM launchers on a skiff? In normal ships you have tanking and guns but cant mine for crap. Mining barges cant shoot people but why can't they have mining and armour?
They can. They always could.
They just couldn't have Convenience, Tank, and the best yield in the game all at the same time.
The Rokh had great yield, great tank, but was inconvenient. The Hulk (Cargo Rigged, 2 MLUs) had the best yield in the game, poor tank, and was pretty convenient. The Hulk (Tanked) had great yield, good enough tank, and reasonable convenience. The Hulk (All Cargo) had great yield, poor tank, and fantastic convenience.
The Miners just got the idea that they were entitled to have the best yield in the game without having to give up anything else mining related.
(By the way, claiming that Mining barges are giving something up by not being able to fit 8 missile launchers is like claiming the Abaddon's giving up something because it can't fit a whole rack of missile launchers instead of just 1, it's an insane argument and you look silly making it.) EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
597
|
Posted - 2012.08.29 11:50:00 -
[3107] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Frying Doom wrote:But are miners not sacrificing something? So tell me were do I put the 8 HAM launchers on a skiff? In normal ships you have tanking and guns but cant mine for crap. Mining barges cant shoot people but why can't they have mining and armour? They can. They always could. They just couldn't have Convenience, Tank, and the best yield in the game all at the same time. The Rokh had great yield, great tank, but was inconvenient. The Hulk (Cargo Rigged, 2 MLUs) had the best yield in the game, poor tank, and was pretty convenient. The Hulk (Tanked) had great yield, good enough tank, and reasonable convenience. The Hulk (All Cargo) had great yield, poor tank, and fantastic convenience. The Miners just got the idea that they were entitled to have the best yield in the game without having to give up anything else mining related. (By the way, claiming that Mining barges are giving something up by not being able to fit 8 missile launchers is like claiming the Abaddon's giving up something because it can't fit a whole rack of missile launchers instead of just 1, it's an insane argument and you look silly making it.) 8 missile launchers or 3 hybrid railguns, doesn't matter crap the fact is that barges give up the ability for offensive weapons to gain a mining advantage.
And if you think the old Hulk had a good tank try flying around a Battleship or for that matter a battle cruiser with that crappy amount of tank and I'm talking the T1 battle ships or battle cruisers while you seem to think a T2 ship should have a crap tank and no ability to shoot back. I love the good enough tank reference, by what do you class as good enough? good enough to go boom with 3 or 4 catalysts?
Personally I think your argument is insane. A fully tanked T2 ship should not be able to be swatted out of the sky by a handful of crappy T1 destroyers while not having the ability to fight back.
Looks like you just want easy ganks, so why don't you just find some of those catalysts, there are plenty flying around.
Why don't you go gank them or are you worried they can shoot back? Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Mallak Azaria
591
|
Posted - 2012.08.29 12:21:00 -
[3108] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Frying Doom wrote:But are miners not sacrificing something? So tell me were do I put the 8 HAM launchers on a skiff? In normal ships you have tanking and guns but cant mine for crap. Mining barges cant shoot people but why can't they have mining and armour? They can. They always could. They just couldn't have Convenience, Tank, and the best yield in the game all at the same time. The Rokh had great yield, great tank, but was inconvenient. The Hulk (Cargo Rigged, 2 MLUs) had the best yield in the game, poor tank, and was pretty convenient. The Hulk (Tanked) had great yield, good enough tank, and reasonable convenience. The Hulk (All Cargo) had great yield, poor tank, and fantastic convenience. The Miners just got the idea that they were entitled to have the best yield in the game without having to give up anything else mining related. (By the way, claiming that Mining barges are giving something up by not being able to fit 8 missile launchers is like claiming the Abaddon's giving up something because it can't fit a whole rack of missile launchers instead of just 1, it's an insane argument and you look silly making it.) 8 missile launchers or 3 hybrid railguns, doesn't matter crap the fact is that barges give up the ability for offensive weapons to gain a mining advantage. And if you think the old Hulk had a good tank try flying around a Battleship or for that matter a battle cruiser with that crappy amount of tank and I'm talking the T1 battle ships or battle cruisers while you seem to think a T2 ship should have a crap tank and no ability to shoot back. I love the good enough tank reference, by what do you class as good enough? good enough to go boom with 3 or 4 catalysts? Personally I think your argument is insane. A fully tanked T2 ship should not be able to be swatted out of the sky by a handful of crappy T1 destroyers while not having the ability to fight back. Looks like you just want easy ganks, so why don't you just find some of those catalysts, there are plenty flying around. Why don't you go gank them or are you worried they can shoot back?
The point of those barge changes was to make it so they could not be profitably ganked at the base level. Here's a shocker: You could already do that. You could get them to 38k EHP with out using expensive modules & they could not be profitably ganked. Mining Barge buff: CCP-áhas acknowledged that miners in general-áare too stupid to make the correct fitting choices to make ganking them unprofitable. |
Shalua Rui
FEROX AQUILA
3666
|
Posted - 2012.08.29 12:27:00 -
[3109] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:The point of those barge changes was to make it so they could not be profitably ganked at the base level. Here's a shocker: You could already do that. You could get them to 38k EHP with out using expensive modules & they could not be profitably ganked.
Yea, sure... and now compare the (relative) amount of ISK you could make with that fitting in an hour, compared to a solo L3 mission runner that didn't spend half as much time skilling... still not even close on the SP/ISK investment vs. profit diagram. No mentioning the fact that nobody would try to suicide gank said mission runner while he is making his money in highsec.
That's all I'm saying... "I wish to have no Connection with any Ship that does not Sail fast for I intend to go in harm's way."
Captain John Paul Jones, 16 November 1778 |
pussnheels
558
|
Posted - 2012.08.29 12:41:00 -
[3110] - Quote
When is this thread going to die
Barges didnt got a buff they still yield the same amount even lass if you tank them which isn t really that simple finding the right balance between yield and protectin And gankers got them selves a nice gankmobile in the form of the tornado but now need to put in more work setting up their gank Both win and lose What is worrying me most is that alot of miners flying around with a false sense of security and soon some of them start demanding new buff and we have thise debate aml over again I do not agree with what you are saying , but i will defend to the death your right to say it...... Voltaire |
|
Shalua Rui
FEROX AQUILA
3667
|
Posted - 2012.08.29 12:47:00 -
[3111] - Quote
pussnheels wrote:What is worrying me most is that alot of miners flying around with a false sense of security and soon some of them start demanding new buff and we have thise debate aml over again
I agree... but doubt it, concidering how long we had to wait for the current, long overdue buff. "I wish to have no Connection with any Ship that does not Sail fast for I intend to go in harm's way."
Captain John Paul Jones, 16 November 1778 |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
155
|
Posted - 2012.08.29 12:59:00 -
[3112] - Quote
pussnheels wrote:What is worrying me most is that alot of miners flying around with a false sense of security and soon some of them start demanding new buff and we have thise debate aml over again
Gankers are always welcome to shoot my full tank no-MLU Procurer. |
Mallak Azaria
591
|
Posted - 2012.08.29 13:02:00 -
[3113] - Quote
Shalua Rui wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:The point of those barge changes was to make it so they could not be profitably ganked at the base level. Here's a shocker: You could already do that. You could get them to 38k EHP with out using expensive modules & they could not be profitably ganked. Yea, sure... and now compare the (relative) amount of ISK you could make with that fitting in an hour, compared to a solo L3 mission runner that didn't spend half as much time skilling... still not even close on the SP/ISK investment vs. profit diagram. No mentioning the fact that nobody would try to suicide gank said mission runner while he is making his money in highsec. That's all I'm saying...
SP investment has nothing to do with the choices people make. Using your logic, it's unfair that someone can spend a few days training Trade skills & start raking in billions of isk each day. Mining Barge buff: CCP-áhas acknowledged that miners in general-áare too stupid to make the correct fitting choices to make ganking them unprofitable. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
598
|
Posted - 2012.08.29 13:21:00 -
[3114] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:The point of those barge changes was to make it so they could not be profitably ganked at the base level. Here's a shocker: You could already do that. You could get them to 38k EHP with out using expensive modules & they could not be profitably ganked. You might want to check that the fitting states "Effective HP: 26,653" not 38k, its only 36k in kinetic/thermal
Also some of the comments One said "Catalyst has 700 dps, overheated.
Concord response time is almost 30 seconds in a 0.5 system, Ryu so your times are wrong. 0.8 is closer at 10/12 seconds iirc, maybe 15 secs. Longer if there's been a diversion to drag Concord away."
So 700dps is 21000 in 30 seconds so 2 catalysts and it goes BOOM!
Yeah really not profitable to gank, if you so 50% of the module cost is still 13 million and then you have the salvage off of a T2 ship. So you don't make a huge profit but it was still profitable and a thorax costing 36,140,583 so 1/8 the cost has stats almost the same Thorax "EHP: 31,302 / RESISTS: EM 68,1% TH 58,6% KN 58,6% EX 42,6%
DPS: 615 / VOLLEY: 802 / OPTIMAL: 2,3 + 1,9 FALLOFF - WITH: VOID M - and DRONES
DRONES DPS: 158,4 / TURRET DPS: 456,8/ 525,3 OVERHEATED for short time
CAP lasts: 2m 43s / STABLE at 71% w/o MWD
MOBILITY: 1212m/s 10,4s align with MWD / 204m/s 8s align w/o MWD / 1715 MWD heat
You can also swap both MAG STABS for another EANM and a EXPLOSIVE HARDENER ( you'll need to swap the web and the scrambler to named ones to save cpu for this, they are more expansive but the same.) gaining 12k EHP but losing 124 of the DPS."
and it can shoot back.
It was just stupid that a T1 cruiser could have the same armour levels as a T2 mining ship that has no offensive capability. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Shalua Rui
FEROX AQUILA
3669
|
Posted - 2012.08.29 13:22:00 -
[3115] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:SP investment has nothing to do with the choices people make. Using your logic, it's unfair that someone can spend a few days training Trade skills & start raking in billions of isk each day.
...you really read what you want to... a common problem on this forums.
Sure, you are absolutely right... even thouge I doubt it is that easy with a single, new born char ... without alts or whatever.... but "fairness" wasn't one of my points... investment efficiency and choice were. If you compede on the field of trading, you are competing eye to eye with others that invested the same time and money then you... atleast potentially. The char is isueless in almost all other regards, but a capable trader... your choice.
Mass "harvesting" miners with cheap ships and nearly newborn chars on the other hand... you tell me where that left the EVE principals of choice and max investment efficiency?
Ah well, "pussnheels" is right, this thread should die. The changes are in, period.
If anything, I thank the goons (and others) for showing CCP where the weaknesses in their system lie. "I wish to have no Connection with any Ship that does not Sail fast for I intend to go in harm's way."
Captain John Paul Jones, 16 November 1778 |
Pipa Porto
844
|
Posted - 2012.08.29 13:38:00 -
[3116] - Quote
pussnheels wrote:And gankers got them selves a nice gankmobile in the form of the tornado but now need to put in more work setting up their gank Both win and lose
So you're going to skip right over the fact that at the same time the tornado was introduced and the destroyers got buffed, ganking got a direct nerf in the form of insurance payouts meaning that, overall the cost to gank anything increased... OK.
Frying Doom wrote:You might want to check that the fitting states "Effective HP: 26,653" not 38k, its only 36k in kinetic/thermal
Also some of the comments One said "Catalyst has 700 dps, overheated.
Concord response time is almost 30 seconds in a 0.5 system, Ryu so your times are wrong. 0.8 is closer at 10/12 seconds iirc, maybe 15 secs. Longer if there's been a diversion to drag Concord away."
So 700dps is 21000 in 30 seconds so 2 catalysts and it goes BOOM!
Yeah really not profitable to gank, if you so 50% of the module cost is still 13 million and then you have the salvage off of a T2 ship. So you don't make a huge profit but it was still profitable and a thorax costing 36,140,583 so 1/8 the cost has stats almost the same Thorax "EHP: 31,302 / RESISTS: EM 68,1% TH 58,6% KN 58,6% EX 42,6%
DPS: 615 / VOLLEY: 802 / OPTIMAL: 2,3 + 1,9 FALLOFF - WITH: VOID M - and DRONES
DRONES DPS: 158,4 / TURRET DPS: 456,8/ 525,3 OVERHEATED for short time
CAP lasts: 2m 43s / STABLE at 71% w/o MWD
MOBILITY: 1212m/s 10,4s align with MWD / 204m/s 8s align w/o MWD / 1715 MWD heat
You can also swap both MAG STABS for another EANM and a EXPLOSIVE HARDENER ( you'll need to swap the web and the scrambler to named ones to save cpu for this, they are more expansive but the same.) gaining 12k EHP but losing 124 of the DPS."
and it can shoot back.
It was just stupid that a T1 cruiser could have the same armour levels as a T2 mining ship that has no offensive capability.
To start, Concord response time is 20s in a .5 system, thanks to the CONCORD response time buff that was quietly put into place a while ago. So a proper fit Hulk would require 3 T2 Catalysts (or a swarm of cheapfit Catalysts if you have the manpower). Thanks for playing, you're not making money there.
As for the rest, Comparing the Hulk's capabilities to a Combat ship is silly and you should feel silly. It's like saying the Freighter's underpowered because it can't fit a DCII and a Cargo Expander. The equivalent to the Thorax's Magstabs are built into the hull. Adding more MLUs costs you your shot at defense. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Mallak Azaria
591
|
Posted - 2012.08.29 13:54:00 -
[3117] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:The point of those barge changes was to make it so they could not be profitably ganked at the base level. Here's a shocker: You could already do that. You could get them to 38k EHP with out using expensive modules & they could not be profitably ganked. You might want to check that the fitting states "Effective HP: 26,653" not 38k, its only 36k in kinetic/thermal.
That is only 1 of many fits that were available with very litte in the way of shield training. With a little creativity it could easily go to 38k. If 3 month old ice miners can spend 500mil on an ice harvesting hardwire or 1 bil on a mindlink, then what's the problem with buying a 3% PG implant to increase tanking capability? The fact remains that when tanked properly, Hulks & Macks could not be ganked for profit unless they went out of their way to make it profitable.
Frying Doom wrote:It was just stupid that a T1 cruiser could have the same armour levels as a T2 mining ship that has no offensive capability.
T2 mining ships were for mining & did that really well. They also tanked really well if you bothered to try. Said T1 cruiser is a combat ship, not a strip miner. Also, I take it you've never seen a combat Hulk in action? Mining Barge buff: CCP-áhas acknowledged that miners in general-áare too stupid to make the correct fitting choices to make ganking them unprofitable. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
600
|
Posted - 2012.08.29 14:59:00 -
[3118] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote: Comparing the Hulk's capabilities to a Combat ship is silly and you should feel silly. It's like saying the Freighter's underpowered because it can't fit a DCII and a Cargo Expander. The equivalent to the Thorax's Magstabs are built into the hull. Adding more MLUs costs you your shot at defense.
Yeah because it would be stupid if a ship designed for mining with all these combat ships around to actually have reasonable defenses, the fact is exactly that it makes no sense at all to design a mining ship that can just get blown out of the water by any old crap T1 or 3 in the case of catalysts. As to adding more MLUs actually I haven't used them in years and the tank for such an expensive ship was a bloody joke. To use your freighter example, the old hulk was like having an obelisk with only 80k ehp but I suppose that would make a lot of sense to you as well.
Your whole argument is it is so nasty now that 3 T1 destroyers can't kill a T2 ship with a Mass 7 times there combined mass.
I noticed you didn't reply about ganking ships that can shoot back and I think that is the whole point to this thread.
You want easy kills that can't shoot you back. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
600
|
Posted - 2012.08.29 15:02:00 -
[3119] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Frying Doom wrote:It was just stupid that a T1 cruiser could have the same armour levels as a T2 mining ship that has no offensive capability. T2 mining ships were for mining & did that really well. They also tanked really well if you bothered to try. Said T1 cruiser is a combat ship, not a strip miner. Also, I take it you've never seen a combat Hulk in action? So your saying battle ships tank really well so they don't need guns? or maybe that battle cruisers have a good DPS so they have no need for any tank?
Saying that the hulk did one thing well so it needs no other, really is stupid. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Mallak Azaria
592
|
Posted - 2012.08.29 15:05:00 -
[3120] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Pipa Porto wrote: Comparing the Hulk's capabilities to a Combat ship is silly and you should feel silly. It's like saying the Freighter's underpowered because it can't fit a DCII and a Cargo Expander. The equivalent to the Thorax's Magstabs are built into the hull. Adding more MLUs costs you your shot at defense.
Yeah because it would be stupid if a ship designed for mining with all these combat ships around to actually have reasonable defenses, the fact is exactly that it makes no sense at all to design a mining ship that can just get blown out of the water by any old crap T1 or 3 in the case of catalysts. As to adding more MLUs actually I haven't used them in years and the tank for such an expensive ship was a bloody joke. To use your freighter example, the old hulk was like having an obelisk with only 80k ehp but I suppose that would make a lot of sense to you as well. Your whole argument is it is so nasty now that 3 T1 destroyers can't kill a T2 ship with a Mass 7 times there combined mass. I noticed you didn't reply about ganking ships that can shoot back and I think that is the whole point to this thread. You want easy kills that can't shoot you back.
You keep bringing up cost & size comparisons when neither of them are valid arguments. I'm pretty sure the size, mass & cost of the WTC towers was a lot higher than the planes that brought them down.
What exactly is stopping a mining ship from shooting back? We all know they can use drones. Mining Barge buff: CCP-áhas acknowledged that miners in general-áare too stupid to make the correct fitting choices to make ganking them unprofitable. |
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
600
|
Posted - 2012.08.29 15:09:00 -
[3121] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:
You keep bringing up cost & size comparisons when neither of them are valid arguments. I'm pretty sure the size, mass & cost of the WTC towers was a lot higher than the planes that brought them down.
What exactly is stopping a mining ship from shooting back? We all know they can use drones.
You bring up a good point if you want to pack your ships with a volatile substance and smash into a hulk so you can die a permadeath while screaming for Allah, be my guest.
Other than that it doesn't make much sense, kind of like firing a machine gun at a battleship and hoping it sinks. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Mallak Azaria
592
|
Posted - 2012.08.29 15:54:00 -
[3122] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:
You keep bringing up cost & size comparisons when neither of them are valid arguments. I'm pretty sure the size, mass & cost of the WTC towers was a lot higher than the planes that brought them down.
What exactly is stopping a mining ship from shooting back? We all know they can use drones.
You bring up a good point if you want to pack your ships with a volatile substance and smash into a hulk so you can die a permadeath while screaming for Allah, be my guest. Other than that it doesn't make much sense, kind of like firing a machine gun at a battleship and hoping it sinks.
Yet you & others keep bringing up the comparison. Mining Barge buff: CCP-áhas acknowledged that miners in general-áare too stupid to make the correct fitting choices to make ganking them unprofitable. |
Saede Riordan
Alexylva Paradox
29
|
Posted - 2012.08.29 16:12:00 -
[3123] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:
You keep bringing up cost & size comparisons when neither of them are valid arguments. I'm pretty sure the size, mass & cost of the WTC towers was a lot higher than the planes that brought them down.
What exactly is stopping a mining ship from shooting back? We all know they can use drones.
You bring up a good point if you want to pack your ships with a volatile substance and smash into a hulk so you can die a permadeath while screaming for Allah, be my guest.
wtb this mechanic |
Buck Futz
Suddenly Violence Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
69
|
Posted - 2012.08.29 16:31:00 -
[3124] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:
You keep bringing up cost & size comparisons when neither of them are valid arguments. I'm pretty sure the size, mass & cost of the WTC towers was a lot higher than the planes that brought them down.
What exactly is stopping a mining ship from shooting back? We all know they can use drones.
You bring up a good point if you want to pack your ships with a volatile substance and smash into a hulk so you can die a permadeath while screaming for Allah, be my guest. Other than that it doesn't make much sense, kind of like firing a machine gun at a battleship and hoping it sinks.
Alright then. Suppose that CCP grants you your wish and allows the Hulk/Mack to have guns in the high slots.
How many miners would actually use those slots for guns? My guess is they would still fit Strip miners.
I mean, they don't use their mid slots, low slots OR rig slots for tank - why would they use their high slots for guns instead of more yield? Thats what this whole thread is about. Miners refuse to compromise income - which makes them easy targets, and CCP simply accommodated that pig-headed attitude with a ridiculous patch.
Why all the crying about 'cant shoot back'? Seriously?
And besides, suicide gankers only expect to live about 15 seconds anyway, because Concord is constantly being ratched up in power - do you think miners shooting back will make a difference?
|
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
551
|
Posted - 2012.08.29 17:35:00 -
[3125] - Quote
This is still a whine thread, even with the OP changed beyond recognition.
Interdict Hi-Sec - it's the only way to be sure... |
Dog Biscuit
Chitlins
13
|
Posted - 2012.08.29 17:36:00 -
[3126] - Quote
ISD did it |
Esteban Dragonovic
Odyssey Inc SpaceMonkey's Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2012.08.29 18:58:00 -
[3127] - Quote
Buck Futz wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:
You keep bringing up cost & size comparisons when neither of them are valid arguments. I'm pretty sure the size, mass & cost of the WTC towers was a lot higher than the planes that brought them down.
What exactly is stopping a mining ship from shooting back? We all know they can use drones.
You bring up a good point if you want to pack your ships with a volatile substance and smash into a hulk so you can die a permadeath while screaming for Allah, be my guest. Other than that it doesn't make much sense, kind of like firing a machine gun at a battleship and hoping it sinks. Alright then. Suppose that CCP grants you your wish and allows the Hulk/Mack to have guns in the high slots. How many miners would actually use those slots for guns? My guess is they would still fit Strip miners. I mean, they don't use their mid slots, low slots OR rig slots for tank - why would they use their high slots for guns instead of more yield? Thats what this whole thread is about. Miners refuse to compromise income - which makes them easy targets, and CCP simply accommodated that pig-headed attitude with a ridiculous patch. Why all the crying about 'cant shoot back'? Seriously? And besides, suicide gankers only expect to live about 15 seconds anyway, because Concord is constantly being ratched up in power - do you think miners shooting back will make a difference?
I can haz strip mine your ships? :3 Just make miners overload to do damage, tah da! Problem solved.
|
Dajli
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.08.29 19:20:00 -
[3128] - Quote
I find it fascinating and sad the obsession that "null seccers" and "gankers" have with making high sec a safer place. I really don't see a problem other than people not getting what they want.
Cry moar Nulls. |
Pipa Porto
845
|
Posted - 2012.08.30 00:35:00 -
[3129] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Pipa Porto wrote: Comparing the Hulk's capabilities to a Combat ship is silly and you should feel silly. It's like saying the Freighter's underpowered because it can't fit a DCII and a Cargo Expander. The equivalent to the Thorax's Magstabs are built into the hull. Adding more MLUs costs you your shot at defense.
Yeah because it would be stupid if a ship designed for mining with all these combat ships around to actually have reasonable defenses, the fact is exactly that it makes no sense at all to design a mining ship that can just get blown out of the water by any old crap T1 or 3 in the case of catalysts. As to adding more MLUs actually I haven't used them in years and the tank for such an expensive ship was a bloody joke. To use your freighter example, the old hulk was like having an obelisk with only 80k ehp but I suppose that would make a lot of sense to you as well. Your whole argument is it is so nasty now that 3 T1 destroyers can't kill a T2 ship with a Mass 7 times there combined mass. I noticed you didn't reply about ganking ships that can shoot back and I think that is the whole point to this thread. You want easy kills that can't shoot you back.
Nope. The Hulks had perfectly fine defenses, as shown by the fact that they were unprofitable to gank anywhere in HS if properly fitted. They tanked about as well as a number of HACs (who also could be profitably ganked if fitted similarly to the way Hulk pilots fitted their ships).
Really, just about any T2 ship can be ganked profitably if fit the way most Hulk pilots fitted their ships. The difference is that most pilots of these other ships understand that you need to take some measures to protect yourself. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Jonah Gravenstein
902
|
Posted - 2012.08.30 00:39:00 -
[3130] - Quote
Saede Riordan wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:
You keep bringing up cost & size comparisons when neither of them are valid arguments. I'm pretty sure the size, mass & cost of the WTC towers was a lot higher than the planes that brought them down.
What exactly is stopping a mining ship from shooting back? We all know they can use drones.
You bring up a good point if you want to pack your ships with a volatile substance and smash into a hulk so you can die a permadeath while screaming for Allah, be my guest. wtb this mechanic
It already exists, one of the advanced military tutorials involves flying a frigate packed with explosives into a NPC structure.
War hasn't been fought this badly since Olaf the Hairy, High Chief of all the Vikings, accidentally ordered 80,000 battle helmets with the horns on the inside. CCP can't patch stupidity. |
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
609
|
Posted - 2012.08.30 01:44:00 -
[3131] - Quote
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Saede Riordan wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:
You keep bringing up cost & size comparisons when neither of them are valid arguments. I'm pretty sure the size, mass & cost of the WTC towers was a lot higher than the planes that brought them down.
What exactly is stopping a mining ship from shooting back? We all know they can use drones.
You bring up a good point if you want to pack your ships with a volatile substance and smash into a hulk so you can die a permadeath while screaming for Allah, be my guest. wtb this mechanic It already exists, one of the advanced military tutorials involves flying a frigate packed with explosives into a NPC structure. but you are not permadead afterwards. Hell if you where that would make for a short set of tutorial missions Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Pipa Porto
846
|
Posted - 2012.08.30 04:53:00 -
[3132] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Jonah Gravenstein wrote:Saede Riordan wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:
You keep bringing up cost & size comparisons when neither of them are valid arguments. I'm pretty sure the size, mass & cost of the WTC towers was a lot higher than the planes that brought them down.
What exactly is stopping a mining ship from shooting back? We all know they can use drones.
You bring up a good point if you want to pack your ships with a volatile substance and smash into a hulk so you can die a permadeath while screaming for Allah, be my guest. wtb this mechanic It already exists, one of the advanced military tutorials involves flying a frigate packed with explosives into a NPC structure. but you are not permadead afterwards. Hell if you where that would make for a short set of tutorial missions
Tutorial: Lesson Learned, Don't do EVE Tutorial. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
pussnheels
559
|
Posted - 2012.08.30 10:25:00 -
[3133] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:pussnheels wrote:And gankers got them selves a nice gankmobile in the form of the tornado but now need to put in more work setting up their gank Both win and lose So you're going to skip right over the fact that at the same time the tornado was introduced and the destroyers got buffed, ganking got a direct nerf in the form of insurance payouts meaning that, overall the cost to gank anything increased... OK. . That wasn t a nerf that was balacing , you know damn well if CCP hadnt change the insurance mechanics with the introduction of the tornado , there wouldn t be any miners laft
I do not agree with what you are saying , but i will defend to the death your right to say it...... Voltaire |
Pipa Porto
846
|
Posted - 2012.08.30 10:36:00 -
[3134] - Quote
pussnheels wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:pussnheels wrote:And gankers got them selves a nice gankmobile in the form of the tornado but now need to put in more work setting up their gank Both win and lose So you're going to skip right over the fact that at the same time the tornado was introduced and the destroyers got buffed, ganking got a direct nerf in the form of insurance payouts meaning that, overall the cost to gank anything increased... OK. . That wasn t a nerf that was balacing , you know damn well if CCP hadnt change the insurance mechanics with the introduction of the tornado , there wouldn t be any miners laft
But you just said that the Miners got their shiny new EHP buff as the balance to the Tornado...
Which is it?
(By the way, the balance of the Crucible changes dramatically increased the cost to gank anything.) EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
pussnheels
560
|
Posted - 2012.08.30 11:20:00 -
[3135] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:pussnheels wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:pussnheels wrote:And gankers got them selves a nice gankmobile in the form of the tornado but now need to put in more work setting up their gank Both win and lose So you're going to skip right over the fact that at the same time the tornado was introduced and the destroyers got buffed, ganking got a direct nerf in the form of insurance payouts meaning that, overall the cost to gank anything increased... OK. . That wasn t a nerf that was balacing , you know damn well if CCP hadnt change the insurance mechanics with the introduction of the tornado , there wouldn t be any miners laft But you just said that the Miners got their shiny new EHP buff as the balance to the Tornado... Which is it? (By the way, the balance of the Crucible changes dramatically increased the cost to gank anything.)
no the barges got rebalanced to give players the ship that matches their playstyle , those that don't care about ganks will never tank and go for maxyield those that are paranoid about gankers now have the chance to tank their exhumers , what they do is their choice , did they had a choice before the patch when they were ganked , not really especially not against a determined gank attempt and don't forget that the tornado was launched 10 months before the barge rebalancing patch with out that insurrance rbalance and between the barge patch it would have been a complete bloodbath, it was already pretty bloody and it is still pretty easy to gank exhumers except that if you are unlucky enough to pick a smart/paranoid miner you lose out
profits you say you might be doing this out of profit , most of them didn't most of them did it because they can and what is more fun for a idiotic whitetrash moronic teenager than to blow up things , except for setting fire to the neighbers petcat
i never saw any profit in ganking exhumers and i still can not believe that you can make a profit out of it I do not agree with what you are saying , but i will defend to the death your right to say it...... Voltaire |
Pipa Porto
846
|
Posted - 2012.08.30 23:01:00 -
[3136] - Quote
pussnheels wrote:no the barges got rebalanced to give players the ship that matches their playstyle , those that don't care about ganks will never tank and go for maxyield those that are paranoid about gankers now have the chance to tank their exhumers , what they do is their choice , did they had a choice before the patch when they were ganked , not really especially not against a determined gank attempt and don't forget that the tornado was launched 10 months before the barge rebalancing patch with out that insurrance rbalance and between the barge patch it would have been a complete bloodbath, it was already pretty bloody and it is still pretty easy to gank exhumers except that if you are unlucky enough to pick a smart/paranoid miner you lose out
profits you say you might be doing this out of profit , most of them didn't most of them did it because they can and what is more fun for a idiotic whitetrash moronic teenager than to blow up things , except for setting fire to the neighbers petcat
i never saw any profit in ganking exhumers and i still can not believe that you can make a profit out of it
Every Exhumer got an EHP buff. Every style of mining got an EHP buff. Since there's only one reason why Barges need EHP, that's a direct nerf to ganking.
That's not a rebalance, that's an across-the-board buff. That, as you've just said, was not offset in any way on the ganker's side.
So, Crucible nerfed Ganking (by increasing the cost of ganking anything), then the Barge Buff nerfs ganking again. And you're saying it's just a "balance."
A Rebalance would have left the Mackinaw and the Hulk with tanks lower than the tanked hulk pre-buff. This would be balanced by the Skiff's giant honking tank. Giving people a choice. Weather Ganks in a Skiff, or use active methods to avoid them in a Mackinaw/Hulk. Then you have a further choice between hauling (convenience) and yield (income).
Tank, Convenience, Income. One ship for each. Instead, every ship gets a Tank buff. The Tank ship also gets a Convenience Buff, and the Convenience ship gets enough Tank that the Tank ship is irrelevant. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
156
|
Posted - 2012.08.30 23:08:00 -
[3137] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:So, Crucible nerfed Ganking (by increasing the cost of ganking anything), then the Barge Buff nerfs ganking again. And you're saying it's just a "balance."
- 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. |
FeralShadow
Black Storm Cartel
160
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 00:01:00 -
[3138] - Quote
My nightmare with no tank whatsoever and all mining lasers can be ganked by a tornado. nerf tornados. Shift click to open new window. How the Eve Sandbox Works:https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=482176#post482176 "I believe in karma. That's why whenever I do something sh**ty to others, they somehow deserved it." |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
117
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 00:16:00 -
[3139] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:So, Crucible nerfed Ganking (by increasing the cost of ganking anything), then the Barge Buff nerfs ganking again. And you're saying it's just a "balance." - 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.
Post the eft block for that 1500 DPS catalyst.
Goonwaffe is now recruiting feel free to message me in game for information about joining! |
Pipa Porto
846
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 00:18:00 -
[3140] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:So, Crucible nerfed Ganking (by increasing the cost of ganking anything), then the Barge Buff nerfs ganking again. And you're saying it's just a "balance." - 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.
I'll let Ray Bolger explain what's going on in your post. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
626
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 00:41:00 -
[3141] - Quote
Buck Futz wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:
You keep bringing up cost & size comparisons when neither of them are valid arguments. I'm pretty sure the size, mass & cost of the WTC towers was a lot higher than the planes that brought them down.
What exactly is stopping a mining ship from shooting back? We all know they can use drones.
You bring up a good point if you want to pack your ships with a volatile substance and smash into a hulk so you can die a permadeath while screaming for Allah, be my guest. Other than that it doesn't make much sense, kind of like firing a machine gun at a battleship and hoping it sinks. Alright then. Suppose that CCP grants you your wish and allows the Hulk/Mack to have guns in the high slots. How many miners would actually use those slots for guns? My guess is they would still fit Strip miners. I mean, they don't use their mid slots, low slots OR rig slots for tank - why would they use their high slots for guns instead of more yield? Thats what this whole thread is about. Miners refuse to compromise income - which makes them easy targets, and CCP simply accommodated that pig-headed attitude with a ridiculous patch. Why all the crying about 'cant shoot back'? Seriously? And besides, suicide gankers only expect to live about 15 seconds anyway, because Concord is constantly being ratched up in power - do you think miners shooting back will make a difference? Actually its not crying about "cant shoot back', it is merely stating that the mining barges give up that ability to be better at mining so why shouldn't they have an effective tank like they do now.
Actually I love the mining barge changes as you have the ability to be tanked like hell all the way down to a light tank or almost no tank if you don't want one.
Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Galen Enderstone
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 01:38:00 -
[3142] - Quote
I've admittedly not been playing the game/browsing this forum long. But my impression thus far is despite all the complaining about whining miners, there is just as much bawwing from gankers over taking down defenceless ships actually requiring *shock* effort. They boast about "delicious miner tears" but appear to be having their own little tantrum. Yes, how dare they, how dare they give ships with zero combat or manoeuvring capability some extra defence.
Talking about an entitlement complex amongst miners, what's with these people who think it's their god given right to have easy kills? I've thankfully never been ganked (probably haven't played long enough), but if I ever was, what am I to think of the ganker? Someone whose managed to outsmart/beat me at the game, or some little ***** who couldn't make it in PvP so went after defenceless targets?
I'm a total noob at this game so have a lot to learn, haven't even finished training for mining barges yet. But even I can see all this bitching about whining miners is rather hypocritical. |
Pipa Porto
846
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 02:57:00 -
[3143] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote: Actually its not crying about "cant shoot back', it is merely stating that the mining barges give up that ability to be better at mining so why shouldn't they have an effective tank like they do now.
Actually I love the mining barge changes as you have the ability to be tanked like hell all the way down to a light tank or almost no tank if you don't want one.
Because the ability to effectively "shoot back" (which, because of ECM drones, they don't actually do re: Suicide Ganking) isn't an ability that's useful to miners, so it's not something valuable that they've given up.
It's like saying that other ships need a buff because they can't mine as well as the Hulk at the same time they do their job.
One ship with a badass tank is a great idea. Giving all the ships a significant tank increase is not a "rebalance," it's a straight buff. And it's directed straight at HS miners who now don't need to sacrifice anything for the enormous convenience that they've gained. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Pipa Porto
846
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 03:01:00 -
[3144] - Quote
Galen Enderstone wrote:I've admittedly not been playing the game/browsing this forum long. But my impression thus far is despite all the complaining about whining miners, there is just as much bawwing from gankers over taking down defenceless ships actually requiring *shock* effort. They boast about "delicious miner tears" but appear to be having their own little tantrum. Yes, how dare they, how dare they give ships with zero combat or manoeuvring capability some extra defence.
Talking about an entitlement complex amongst miners, what's with these people who think it's their god given right to have easy kills? I've thankfully never been ganked (probably haven't played long enough), but if I ever was, what am I to think of the ganker? Someone whose managed to outsmart/beat me at the game, or some little ***** who couldn't make it in PvP so went after defenceless targets?
I'm a total noob at this game so have a lot to learn, haven't even finished training for mining barges yet. But even I can see all this bitching about whining miners is rather hypocritical.
Unilaterally increasing the EHP of Exhumers doesn't change the amount of effort it takes to gank miners, just the cost. And the Miners could easily have increased their EHP by fitting a *shock* tank. But no, instead of taking the effort to fit a tank or *shock* fly their ship to avoid ganks, the miners cried and shat their pants until CCP had to step in to give them a large EHP buff and a new Cargo Hulk that mines the same amount, hauls twice as much, and tanks well enough to be unprofitable to gank. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
632
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 03:17:00 -
[3145] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Frying Doom wrote: Actually its not crying about "cant shoot back', it is merely stating that the mining barges give up that ability to be better at mining so why shouldn't they have an effective tank like they do now.
Actually I love the mining barge changes as you have the ability to be tanked like hell all the way down to a light tank or almost no tank if you don't want one.
Because the ability to effectively "shoot back" (which, because of ECM drones, they don't actually do re: Suicide Ganking) isn't an ability that's useful to miners, so it's not something valuable that they've given up. It's like saying that other ships need a buff because they can't mine as well as the Hulk at the same time they do their job. One ship with a badass tank is a great idea. Giving all the ships a significant tank increase is not a "rebalance," it's a straight buff. And it's directed straight at HS miners who now don't need to sacrifice anything for the enormous convenience that they've gained. Given miners quiet often do not fit a tank. What is the current tank of an unbuffed hulk or mack compared to other ships of the same mass?
And no other ships don't need a buff because they can mine just not as well.
Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Pipa Porto
846
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 03:29:00 -
[3146] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote: Given miners quiet often do not fit a tank. What is the current tank of an unbuffed hulk or mack compared to other ships of the same mass?
And no other ships don't need a buff because they can mine just not as well.
So you're suggesting that the appropriate way to balance ships is based on the dumbest people flying them? By that logic, nothing's broken. Because someone who bothers to fit their ship will beat them.
By the way, an unfit Hulk has 10,900 Omni EHP. an unfit Vaga has 9,170 Omni EHP. an unfit Zealot has 10,800 Omni EHP. an unfit Cerberus has 9,890 Omni EHP. an unfit Ishtar has 10,400 Omni EHP.
So there's a full half of the Heavy Assault cruiser line who, when unfit (like the Hulks you think are properly balanced by player stupidity) have less base EHP than the Hulk.
So the other ships don't need a buff because the fact that they give up the ability to mine effectively (something unnecessary to their role) isn't valuable. But the Hulks needed a buff because the fact that they give up the ability to fight effectively (something unnecessary to their role) is valuable?
By the way, the Hulk certainly can fight. Just not particularly effectively. Just like, as you say, combat ships can mine, just not effectively. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
633
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 04:01:00 -
[3147] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Frying Doom wrote: Given miners quiet often do not fit a tank. What is the current tank of an unbuffed hulk or mack compared to other ships of the same mass?
And no other ships don't need a buff because they can mine just not as well.
So you're suggesting that the appropriate way to balance ships is based on the dumbest people flying them? By that logic, nothing's broken. Because someone who bothers to fit their ship will beat them. By the way, an unfit Hulk has 10,900 Omni EHP. an unfit Vaga has 9,170 Omni EHP. an unfit Zealot has 10,800 Omni EHP. an unfit Cerberus has 9,890 Omni EHP. an unfit Ishtar has 10,400 Omni EHP. So there's a full half of the Heavy Assault cruiser line who, when unfit (like the Hulks you think are properly balanced by player stupidity) have less base EHP than the Hulk. So the other ships don't need a buff because the fact that they give up the ability to mine effectively (something unnecessary to their role) isn't valuable. But the Hulks needed a buff because the fact that they give up the ability to fight effectively (something unnecessary to their role) is valuable? By the way, the Hulk certainly can fight. Just not particularly effectively. Just like, as you say, combat ships can mine, just not effectively. Actually that is kind of surprising but you missed the bit where I said Mass, all the ships you quoted are 1/3 of the mass of the hulk.
but anyway it makes no sense to give a ship that is designed to fly in the same space as all these combat ships no offensive capability and no tank either. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Pipa Porto
846
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 04:18:00 -
[3148] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Frying Doom wrote: Given miners quiet often do not fit a tank. What is the current tank of an unbuffed hulk or mack compared to other ships of the same mass?
And no other ships don't need a buff because they can mine just not as well.
So you're suggesting that the appropriate way to balance ships is based on the dumbest people flying them? By that logic, nothing's broken. Because someone who bothers to fit their ship will beat them. By the way, an unfit Hulk has 10,900 Omni EHP. an unfit Vaga has 9,170 Omni EHP. an unfit Zealot has 10,800 Omni EHP. an unfit Cerberus has 9,890 Omni EHP. an unfit Ishtar has 10,400 Omni EHP. So there's a full half of the Heavy Assault cruiser line who, when unfit (like the Hulks you think are properly balanced by player stupidity) have less base EHP than the Hulk. So the other ships don't need a buff because the fact that they give up the ability to mine effectively (something unnecessary to their role) isn't valuable. But the Hulks needed a buff because the fact that they give up the ability to fight effectively (something unnecessary to their role) is valuable? By the way, the Hulk certainly can fight. Just not particularly effectively. Just like, as you say, combat ships can mine, just not effectively. Actually that is kind of surprising but you missed the bit where I said Mass, all the ships you quoted are 1/3 of the mass of the hulk. but anyway it makes no sense to give a ship that is designed to fly in the same space as all these combat ships no offensive capability and no tank either.
Because Mass is how you determine what ships are similar. Sure. Combat treats Hulks as cruisers (cruiser Sig Radius).
Once again, you're bringing up the already disproven idea that the Hulk can't or couldn't tank. It has always been able to tank more than enough to make it unprofitable to gank. Given the number of Tanked Hulks that have been killed (I've yet to see a single one), they tanked just fine for HS. And with a different fit, they did just fine for Null.
So you have Hulks that now have a base tank better than Heavy Assault Ships and gave up nothing for it. You have Mackinaws (the new version of the Cargo Hulk, which gave up yield and tank for convenience) which tank better than the Hulk while mining the same amount as the old Cargo Hulk and having double the capacity. And you have the Skiff who, if not for the silly 15k Ore hold would be on the right track.
The miners have been whining nonstop about crystals to disguise the fact that they just got a large, straight buff through one of the loudest campaigns of whining I've ever seen.
And again, you missed the part where you're suggesting that the way to balance a ship is to use the dumbest pilots flying the worst fits. That's what you're saying when you say "well, it doesn't matter because people don't fit tanks." EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
633
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 04:26:00 -
[3149] - Quote
Well as you are determined to only see things your way
All I have to say is thank BoB the changes have been made and will not be undone. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
157
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 08:37:00 -
[3150] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:Post the eft block for that 1500 DPS catalyst.
[Catalyst, 1500 deeps]
Cormack's Modified Magnetic Field Stabilizer Cormack's Modified Magnetic Field Stabilizer Cormack's Modified Magnetic Field Stabilizer
[Empty Med slot] [Empty Med slot]
Light Neutron Blaster II, Void S Light Neutron Blaster II, Void S Light Neutron Blaster II, Void S Light Neutron Blaster II, Void S Light Neutron Blaster II, Void S Light Neutron Blaster II, Void S Light Neutron Blaster II, Void S Light Neutron Blaster II, Void S
Small Hybrid Collision Accelerator I Small Hybrid Burst Aerator I [Empty Rig slot]
Zainou 'Deadeye' Small Hybrid Turret SH-606 Inherent Implants 'Lancer' Gunnery RF-906
C6 WolfGÇôRayet
So, about EHP of Catalyst. I think untanked Catalyst should have at least 20k EHP. |
|
Pipa Porto
847
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 08:54:00 -
[3151] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:La Nariz wrote:Post the eft block for that 1500 DPS catalyst. Straw FillingSo, about EHP of Catalyst. I think untanked Catalyst should have at least 20k EHP.
You'll find you get better DPS with a T2 Burst Aerator and a Pashan's Turret Customization Mindlink. With an Augmented Hobgoblin, it totals up to 1585.
Though, none of your incredibly meticulous straw man is at all relevant. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
641
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 08:57:00 -
[3152] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:La Nariz wrote:Post the eft block for that 1500 DPS catalyst. Straw FillingSo, about EHP of Catalyst. I think untanked Catalyst should have at least 20k EHP. You'll find you get better DPS with a T2 Burst Aerator and a Pashan's Turret Customization Mindlink. With an Augmented Hobgoblin, it totals up to 1585. See what I mean? You just follow the party line. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Pipa Porto
847
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 08:59:00 -
[3153] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:La Nariz wrote:Post the eft block for that 1500 DPS catalyst. Straw FillingSo, about EHP of Catalyst. I think untanked Catalyst should have at least 20k EHP. You'll find you get better DPS with a T2 Burst Aerator and a Pashan's Turret Customization Mindlink. With an Augmented Hobgoblin, it totals up to 1585. See what I mean? You just follow the party line.
How about you keep your accusations in one place until you have some evidence to show that they have any merit. Hmmm? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
641
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 09:03:00 -
[3154] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:La Nariz wrote:Post the eft block for that 1500 DPS catalyst. Straw FillingSo, about EHP of Catalyst. I think untanked Catalyst should have at least 20k EHP. You'll find you get better DPS with a T2 Burst Aerator and a Pashan's Turret Customization Mindlink. With an Augmented Hobgoblin, it totals up to 1585. See what I mean? You just follow the party line. How about you keep your accusations in one place until you have some evidence to show that they have any merit. Hmmm? You mean like the fact that having the barge re-balanced removed is pretty much the party line and so is removing implants to benefit null sec PvPers and the party line. I'm sure if I could be stuffed looking I would find more but I can't be bothered. Its just a normal thing for the forums your masters push a point on these forums and you follow behind. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
157
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 09:06:00 -
[3155] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:You'll find you get better DPS with a T2 Burst Aerator and a Pashan's Turret Customization Mindlink. With an Augmented Hobgoblin, it totals up to 1585.
Please, use calculater next time so we don't have to see how bad you are at math. 1598,2
Pipa Porto wrote:Though, none of your incredibly meticulous straw man is at all relevant.
Why it's so important for you to be able to destroy barges/exhumers with one volley? |
Pipa Porto
847
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 09:06:00 -
[3156] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:You mean like the fact that having the barge re-balanced removed is pretty much the party line and so is removing implants to benefit null sec PvPers and the party line. I'm sure if I could be stuffed looking I would find more but I can't be bothered. Its just a normal thing for the forums your masters push a point on these forums and you follow behind.
What "Party" is this? Am I a Communist now?
As I said in the other thread that you tried to derail with personal attacks, do you have any evidence that shows that I am arguing in bad faith? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Conrad Lionhart
9
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 09:08:00 -
[3157] - Quote
For once the miners get the rare moment to say to gankers: your tears are delicious. |
Pipa Porto
847
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 09:09:00 -
[3158] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:You'll find you get better DPS with a T2 Burst Aerator and a Pashan's Turret Customization Mindlink. With an Augmented Hobgoblin, it totals up to 1585. Please, use calculater next time so we don't have to see how bad you are at math. 1598,2 Pipa Porto wrote:Though, none of your incredibly meticulous straw man is at all relevant. Why it's so important for you to be able to destroy barges/exhumers with one volley?
My version of Pyfa's adamant that it's 1563 Gun DPS and 21.1 Drone DPS for a total of 1585 DPS. I don't argue with my Pyfa, I... I tend to run into doors when I argue with it.
Where did I say that it was important to me to be able to one volley barges/exhumers? Quote and Link please. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
641
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 09:09:00 -
[3159] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Frying Doom wrote:You mean like the fact that having the barge re-balanced removed is pretty much the party line and so is removing implants to benefit null sec PvPers and the party line. I'm sure if I could be stuffed looking I would find more but I can't be bothered. Its just a normal thing for the forums your masters push a point on these forums and you follow behind. What "Party" is this? Am I a Communist now? As I said in the other thread that you tried to derail with personal attacks, do you have any evidence that shows that I am arguing in bad faith? No you do personal attacks. I was just stating that you never seem to gone against the party line (As I have seen Communist style propaganda pictures involved, I could say communist but I won't) Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
157
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 09:11:00 -
[3160] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Where did I say that it was important to me to be able to one volley barges/exhumers? Quote and Link please.
Ok... Why it's so important to profit from suicide gank? |
|
Pipa Porto
847
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 09:19:00 -
[3161] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Frying Doom wrote:You mean like the fact that having the barge re-balanced removed is pretty much the party line and so is removing implants to benefit null sec PvPers and the party line. I'm sure if I could be stuffed looking I would find more but I can't be bothered. Its just a normal thing for the forums your masters push a point on these forums and you follow behind. What "Party" is this? Am I a Communist now? As I said in the other thread that you tried to derail with personal attacks, do you have any evidence that shows that I am arguing in bad faith? No you do personal attacks. I was just stating that you never seem to gone against the party line (As I have seen Communist style propaganda pictures involved, I could say communist but I won't)
That is, in fact not what you said. You said:
Frying Doom wrote:As does your ability to only ever follow party lines. Your involvement in something like this is always guaranteed as are your personal attacks. Your masters say jump and you say "How High, Sir"
You have accused me of presenting arguments in bad faith. Unless you have evidence to prove that, that is poisoning the well, which is a personal attack.
By the way, you've gone ahead and added another accusation. Where have you seen me post Communist-style Propaganda posters? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
642
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 09:26:00 -
[3162] - Quote
You propaganda posters no, only your masters.
As to bad faith that depends on your terminology. I am sure a lot of people have fully believed in their rulers propaganda over the years.
After all it is well known that allied troops eat children. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Pipa Porto
848
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 09:28:00 -
[3163] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Where did I say that it was important to me to be able to one volley barges/exhumers? Quote and Link please. Ok... Why it's so important to profit from suicide gank?
First, I'd like to thank you for admitting that you lied.
Because Suicide Ganks are the only risk HS miners face. Without suicide ganking, there is no benefit for miners who are better equipped to cope with risks. When Suicide Ganking someone is profitable, someone will do it. When it is not (for instance, when someone bothers to Tank their Hulk), nobody (or very, very few people) will do it.
So, since suicide ganking Mackinaws is not profitable, nobody (or very, very few people) do it, so there's no reason to use the Skiff, ever. And since nobody (or very, very few people) are suicide ganking miners, the people who are too stupid or lazy to avoid suicide gankers don't gain any value from their ability.
When Gankers are plentiful, Ore Prices go up, so those who manage to avoid getting ganked get a higher return for their efforts, while those who cannot manage to do so get a lower return (cause they have to tank their ship or they have to recoup losses). Nerfing or Removing Suicide Ganking reduces or removes the profits that smart/industrious miners make over stupid/lazy miners. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
642
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 09:31:00 -
[3164] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote: When Gankers are plentiful, Ore Prices go up, so those who manage to avoid getting ganked get a higher return for their efforts, while those who cannot manage to do so get a lower return (cause they have to tank their ship or they have to recoup losses). Nerfing or Removing Suicide Ganking reduces or removes the profits that smart/industrious miners make over stupid/lazy miners.
You missed if more T2 barges are killed more often, the tech moon owners sell more, as there is a larger demand and subsequently they make more isk. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Pipa Porto
848
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 09:31:00 -
[3165] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:You propaganda posters no, only your masters.
As to bad faith that depends on your terminology. I am sure a lot of people have fully believed in their rulers propaganda over the years.
After all it is well known that allied troops eat children.
Frying Doom wrote:No you do personal attacks. I was just stating that you never seem to gone against the party line (As I have seen Communist style propaganda pictures involved, I could say communist but I won't)
As we are discussing my posting, show me the Propaganda posters that I have posted or admit that you lied.
As to bad faith, you accused me of being beholden to a "party" and having "masters." Now you're admitting that I am neither beholden to a "party" nor do I have "masters?"
Quite a U turn for something without an apology. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Pipa Porto
848
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 09:35:00 -
[3166] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Pipa Porto wrote: When Gankers are plentiful, Ore Prices go up, so those who manage to avoid getting ganked get a higher return for their efforts, while those who cannot manage to do so get a lower return (cause they have to tank their ship or they have to recoup losses). Nerfing or Removing Suicide Ganking reduces or removes the profits that smart/industrious miners make over stupid/lazy miners.
You missed if more T2 barges are killed more often, the tech moon owners sell more, as there is a larger demand and subsequently they make more isk.
Not really. The price of Tech was being fixed 200k long before HAG and the GSF bounties, and the cartel wasn't a supply reduction cartel.
But even if Exhumers exploding were a significant factor in PT demand, that doesn't bother me because Alchemy has put a pretty hard cap on Tech/PT prices. And CCP's looking at other ways to revamp Moon-Goo. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
157
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 09:35:00 -
[3167] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Because Suicide Ganks are the only risk HS miners face. Without suicide ganking, there is no benefit for miners who are better equipped to cope with risks. When Suicide Ganking someone is profitable, someone will do it. When it is not (for instance, when someone bothers to Tank their Hulk), nobody (or very, very few people) will do it.
So, since suicide ganking Mackinaws is not profitable, nobody (or very, very few people) do it, so there's no reason to use the Skiff, ever. And since nobody (or very, very few people) are suicide ganking miners, the people who are too stupid or lazy to avoid suicide gankers don't gain any value from their ability.
When Gankers are plentiful, Ore Prices go up, so those who manage to avoid getting ganked get a higher return for their efforts, while those who cannot manage to do so get a lower return (cause they have to tank their ship or they have to recoup losses). Nerfing or Removing Suicide Ganking reduces or removes the profits that smart/industrious miners make over stupid/lazy miners.
Skiff is useless and indeed isn't used in any way: http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/killmail.php?id=17358069 Just one from quick Google search. You can find more but you have to learn how to use search engines first.
So, you want ship prices to go up? And you whine about how possible profit you could make from suicide ganking drops? |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
642
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 09:36:00 -
[3168] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Frying Doom wrote:You propaganda posters no, only your masters.
As to bad faith that depends on your terminology. I am sure a lot of people have fully believed in their rulers propaganda over the years.
After all it is well known that allied troops eat children. Frying Doom wrote:No you do personal attacks. I was just stating that you never seem to gone against the party line (As I have seen Communist style propaganda pictures involved, I could say communist but I won't) As we are discussing my posting, show me the Propaganda posters that I have posted or admit that you lied. As to bad faith, you accused me of being beholden to a "party" and having "masters." Now you're admitting that I am neither beholden to a "party" nor do I have "masters?" Quite a U turn for something without an apology. Oh another talk drivel and see if it works post. You resort to those rather easily.
No you have not posted propaganda pictures (as far as I know), it is your masters that do that. As to towing the party line and following your masters lead. Yep you do this completely. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Pipa Porto
848
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 09:36:00 -
[3169] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Because Suicide Ganks are the only risk HS miners face. Without suicide ganking, there is no benefit for miners who are better equipped to cope with risks. When Suicide Ganking someone is profitable, someone will do it. When it is not (for instance, when someone bothers to Tank their Hulk), nobody (or very, very few people) will do it.
So, since suicide ganking Mackinaws is not profitable, nobody (or very, very few people) do it, so there's no reason to use the Skiff, ever. And since nobody (or very, very few people) are suicide ganking miners, the people who are too stupid or lazy to avoid suicide gankers don't gain any value from their ability.
When Gankers are plentiful, Ore Prices go up, so those who manage to avoid getting ganked get a higher return for their efforts, while those who cannot manage to do so get a lower return (cause they have to tank their ship or they have to recoup losses). Nerfing or Removing Suicide Ganking reduces or removes the profits that smart/industrious miners make over stupid/lazy miners. Skiff is useless and indeed isn't used in any way: http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/killmail.php?id=17358069Just one from quick Google search. You can find more but you have to learn how to use search engines first. So, you want ship prices to go up? And you whine about how possible profit you could make from suicide ganking drops?
Sorry, I meant to add the caveat "for mining." Since that's a bait ship. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Pipa Porto
848
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 09:38:00 -
[3170] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote: Oh another talk drivel and see if it works post. You resort to those rather easily.
No you have not posted propaganda pictures (as far as I know), it is your masters that do that. As to towing the party line and following your masters lead. Yep you do this completely.
And since you're accusing me of having a party line to "tow" and masters to "follow" do you have any evidence to show that I have either?
Or is disagreement with you evidence enough of some massive conspiracy? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
157
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 09:40:00 -
[3171] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Sorry, I meant to add the caveat "for mining." Since that's a bait ship.
So? Do you have a problem with bait ships? |
Shalua Rui
FEROX AQUILA
3820
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 09:42:00 -
[3172] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Sorry, I meant to add the caveat "for mining." Since that's a bait ship.
Has to be... 28,673 damage received!? "I wish to have no Connection with any Ship that does not Sail fast for I intend to go in harm's way."
Captain John Paul Jones, 16 November 1778 |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
642
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 09:44:00 -
[3173] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Frying Doom wrote: Oh another talk drivel and see if it works post. You resort to those rather easily.
No you have not posted propaganda pictures (as far as I know), it is your masters that do that. As to towing the party line and following your masters lead. Yep you do this completely.
And since you're accusing me of having a party line to "tow" and masters to "follow" do you have any evidence to show that I have either? Or is disagreement with you evidence enough of some massive conspiracy? The evidence is in these forums, your masters say this is good you are there not long after repeating the same things. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Pipa Porto
848
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 09:45:00 -
[3174] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Sorry, I meant to add the caveat "for mining." Since that's a bait ship. So? Do you have a problem with bait ships?
Not at all. But the stated purpose of the Skiff is to be a mining ship with a bunch of EHP for, and I'll quote the Dev Blog,
Quote:The Procurer and Skiff are made for protection against suicide gank, or NPCs, by giving a large enough buffer to react to incoming attacks, while paying for that with a lower mining yield.
So, since the Mackinaw provides sufficient protection against Suicide Gank to render it rare enough to be ignored (and all the Exhumers can easily deal with belt rats), what is the purpose of the Skiff in the context of mining? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Pipa Porto
848
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 09:47:00 -
[3175] - Quote
Shalua Rui wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Sorry, I meant to add the caveat "for mining." Since that's a bait ship. Has to be... 28,673 damage received!?
Killmails record raw damage received after resistances. So it's the sum total of those "X has done Y damage with a Rocket" messages. In other words, it's your Raw HP plus whatever raw HP you healed. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Pipa Porto
848
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 09:48:00 -
[3176] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Frying Doom wrote: Oh another talk drivel and see if it works post. You resort to those rather easily.
No you have not posted propaganda pictures (as far as I know), it is your masters that do that. As to towing the party line and following your masters lead. Yep you do this completely.
And since you're accusing me of having a party line to "tow" and masters to "follow" do you have any evidence to show that I have either? Or is disagreement with you evidence enough of some massive conspiracy? The evidence is in these forums, your masters say this is good you are there not long after repeating the same things.
So then you'll have no trouble presenting your evidence of my colluding with "masters" to "tow" a "party line."
(And again, I'd thank you to keep all of your accusations in the thread where you started them instead of running off to this one.) EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
642
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 09:49:00 -
[3177] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Frying Doom wrote: Oh another talk drivel and see if it works post. You resort to those rather easily.
No you have not posted propaganda pictures (as far as I know), it is your masters that do that. As to towing the party line and following your masters lead. Yep you do this completely.
And since you're accusing me of having a party line to "tow" and masters to "follow" do you have any evidence to show that I have either? Or is disagreement with you evidence enough of some massive conspiracy? The evidence is in these forums, your masters say this is good you are there not long after repeating the same things. So then you'll have no trouble presenting your evidence of my colluding with "masters" to "tow" a "party line." Like that would work, you perfectly well know you follow the party line so any thing pointed out to you like, I don't know this thread, you will just deny. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Pipa Porto
848
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 09:54:00 -
[3178] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Frying Doom wrote: Oh another talk drivel and see if it works post. You resort to those rather easily.
No you have not posted propaganda pictures (as far as I know), it is your masters that do that. As to towing the party line and following your masters lead. Yep you do this completely.
And since you're accusing me of having a party line to "tow" and masters to "follow" do you have any evidence to show that I have either? Or is disagreement with you evidence enough of some massive conspiracy? The evidence is in these forums, your masters say this is good you are there not long after repeating the same things. So then you'll have no trouble presenting your evidence of my colluding with "masters" to "tow" a "party line." Like that would work, you perfectly well know you follow the party line so any thing pointed out to you like, I don't know this thread, you will just deny.
So what you're saying is that you have no evidence of collusion to present? If that is the case, on what good faith basis were you accusing me of such? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
157
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 09:55:00 -
[3179] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Sorry, I meant to add the caveat "for mining." Since that's a bait ship. So? Do you have a problem with bait ships? Not at all. But the stated purpose of the Skiff is to be a mining ship with a bunch of EHP for, and I'll quote the Dev Blog, Quote:The Procurer and Skiff are made for protection against suicide gank, or NPCs, by giving a large enough buffer to react to incoming attacks, while paying for that with a lower mining yield. So, since the Mackinaw provides sufficient protection against Suicide Gank to render it rare enough to be ignored (and all the Exhumers can easily deal with belt rats), what is the purpose of the Skiff in the context of mining?
So, you are saying that ships can't be used for any other purpose other than what they were made for?
If I want to mine in a destroyer I will mine in a destroyer, you're not the one who tells me what I'm allowed to do. |
Shalua Rui
FEROX AQUILA
3820
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 09:57:00 -
[3180] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Killmails record raw damage received after resistances. So it's the sum total of those "X has done Y damage with a Rocket" messages. In other words, it's your Raw HP plus whatever raw HP you healed.
Ah, the SB... I see, thanks! Ginger forum goddess, space gypsy and stone nibbler extraordinaire! |
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
642
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 09:59:00 -
[3181] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Frying Doom wrote: Like that would work, you perfectly well know you follow the party line so any thing pointed out to you like, I don't know this thread, you will just deny.
So what you're saying is that you have no evidence of collusion to present? If that is the case, on what good faith basis were you accusing me of such? Exactly what I said. Will admit there brainwashing must be good, you don't even realize you look like a mindless drone. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Pipa Porto
848
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 10:02:00 -
[3182] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Sorry, I meant to add the caveat "for mining." Since that's a bait ship. So? Do you have a problem with bait ships? Not at all. But the stated purpose of the Skiff is to be a mining ship with a bunch of EHP for, and I'll quote the Dev Blog, Quote:The Procurer and Skiff are made for protection against suicide gank, or NPCs, by giving a large enough buffer to react to incoming attacks, while paying for that with a lower mining yield. So, since the Mackinaw provides sufficient protection against Suicide Gank to render it rare enough to be ignored (and all the Exhumers can easily deal with belt rats), what is the purpose of the Skiff in the context of mining? So, you are saying that ships can't be used for any other purpose other than what they were made for? If I want to mine in a destroyer I will mine in a destroyer, you're not the one who tells me what I'm allowed to do.
Where did I say ships can't be used for any other purpose other than what they were made for?
What I said was that if a ship is effectively entirely outclassed by another ship in their class, then either they're underpowered or the ship outclassing them is overpowered. In the case of the Skiff, the Mackinaw has a better Yield, a bigger Ore bay, and tanks enough that Suicide Ganking operates at a significant loss. So the Skiff is effectively entirely outclassed. Buffing the Mack doesn't do anything, because the issue is that, for mining, tank after a certain point doesn't really matter, and buffing the other 2 useful stats just makes it another Mackinaw. So, to fix the problem of the Skiff being outclassed by ships that are supposed to be different, yet equal, you have to fix the overpowered buff to the EHP of Mackinaws and (to a lesser extent) Hulks. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Pipa Porto
848
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 10:03:00 -
[3183] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Frying Doom wrote: Like that would work, you perfectly well know you follow the party line so any thing pointed out to you like, I don't know this thread, you will just deny.
So what you're saying is that you have no evidence of collusion to present? If that is the case, on what good faith basis were you accusing me of such? Exactly what I said. Will admit there brainwashing must be good, you don't even realize you look like a mindless drone.
Right now, your refusal to present your evidence simply makes it look like you have none. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
642
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 10:07:00 -
[3184] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Frying Doom wrote: Like that would work, you perfectly well know you follow the party line so any thing pointed out to you like, I don't know this thread, you will just deny.
So what you're saying is that you have no evidence of collusion to present? If that is the case, on what good faith basis were you accusing me of such? Exactly what I said. Will admit there brainwashing must be good, you don't even realize you look like a mindless drone. Right now, your refusal to present your evidence simply makes it look like you have none. No the fact you are entering new posts into what essentially is the evidence just makes you look like a mindless drone, unable to think for yourself but I am sure your masters appreciate the service. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Pipa Porto
848
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 10:12:00 -
[3185] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Frying Doom wrote: Like that would work, you perfectly well know you follow the party line so any thing pointed out to you like, I don't know this thread, you will just deny.
So what you're saying is that you have no evidence of collusion to present? If that is the case, on what good faith basis were you accusing me of such? Exactly what I said. Will admit there brainwashing must be good, you don't even realize you look like a mindless drone. Right now, your refusal to present your evidence simply makes it look like you have none. No the fact you are entering new posts into what essentially is the evidence just makes you look like a mindless drone, unable to think for yourself but I am sure your masters appreciate the service.
Agreement is evidence of collusion now? Well I'll be.
Well, then, by your reasoning, I must be colluding with Ronald Reagan(I agree with a bunch of his policies), CCP(agree with a bunch of things that they do), You(I've probably agreed with you before), and the Supreme Court of the United States(agree with a bunch of their rulings too). EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
642
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 10:15:00 -
[3186] - Quote
100% agreement is. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Debora Tsung
The Investment Bankers Guild
1
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 10:30:00 -
[3187] - Quote
Herr Wilkus wrote: The rare, clever miner who tanked his Hulk; well, he weathered the storm - and reaped the benefits as mineral prices rose.
Lol, I just read there are clever miners who tanked his hull and raped the benfeits. There's nothing a million chinese guys can't do cheaper. |
Pipa Porto
848
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 10:31:00 -
[3188] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:100% agreement is.
So go ahead and prove 100% agreement. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
643
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 10:52:00 -
[3189] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Frying Doom wrote:100% agreement is. So go ahead and prove 100% agreement. Yawn... Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Pipa Porto
848
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 10:56:00 -
[3190] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Frying Doom wrote:100% agreement is. So go ahead and prove 100% agreement. Yawn...
I'm not forcing you to keep digging yourself in deeper by making more and more outlandish claims. You're making those claims all by yourself. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
643
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 10:58:00 -
[3191] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Frying Doom wrote:100% agreement is. So go ahead and prove 100% agreement. Yawn... I'm not forcing you to keep digging yourself in deeper by making more and more outlandish claims. You're making those claims all by yourself. Fair enough I will just rub your nose in it on the next thread, after your masters decide they want something nerfed or buffed. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Pipa Porto
848
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 11:06:00 -
[3192] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Frying Doom wrote:100% agreement is. So go ahead and prove 100% agreement. Yawn... I'm not forcing you to keep digging yourself in deeper by making more and more outlandish claims. You're making those claims all by yourself. Fair enough I will just rub your nose in it on the next thread, after your masters decide they want something nerfed or buffed.
So you've found evidence to show collusion or 100% agreement as you've claimed? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
157
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 11:31:00 -
[3193] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:What I said was that if a ship is effectively entirely outclassed by another ship in their class, then either they're underpowered or the ship outclassing them is overpowered. In the case of the Skiff, the Mackinaw has a better Yield, a bigger Ore bay, and tanks enough that Suicide Ganking operates at a significant loss. So the Skiff is effectively entirely outclassed. Buffing the Mack doesn't do anything, because the issue is that, for mining, tank after a certain point doesn't really matter, and buffing the other 2 useful stats just makes it another Mackinaw. So, to fix the problem of the Skiff being outclassed by ships that are supposed to be different, yet equal, you have to fix the overpowered buff to the EHP of Mackinaws and (to a lesser extent) Hulks.
It's very difficult to fit 7 Tachs to Geddon and deal 1100 dps at 50km. Nerf the Nightmare! |
Pipa Porto
848
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 11:48:00 -
[3194] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:What I said was that if a ship is effectively entirely outclassed by another ship in their class, then either they're underpowered or the ship outclassing them is overpowered. In the case of the Skiff, the Mackinaw has a better Yield, a bigger Ore bay, and tanks enough that Suicide Ganking operates at a significant loss. So the Skiff is effectively entirely outclassed. Buffing the Mack doesn't do anything, because the issue is that, for mining, tank after a certain point doesn't really matter, and buffing the other 2 useful stats just makes it another Mackinaw. So, to fix the problem of the Skiff being outclassed by ships that are supposed to be different, yet equal, you have to fix the overpowered buff to the EHP of Mackinaws and (to a lesser extent) Hulks. It's very difficult to fit 7 Tachs to Geddon and deal 1100 dps at 50km. Nerf the Nightmare!
A Geddon is a T1 Battleship. A Nightmare is a Pirate Faction Battleship.
I'll let CCP Ytterbium explain what relationship those two different classes are meant to have with each other.
From this Blog. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
157
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 13:36:00 -
[3195] - Quote
Do you want this rebalance thing canceled? Do you want the old system back? The one where experienced players told new miners to train to Retriever as soon as possible and then skip everything else and go straight to Hulk.
You had a chance to speak up but you didn't. Changes were on SiSi long before patch landed on live server. |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1263
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 13:48:00 -
[3196] - Quote
Wow, lots of folks failed critical thinking...
All Pipa is saying is that since the Mack can tank enough to survive a cost based gank (and is great all other ways), there is no reason to fly a Skiff for mining.
And he's right. The only people who fly Skiffs are those who are either: 1) foolish, 2) not mining with it, or 3) bored and like its colors better than the Mack...
Sure, the Skiff has a great tank. But because the Mack can tank very well, and will almost always (if not always) mine better than the Skiff, the Skiff has not been sufficiently balanced (or the Mack hasn't...).
I think the Hulk is fine. Works for what CCP said it should, and has the drawbacks that mean it isn't the best at everything. The Mack could lose a little EHP (still above the Hulk, but closer than now). And with that change to the Mack, the Skiff would be fine.
Well... I do think all of them should get a nice CPU bump. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
157
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 13:55:00 -
[3197] - Quote
Solution: reduce Mack's tanked EHP to 10k.
Problem solved! |
Pipa Porto
849
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 14:21:00 -
[3198] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Do you want this rebalance thing canceled? Do you want the old system back? The one where experienced players told new miners to train to Retriever as soon as possible and then skip everything else and go straight to Hulk. You had a chance to speak up but you didn't. Changes were on SiSi long before patch landed on live server.
Where in the world did I say that I preferred one ship in a class (Exhumers are very clearly a single class) to be dominant over the others?
Wait, I said the exact opposite thing. Good job with the reading thing.
Right now, the torch of the Exhumer class has simply passed from the Hulk to the Mackinaw. The Mackinaw tanks enough that Suicide Ganking is not a concern, and for small fleets yields the best (compared to spending a slot on hauler support), and is convenient.
So instead of people saying to newbies "train Retriever > Hulk," they're saying "train Retriever > Mackinaw," which isn't exactly different. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Pipa Porto
849
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 14:23:00 -
[3199] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Solution: reduce Mack's tanked EHP to 10k.
Problem solved!
Point to where someone involved in this thread (other than you) suggested that.
Though yes, that would solve this specific problem (and lead to a new problem of the Skiff overshadowing everything because of it's 15k m3 Ore Hold). EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
157
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 14:52:00 -
[3200] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Solution: reduce Mack's tanked EHP to 10k.
Problem solved! Point to where someone involved in this thread (other than you) suggested that. Though yes, that would solve this specific problem (and lead to a new problem of the Skiff overshadowing everything because of it's 15k m3 Ore Hold).
Reduce Skiff's ore hold to 1000 m3.
Problem solved!
I know what you're trying to do: you try to make suicide ganking a viable profession. |
|
Pipa Porto
849
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 16:00:00 -
[3201] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Solution: reduce Mack's tanked EHP to 10k.
Problem solved! Point to where someone involved in this thread (other than you) suggested that. Though yes, that would solve this specific problem (and lead to a new problem of the Skiff overshadowing everything because of it's 15k m3 Ore Hold). Reduce Skiff's ore hold to 1000 m3. And EHP to 2k. Problem solved! I know what you're trying to do: you try to make suicide ganking a viable profession.
Welcome. back.
And yes, I am. Because otherwise, HS mining is a risk free enterprise. Risk free enterprises aren't good for the game. Is there some reason why HS miners deserve to be the only people in the game who run no risk of loss in the performance of their economic activities? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Buck Futz
Suddenly Violence Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
69
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 16:08:00 -
[3202] - Quote
Personally, I really have no problem with the Skiff, in concept.
But the Mackinaw (and Retriever) was overbuffed to the point where it overshadowed all others. Its pretty clear that miners value the AFK-cargobay above all other assets.
Easiest solution to this mess?
SWITCH the Hulk and Mackinaw's EHP.
Hulk already requires miner attention - via its small, rapidly filled Ore Bay.
Mackinaw has huge cargobay - but make it more vulnerable to ganking. Miners naturally want to AFK with it, yet the lower EHP puts them at risk to ganking, forcing them to keep an eye on things.
Some semblance of tension and balance is achieved.
REAL TIERICIDE: Hulk - fastest miner, 2nd most EHP - balanced by pain in the ass Ore bay. Mack - weakest EHP, maximum cargo - AFK-ability balanced by risk of ganking. Skiff - highest EHP, less cargo, less yield - for mining when you know ganking is going on.
This way, there is no longer a 'slam dunk' decision, pushing everyone out of Hulks and into Macks.
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
157
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 16:16:00 -
[3203] - Quote
Thank you for viruses.
Pipa Porto wrote:And yes, I am. Because otherwise, HS mining is a risk free enterprise. Risk free enterprises aren't good for the game. Is there some reason why HS miners deserve to be the only people in the game who run no risk of loss in the performance of their economic activities?
So, make so that suicide ganking barges/exhumers doesn't involve any investment from gankers. Means barges/exhumers should be gankable with noobships.
Perfect solution for the game about griefing risk averse people. Doesn't break the game in any way.
Oh, and make it so that if you gank with noobship Concord doesn't spawn. |
betoli
Ketogenic Killzone
34
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 16:19:00 -
[3204] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:Wow, lots of folks failed critical thinking...
All Pipa is saying is that since the Mack can tank enough to survive a cost based gank (and is great all other ways), there is no reason to fly a Skiff for mining.
And he's right. The only people who fly Skiffs are those who are either: 1) foolish, 2) not mining with it, or 3) bored and like its colors better than the Mack...
Sure, the Skiff has a great tank. But because the Mack can tank very well, and will almost always (if not always) mine better than the Skiff, the Skiff has not been sufficiently balanced (or the Mack hasn't...).
I'd drop its price. It looks like its trading at about 3/4 of a Mack. Most people taking a barge into risky areas would probably want lower investment point. The tank beyond a certain point is rather pointless, but I wouldn't bother lowering it. I would instead make it either faster or cheaper or cloakier.
|
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1263
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 18:16:00 -
[3205] - Quote
Buck Futz wrote:Personally, I really have no problem with the Skiff, in concept.
But the Mackinaw (and Retriever) was overbuffed to the point where it overshadowed all others. Its pretty clear that miners value the AFK-cargobay above all other assets.
Easiest solution to this mess?
SWITCH the Hulk and Mackinaw's EHP.
Hulk already requires miner attention - via its small, rapidly filled Ore Bay.
Mackinaw has huge cargobay - but make it more vulnerable to ganking. Miners naturally want to AFK with it, yet the lower EHP puts them at risk to ganking, forcing them to keep an eye on things.
Some semblance of tension and balance is achieved.
REAL TIERICIDE: Hulk - fastest miner, 2nd most EHP - balanced by pain in the ass Ore bay. Mack - weakest EHP, maximum cargo - AFK-ability balanced by risk of ganking. Skiff - highest EHP, less cargo, less yield - for mining when you know ganking is going on.
This way, there is no longer a 'slam dunk' decision, pushing everyone out of Hulks and into Macks.
Like it... |
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
17
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 18:31:00 -
[3206] - Quote
Buck Futz wrote:Personally, I really have no problem with the Skiff, in concept.
But the Mackinaw (and Retriever) was overbuffed to the point where it overshadowed all others. Its pretty clear that miners value the AFK-cargobay above all other assets.
Easiest solution to this mess?
SWITCH the Hulk and Mackinaw's EHP.
Hulk already requires miner attention - via its small, rapidly filled Ore Bay.
Mackinaw has huge cargobay - but make it more vulnerable to ganking. Miners naturally want to AFK with it, yet the lower EHP puts them at risk to ganking, forcing them to keep an eye on things.
Some semblance of tension and balance is achieved.
REAL TIERICIDE: Hulk - fastest miner, 2nd most EHP - balanced by pain in the ass Ore bay. Mack - weakest EHP, maximum cargo - AFK-ability balanced by risk of ganking. Skiff - highest EHP, less cargo, less yield - for mining when you know ganking is going on.
This way, there is no longer a 'slam dunk' decision, pushing everyone out of Hulks and into Macks.
This sounds good.
Skiff is fine. Hulk is underperforming in relation to both the Skiff and the Mack. Switching the tank would solve this. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
157
|
Posted - 2012.08.31 19:29:00 -
[3207] - Quote
Mara Pahrdi wrote:Hulk is underperforming in relation to both the Skiff and the Mack. Switching the tank would solve this.
Triple the yield -> problem solved!
Drop EHP to ~3k. |
Pipa Porto
849
|
Posted - 2012.09.01 04:43:00 -
[3208] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Thank you for viruses. Pipa Porto wrote:And yes, I am. Because otherwise, HS mining is a risk free enterprise. Risk free enterprises aren't good for the game. Is there some reason why HS miners deserve to be the only people in the game who run no risk of loss in the performance of their economic activities? So, make so that suicide ganking barges/exhumers doesn't involve any investment from gankers. Means barges/exhumers should be gankable with noobships. Perfect solution for the game about griefing risk averse people. Doesn't break the game in any way. Oh, and make it so that if you gank with noobship Concord doesn't spawn.
Sounds like you don't understand what .jpgs are.
Secondly, when you point out where I said any of that (besides the hilarious, but irrelevant fact that any ship can be suicide ganked by enough newb ships), I'll stop making fun of your blatantly obvious attempts at setting up straw men (first link was a picture of straw, second link was the symbol of Mars, also commonly used as the symbol for man). EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Pipa Porto
849
|
Posted - 2012.09.01 04:54:00 -
[3209] - Quote
Buck Futz wrote:REAL TIERICIDE: Hulk - fastest miner, 2nd most EHP - balanced by pain in the ass Ore bay. Mack - weakest EHP, maximum cargo - AFK-ability balanced by risk of ganking. Skiff - highest EHP, less cargo, less yield - for mining when you know ganking is going on.
This way, there is no longer a 'slam dunk' decision, pushing everyone out of Hulks and into Macks.
That's an improvement over the current situation, but still runs into the problem of one ship being effectively worthless. The Hulk would then be able to tank enough to remove any significant risk of suicide ganking, and the Skiff has the same cargo as the previous Cargo hulk while being nigh-invulnerable. So why would you ever use a Mackinaw.
I don't see any reason for the Hulk and Mack to have different tanks, nor do I see any reason for the Mack and Skiff to have different Yields, nor do I see any reason for the Hulk and Skiff to have different cargo bays.
Let each one have one pillar of the three useful ones where it flies high. Give the Skiff its current fantastic tank, but make it just as much effort to use as the Hulk (as far as hauling) so you have to pay attention to avoid waste. Give the Hulk its current great yield, but let it be vulnerable, so you have to pay attention to keep it safe. Give the Mack it's current fantastic Hold, so you don't need a hauler to support it, but let it be vulnerable, so you have to pay attention to keep it safe.
The problem with just changing the Mackinaw is that if you do it enough to make it require active safety measures to remain unprofitable to gank, the Skiff becomes purely dominant over it because of its 15k Ore bay. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Pipa Porto
849
|
Posted - 2012.09.01 04:58:00 -
[3210] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Mara Pahrdi wrote:Hulk is underperforming in relation to both the Skiff and the Mack. Switching the tank would solve this. Triple the yield -> problem solved! Drop EHP to ~3k.
Bad Jorma. No Strawmen. Bad. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
|
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
18
|
Posted - 2012.09.01 13:06:00 -
[3211] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Buck Futz wrote:REAL TIERICIDE: Hulk - fastest miner, 2nd most EHP - balanced by pain in the ass Ore bay. Mack - weakest EHP, maximum cargo - AFK-ability balanced by risk of ganking. Skiff - highest EHP, less cargo, less yield - for mining when you know ganking is going on.
This way, there is no longer a 'slam dunk' decision, pushing everyone out of Hulks and into Macks.
That's an improvement over the current situation, but still runs into the problem of one ship being effectively worthless. The Hulk would then be able to tank enough to remove any significant risk of suicide ganking, and the Skiff has the same cargo as the previous Cargo hulk while being nigh-invulnerable. So why would you ever use a Mackinaw. I don't see any reason for the Hulk and Mack to have different tanks, nor do I see any reason for the Mack and Skiff to have different Yields, nor do I see any reason for the Hulk and Skiff to have different cargo bays. Let each one have one pillar of the three useful ones where it flies high. Give the Skiff its current fantastic tank, but make it just as much effort to use as the Hulk (as far as hauling) so you have to pay attention to avoid waste. Give the Hulk its current great yield, but let it be vulnerable, so you have to pay attention to keep it safe. Give the Mack it's current fantastic Hold, so you don't need a hauler to support it, but let it be vulnerable, so you have to pay attention to keep it safe. The problem with just changing the Mackinaw is that if you do it enough to make it require active safety measures to remain unprofitable to gank, the Skiff becomes purely dominant over it because of its 15k Ore bay.
wtf?
Wheres my post? CCP, fix this forum |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
157
|
Posted - 2012.09.01 13:14:00 -
[3212] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Sounds like you don't understand what .jpgs are.
http://www.symantec.com/security_response/attacksignatures/detail.jsp?asid=21552
Pipa Porto wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Mara Pahrdi wrote:Hulk is underperforming in relation to both the Skiff and the Mack. Switching the tank would solve this. Triple the yield -> problem solved! Drop EHP to ~3k. Bad Jorma. No Strawmen. Bad.
I thought you wanted easy targets. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
674
|
Posted - 2012.09.01 13:17:00 -
[3213] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Sounds like you don't understand what .jpgs are. http://www.symantec.com/security_response/attacksignatures/detail.jsp?asid=21552Pipa Porto wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Mara Pahrdi wrote:Hulk is underperforming in relation to both the Skiff and the Mack. Switching the tank would solve this. Triple the yield -> problem solved! Drop EHP to ~3k. Bad Jorma. No Strawmen. Bad. I thought you wanted easy targets. No easy targets that have trouble affording the replacement ship.
So 1/3 the yield
Drop EHP to ~3k Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
157
|
Posted - 2012.09.01 13:56:00 -
[3214] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:No easy targets that have trouble affording the replacement ship.
So 1/3 the yield
Drop EHP to ~3k
Or CCP could expand crafting so that griefers could install bombs to those ships when they craft them. Those bombs would explode if pilot activates at least one strip miner. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
675
|
Posted - 2012.09.01 13:58:00 -
[3215] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Frying Doom wrote:No easy targets that have trouble affording the replacement ship.
So 1/3 the yield
Drop EHP to ~3k Or CCP could expand crafting so that griefers could install bombs to those ships when they craft them. Those bombs would explode if pilot activates at least one strip miner. Or ganking could be used as a method of killing people that did not reward the ganker, except in laughs. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Buck Futz
Suddenly Violence Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
71
|
Posted - 2012.09.01 17:11:00 -
[3216] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote: Or ganking could be used as a method of killing people that did not reward the ganker, except in laughs.
Um, that is already the case.
But why shouldn't there be a reward if you do it well?
If it costs too much to gank (or requires too large a group of gankers in cheap destroyers) - in the end ganking is reduced.
This is a bad thing because ganking was the ONLY threat miners had to deal with. Yes, I understand that miners want to farm AFK and get free ISK with zero effort or risk, doesn't mean it should happen.
I love the carebears who justify this patch with, "It was too easy before, now they have work at it, hurrr."
Remember, gankers DID adjust and came up with 'new tactics' - Smodab and Herr Wilkus come to mind. Both techniques were immediately patched out of the game after carebears' tears flooded the zone. |
Blastcaps Madullier
Celestial Horizon Corp. Ethereal Dawn
80
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 08:25:00 -
[3217] - Quote
Buck Futz wrote:Frying Doom wrote: Or ganking could be used as a method of killing people that did not reward the ganker, except in laughs.
Um, that is already the case. But why shouldn't there be a reward if you do it well? If it costs too much to gank (or requires too large a group of gankers in cheap destroyers) - in the end ganking is reduced. This is a bad thing because ganking was the ONLY threat miners had to deal with. Yes, I understand that miners want to farm AFK and get free ISK with zero effort or risk, doesn't mean it should happen. I love the carebears who justify this patch with, "It was too easy before, now they have work at it, hurrr." Remember, gankers DID adjust and came up with 'new tactics' - Smodab and Herr Wilkus come to mind. Both techniques were immediately patched out of the game after carebears' tears flooded the zone.
where as when the barge changes went on sisi gankers didn't just cry a river they cried whole oceans forgetting the barge changes are part of the ONGOING ship re-balance to ALL ships.
what i've read/seen ccp are considering nerfing the cane "because it does too many things too well" where as I'd point to the cane and say it's probley the best designed T1 BC in the game and the rest need work, take the drake I've never gotten why a ship thats shield tanked like that is so damn slow it might as well be armour tanked? another thing belive CCP are considering doing is nerfing T3s so they cant use the 100mn fits. as said the barge chances are just part of the ongoing ship rebalances.
|
betoli
Ketogenic Killzone
35
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 10:11:00 -
[3218] - Quote
Buck Futz wrote:[quote=Frying Doom] This is a bad thing because ganking was the ONLY threat miners had to deal with. Yes, I understand that miners want to farm AFK and get free ISK with zero effort or risk, doesn't mean it should happen.
ISK/risk/attention balance.
AFK missioning:
more ISK similar attention similar risk (after the barge buff)
I do think there should be some risk in mining, but to make out this is the worst offender is hilarious.
|
Buck Futz
Suddenly Violence Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
71
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 16:26:00 -
[3219] - Quote
betoli wrote:Buck Futz wrote:[quote=Frying Doom] This is a bad thing because ganking was the ONLY threat miners had to deal with. Yes, I understand that miners want to farm AFK and get free ISK with zero effort or risk, doesn't mean it should happen.
ISK/risk/attention balance. AFK missioning: more ISK similar attention similar risk (after the barge buff) I do think there should be some risk in mining, but to make out this is the worst offender is hilarious.
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.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
2011
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 16:32:00 -
[3220] - Quote
Buck Futz wrote:
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.
Ore prices have indeed started their march dowards in value. All the hard work goons put into making mining a worth while venture is now undone, miners have destroyed themselves. |
|
Pipa Porto
854
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 18:30:00 -
[3221] - Quote
Which relates to the links....?
Quote:Pipa Porto wrote:Bad Jorma. No Strawmen. Bad. I thought you wanted easy targets.
So now you want us to believe that you don't understand what the purpose of making strawmen arguments is? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Yokai Mitsuhide
Exiled Mining
1473
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 20:44:00 -
[3222] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Buck Futz wrote:
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.
All the hard work goons put into making mining a worth while venture
ahhhh hahahahahahahaaaha hahahahahahahaa! |
baltec1
Bat Country
2014
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 20:54:00 -
[3223] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:
ahhhh hahahahahahahaaaha hahahahahahahaa!
Go take a look peasent. My corp forced up Caldari ice value with just a month of bot hunting and its value stayed put right up untill the macks were buffed. Now we have AFK ice bot fleets back in the forge and the value is dropping like a rock and there is very little we can do to save the miners again.
We want miners to make better isk. |
betoli
Ketogenic Killzone
36
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 21:38:00 -
[3224] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:baltec1 wrote:Buck Futz wrote:
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.
All the hard work goons put into making mining a worth while venture ahhhh hahahahahahahaaaha hahahahahahahaa!
I'm training irony to level 5 next :-)
|
Yokai Mitsuhide
Exiled Mining
1475
|
Posted - 2012.09.02 22:12:00 -
[3225] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:
ahhhh hahahahahahahaaaha hahahahahahahaa!
Go take a look peasent. My corp forced up Caldari ice value with just a month of bot hunting and its value stayed put right up untill the macks were buffed. Now we have AFK ice bot fleets back in the forge and the value is dropping like a rock and there is very little we can do to save the miners again. We want miners to make better isk.
I don't mine ice, so I don't care. And if you're going to call me a Peasant, at least spell it correctly. |
Agent Akari
Hobo Industries Inc
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.03 04:08:00 -
[3226] - Quote
If you are tired of gankers in Thrasers and Catalysts, you will need to get defensive upgrades instead of going full out for mining yield. Or just get a Skiff. This is what they are made for.
You would probably make more ISK with a Skiff then a Hulk, seeing that the Hulk is blown up everytime, making you farm more iskies again.
Somehow I see a balance in this. |
Pipa Porto
855
|
Posted - 2012.09.03 09:09:00 -
[3227] - Quote
Agent Akari wrote:If you are tired of gankers in Thrasers and Catalysts, you will need to get defensive upgrades instead of going full out for mining yield. Or just get a Skiff. This is what they are made for.
You would probably make more ISK with a Skiff then a Hulk, seeing that the Hulk is blown up everytime, making you farm more iskies again.
Somehow I see a balance in this.
Except that the Mackinaw tanks plenty to deal with any profit motivated ganks, and mines the same or better than the skiff while having double the cargo hold. So why use the Skiff? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Lilianna Star
SAZI Enterprises The Aslyum
90
|
Posted - 2012.09.03 09:16:00 -
[3228] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Agent Akari wrote:If you are tired of gankers in Thrasers and Catalysts, you will need to get defensive upgrades instead of going full out for mining yield. Or just get a Skiff. This is what they are made for.
You would probably make more ISK with a Skiff then a Hulk, seeing that the Hulk is blown up everytime, making you farm more iskies again.
Somehow I see a balance in this. Except that the Mackinaw tanks plenty to deal with any profit motivated ganks, and mines the same or better than the skiff while having double the cargo hold. So why use the Skiff?
No reason at all, really.
And the Skiff does indeed have less yield because it lacks a third midslot. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
600
|
Posted - 2012.09.03 09:31:00 -
[3229] - Quote
I find it ironic how as part of their "teiricide" CCP took away the separate roles each exhumer filled and pretty much replaced it with a more or less tiered system. Tank: Skiff>Mackinaw>Hulk Yield: Hulk>Mackinaw>Skiff Ore hold: Mackinaw>Skiff>Hulk http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Agent Akari
Hobo Industries Inc
1
|
Posted - 2012.09.03 11:47:00 -
[3230] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Agent Akari wrote:If you are tired of gankers in Thrasers and Catalysts, you will need to get defensive upgrades instead of going full out for mining yield. Or just get a Skiff. This is what they are made for.
You would probably make more ISK with a Skiff then a Hulk, seeing that the Hulk is blown up everytime, making you farm more iskies again.
Somehow I see a balance in this. Except that the Mackinaw tanks plenty to deal with any profit motivated ganks, and mines the same or better than the skiff while having double the cargo hold. So why use the Skiff?
You will use the skiff to mine at ease and afk when hundreds of Catalysts fly next to you and leave you alone. |
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
720
|
Posted - 2012.09.03 11:50:00 -
[3231] - Quote
Flying a Skiff just means that if you end up float in space in your pod, you really pissed someone off. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1271
|
Posted - 2012.09.03 14:55:00 -
[3232] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:I find it ironic how as part of their "teiricide" CCP took away the separate roles each exhumer filled and pretty much replaced it with a more or less tiered system. Tank: Skiff>Mackinaw>Hulk Yield: Hulk>Mackinaw>Skiff Ore hold: Mackinaw>Skiff>Hulk Those are not tiers.
Tiers would be- Tank/Yield/Ore hold: Hulk>Mack>Skiff as it was before.
Now they are roles based on those three aspects. |
Buck Futz
Suddenly Violence Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
72
|
Posted - 2012.09.03 15:19:00 -
[3233] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:I find it ironic how as part of their "teiricide" CCP took away the separate roles each exhumer filled and pretty much replaced it with a more or less tiered system.
Tank: Skiff>Mackinaw>Hulk Yield: Hulk>Mackinaw>Skiff Ore hold: Mackinaw>Skiff>Hulk
And that perfectly illustrates the obvious balance problem, why everyone is using Macks/Retrievers.
Mackinaw is #2 in two categories, and #1 in the most important one (cargo hold)....
For those that dispute the importance of cargo capacity (vs yield) for the average miner:
Ask yourself: how were 3 out of 4 Exhumers fit prior to Aug 8? .....Yep, Cargo expanders and rigs.
So, switch the tank of the Mackinaw and the Hulk..... Give the Hulk better EHP, and drop the EHP of the Mackinaw, making it a gank target.
That makes each ship 1,2 and 3 in each category.
This way miners have to choose between EHP safety, performing active cargo management, and 'easy-mode' AFK mining. You know, actually force them to make a decision? |
baltec1
Bat Country
2024
|
Posted - 2012.09.03 18:09:00 -
[3234] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:
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.
Wrong.
We only have so much in the budget, the reason it worked before was because the foolish untanked masses funded the flow of gankboats. If the mack had the same tank as a hulk then yes, we could pull it off so long as miners continued to be stupid and go untanked. This would also mean the skiff would be more wanted so in the end, good miners and industry players would be more rewarded. |
alittlebirdy
All Hail The Liopleurodon
61
|
Posted - 2012.09.03 18:24:00 -
[3235] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Zagdul wrote:Gone are the days where EVE is a dangerous place. I seem to have missed the part when they made all player ships immune to damage. 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.
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. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2024
|
Posted - 2012.09.03 18:41:00 -
[3236] - Quote
alittlebirdy wrote:
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.
As I said, we have a budget and you can see what most of it has gone into |
Yokai Mitsuhide
Exiled Mining
1528
|
Posted - 2012.09.03 18:55:00 -
[3237] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:
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.
Wrong. We only have so much in the budget, the reason it worked before was because the foolish untanked masses funded the flow of gankboats. If the mack had the same tank as a hulk then yes, we could pull it off so long as miners continued to be stupid and go untanked. This would also mean the skiff would be more wanted so in the end, good miners and industry players would be more rewarded.
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. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2024
|
Posted - 2012.09.03 19:02:00 -
[3238] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:
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.
We are the ones who came up with the destroyer gank. In 0.5 space it still works but above that requires more firepower which means no profit. So long as the bots fly macks in great numbers there is very little we can do about it in the long term. Miners are going to have to get used to lower mineral/ice prices again. |
Pipa Porto
859
|
Posted - 2012.09.03 19:55:00 -
[3239] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:baltec1 wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:
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.
Wrong. We only have so much in the budget, the reason it worked before was because the foolish untanked masses funded the flow of gankboats. If the mack had the same tank as a hulk then yes, we could pull it off so long as miners continued to be stupid and go untanked. This would also mean the skiff would be more wanted so in the end, good miners and industry players would be more rewarded. 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.
38k EHP actually. And that's with 2 MLUs.
With 3 MLUs it's 25k EHP, which requires 3 meta fit Catalysts, making it a breakeven proposition in .5 space.
Fully tanked, it's 55k EHP.
(all vs Void) EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Buck Futz
Suddenly Violence Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
72
|
Posted - 2012.09.03 20:09:00 -
[3240] - Quote
I like the carebear dynamic CCP is pushing here.
Miners: "Mine all you want, you don't have to tank - or even pay attention anymore - here's your ISK."
Gankers: "Under no circumstances will you be allowed to profit from ganking miners. Here's your nerf."
Mining in highsec was already incredibly safe. Its just that miners are incredibly slow to learn and incredibly quick to fire-up the whine-tank.
Plus we have DEVs who pop-off in the forums without even understanding the concept of 'profitable' ganking.
Apparently in Soundwave's special world:
Gankers lose 200M worth of T3 Battlecruiser. Miner loses a 300M ISK post-buff Mackinaw. Gankers recover 30M ISK in salvage.
To Soundwave - thats 'profitable'. Thats some pretty 'special' math right there - and not special in a good way. |
|
Yokai Mitsuhide
Exiled Mining
1537
|
Posted - 2012.09.03 20:23:00 -
[3241] - Quote
Buck Futz wrote:I like the carebear dynamic CCP is pushing here. Miners: "Mine all you want, you don't have to tank - or even pay attention anymore - here's your ISK." Gankers: "Under no circumstances will you be allowed to profit from ganking miners. Here's your nerf." Mining in highsec was already incredibly safe. Its just that miners are incredibly slow to learn and incredibly quick to fire-up the whine-tank. Plus we have DEVs who pop-off in the forums without even understanding the concept of 'profitable' ganking.
If you don't tank, it's easy to kill an exhumer still. Friggin cry baby gankers man... you make me sick. I don't mind suicide ganking, part of the game...but you are the worst person to be talking on their behalf with your nonsense and your whining because "oh no, its harder to gank defenseless ships now" Don't like it? Go play a different game. Otherwise deal with the changes and stop crying like a goddamn infant. |
Yokai Mitsuhide
Exiled Mining
1537
|
Posted - 2012.09.03 20:34:00 -
[3242] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:Buck Futz wrote:I like the carebear dynamic CCP is pushing here. Miners: "Mine all you want, you don't have to tank - or even pay attention anymore - here's your ISK." Gankers: "Under no circumstances will you be allowed to profit from ganking miners. Here's your nerf." Mining in highsec was already incredibly safe. Its just that miners are incredibly slow to learn and incredibly quick to fire-up the whine-tank. Plus we have DEVs who pop-off in the forums without even understanding the concept of 'profitable' ganking. If you don't tank, it's easy to kill an exhumer still. Friggin cry baby gankers man... you make me sick. I don't mind suicide ganking, part of the game...but you are the worst person to be talking on their behalf with your nonsense and your whining because "oh no, its harder to gank defenseless ships now" Don't like it? Go play a different game. Otherwise deal with the changes and stop crying like a goddamn infant. So then tank, don't be a ******* moron.
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. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2025
|
Posted - 2012.09.03 20:39:00 -
[3243] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:
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.
It wouldn't have been possible if the miners didn't fly their ships with no defences at all. Even t3 cruisers can be blown up by a gank destroyers if the have zero tank mods fitted. The only thing that makes zero sense is the miners feeling entitaled to safety without putting any effort into it. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2025
|
Posted - 2012.09.03 20:41:00 -
[3244] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:
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.
2 cata could not kill a well tanked hulk.
Also those extra ships required to kill a mack means there is no profit possible. |
Buck Futz
Suddenly Violence Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
72
|
Posted - 2012.09.03 20:42:00 -
[3245] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote: If you don't tank, it's easy to kill an exhumer still. Friggin cry baby gankers man... you make me sick. I don't mind suicide ganking, part of the game...but you are the worst person to be talking on their behalf with your nonsense and your whining because "oh no, its harder to gank defenseless ships now" Don't like it? Go play a different game. Otherwise deal with the changes and stop crying like a goddamn infant.
Yes, because ships should be balanced based on what the dumbest pilots who fly them are capable of. Good plan. FFS. You people just don't know how to read. CCP said themselves that all the ships are being rebalanced... it was just the time for barges/exhumers. How do you all know when it comes time to redo destroyers or battlecruisers that they wont get a buff that makes them strong enough to gank miners the way you used to? And finally, you grifer/ganker/crybabies need to stop thinking you're entitled to have the game run the way YOU think it should, this isn't your game.
HAHA, you aren't even defending the patch anymore.
"Well, barges got a ridiculous buff - but who knows, maybe battlecruisers will get one too..."
Sure thing buddy. Weak argument. I highly doubt the DEVs are sitting there saying:
"Ok, battlecruiser 'rebalance' - Give Tornado/Tempest 25K Alpha. Check!"
Really.
|
Yokai Mitsuhide
Exiled Mining
1537
|
Posted - 2012.09.03 20:42:00 -
[3246] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:
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.
It wouldn't have been possible if the miners didn't fly their ships with no defences at all. Even t3 cruisers can be blown up by a gank destroyers if the have zero tank mods fitted. The only thing that makes zero sense is the miners feeling entitaled to safety without putting any effort into it.
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. |
Buck Futz
Suddenly Violence Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
72
|
Posted - 2012.09.03 20:44:00 -
[3247] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:
I do tank. But pre patch even a fully tanked hulk could be ganked by 2 low sp players in catalysts.
This is bullcrap. Why weaken your already sad arguments with false statements? |
Yokai Mitsuhide
Exiled Mining
1537
|
Posted - 2012.09.03 20:44:00 -
[3248] - Quote
Buck Futz wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote: If you don't tank, it's easy to kill an exhumer still. Friggin cry baby gankers man... you make me sick. I don't mind suicide ganking, part of the game...but you are the worst person to be talking on their behalf with your nonsense and your whining because "oh no, its harder to gank defenseless ships now" Don't like it? Go play a different game. Otherwise deal with the changes and stop crying like a goddamn infant.
Yes, because ships should be balanced based on what the dumbest pilots who fly them are capable of. Good plan. FFS. You people just don't know how to read. CCP said themselves that all the ships are being rebalanced... it was just the time for barges/exhumers. How do you all know when it comes time to redo destroyers or battlecruisers that they wont get a buff that makes them strong enough to gank miners the way you used to? And finally, you grifer/ganker/crybabies need to stop thinking you're entitled to have the game run the way YOU think it should, this isn't your game. HAHA, you aren't even defending the patch anymore. "Well, barges got a ridiculous buff - but who knows, maybe battlecruisers will get one too..." Sure thing buddy. Weak argument. I highly doubt the DEVs are sitting there saying: "Ok, battlecruiser 'rebalance' - Give Tornado/Tempest 25K Alpha. Check!" Really.
Whatever you say Herr Wilkus, more of your nonsense. Keep crying over changes instead of maybe recommending changes in a positive way...it's sure to work eventually.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
2025
|
Posted - 2012.09.03 20:49:00 -
[3249] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote: 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.
The Exhumers were never too weak and the mack is definatly too strong. Evidence of this is the fact that you only see macks in highsec belts now. Their base tank should be reduced to that of the hulk. |
Buck Futz
Suddenly Violence Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
72
|
Posted - 2012.09.03 20:49:00 -
[3250] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:Buck Futz wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote: If you don't tank, it's easy to kill an exhumer still. Friggin cry baby gankers man... you make me sick. I don't mind suicide ganking, part of the game...but you are the worst person to be talking on their behalf with your nonsense and your whining because "oh no, its harder to gank defenseless ships now" Don't like it? Go play a different game. Otherwise deal with the changes and stop crying like a goddamn infant.
Yes, because ships should be balanced based on what the dumbest pilots who fly them are capable of. Good plan. FFS. You people just don't know how to read. CCP said themselves that all the ships are being rebalanced... it was just the time for barges/exhumers. How do you all know when it comes time to redo destroyers or battlecruisers that they wont get a buff that makes them strong enough to gank miners the way you used to? And finally, you grifer/ganker/crybabies need to stop thinking you're entitled to have the game run the way YOU think it should, this isn't your game. HAHA, you aren't even defending the patch anymore. "Well, barges got a ridiculous buff - but who knows, maybe battlecruisers will get one too..." Sure thing buddy. Weak argument. I highly doubt the DEVs are sitting there saying: "Ok, battlecruiser 'rebalance' - Give Tornado/Tempest 25K Alpha. Check!" Really. Whatever you say Herr Wilkus, more of your nonsense. Keep crying over changes instead of maybe recommending changes in a positive way...it's sure to work eventually.
I already did. Valid solution: Switch the EHP of the Mackinaw and the Hulk. |
|
Yokai Mitsuhide
Exiled Mining
1537
|
Posted - 2012.09.03 20:51:00 -
[3251] - Quote
Only thing that will do is force botters into the skiff and make it even more hard for you to kill them. |
Buck Futz
Suddenly Violence Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
72
|
Posted - 2012.09.03 20:58:00 -
[3252] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:Whatever you say Herr Wilkus, more of your nonsense. Keep crying over changes instead of maybe recommending changes in a positive way...it's sure to work eventually.
Nonsense? Aren't you the one that said a prepatch 'fully tanked Hulk' dies to two low-skill Catalysts?
Because I have a pretty firm grasp on the mechanics of ganking and tanking - I can recommend adjustments. You, obviously, do not when you make clearly false statements. Just another butthurt miner.
Either way, its pretty clear that, on its face, that CCP botched the Aug 8 patch and massively overbuffed the Mack and the Retriever.
Before Aug 8, we saw plenty of Hulks and Mackinaws in highsec. Two out of 3 ain't bad. Now? We almost exclusively find Mackinaws in the belts.
GJ, CCP, nice 'balance'. |
Yokai Mitsuhide
Exiled Mining
1538
|
Posted - 2012.09.03 21:01:00 -
[3253] - Quote
Buck Futz wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:Whatever you say Herr Wilkus, more of your nonsense. Keep crying over changes instead of maybe recommending changes in a positive way...it's sure to work eventually. Nonsense? Aren't you the one that said a prepatch 'fully tanked Hulk' dies to two low-skill Catalysts? Because I have a pretty firm grasp on the mechanics of ganking and tanking - I can recommend adjustments. You, obviously, do not when you make clearly false statements. Just another butthurt miner. Either way, its pretty clear that, on its face, that CCP botched the Aug 8 patch and massively overbuffed the Mack and the Retriever. Before Aug 8, we saw plenty of Hulks and Mackinaws in highsec. Two out of 3 ain't bad. Now? We almost exclusively find Mackinaws in the belts. GJ, CCP, nice 'balance'.
Where? I see plenty of Hulks, Covetors, Skiffs, Procurers... the only place I ever see giant groups of Mackinaws is in icefields still...just like pre patch. I didn't have any issues pre patch so no, I am not just another "butthurt" miner. I have a problem with the amount of whining you people produce over losing your easy targets. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2025
|
Posted - 2012.09.03 21:02:00 -
[3254] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote: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.
The skiff mines the least and the hold is rather small. The bots will either continue with macks, roll retriver fleets because of their ease. The only reason they swapped to the macks from hulks is because of the cargo hold change.
|
Vigilant
Vigilant's Vigilante's
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.03 21:03:00 -
[3255] - Quote
Adapt or die Heir Wilkens! Quit whining for damm sakes |
Yokai Mitsuhide
Exiled Mining
1538
|
Posted - 2012.09.03 21:03:00 -
[3256] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote: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. The skiff mines the least and the hold is rather small. The bots will either continue with macks, roll retriver fleets because of their ease. The only reason they swapped to the macks from hulks is because of the cargo hold change.
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. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2025
|
Posted - 2012.09.03 21:08:00 -
[3257] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:
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.
All it took to beat our ganking machine pre buff was a DCU in the lows, a small sheild extender and t1 strips. We know our enemy, they will continue using the macks. |
Buck Futz
Suddenly Violence Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
72
|
Posted - 2012.09.03 21:19:00 -
[3258] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote: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.
No, the problem is currently that there is 'no choice' for miners. (**Just as, increasingly, - there is 'no choice' for gankers either - its becoming 'go Catalyst or go home')
Why use the Skiff? Even max-yield, the Mackinaw is well beyond the damage threshold of the average highsec gank attempt. The Skiff's extra EHP is simply redundant.
Why use the Hulk? Extra yield is not worth the massive AFK-cargo bay convenience of the Mackinaw. EHP deficiency tilts the scales even further towards the Mack.
Lack of balance is self evident to anyone who visits the belts on a regular basis.
Giving the Mackinaw the lowest EHP of the three would force miners to make an actual decision.
Skiff: lowest yield, 99.99% safe from high sec ganks. Hulk: highest profit potential, most 'work', more gank resistant. Mackinaw: most vulnerable to ganks, least amount of 'work' per ISK earned.
Yes, it was an unwarranted buff....but they could have at least gotten the balance right.
But go ahead, I understand that you think you benefit from an OP, overbuffed Mackinaw. But long term, you don't - and the game suffers.
|
Shalua Rui
FEROX AQUILA
3897
|
Posted - 2012.09.03 21:27:00 -
[3259] - Quote
Buck Futz wrote:Giving the Mackinaw the lowest EHP of the three would force miners to make an actual decision.
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! Ginger forum goddess, space gypsy and stone nibbler extraordinaire! |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
608
|
Posted - 2012.09.03 21:33:00 -
[3260] - Quote
Vigilant wrote:Adapt or die Heir Wilkens! Quit whining for damm sakes Every single person who says this in response to what we have to say about this patch is a damn hypocrite and they know it. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
|
baltec1
Bat Country
2027
|
Posted - 2012.09.03 21:35:00 -
[3261] - Quote
Shalua Rui wrote:Buck Futz wrote:Giving the Mackinaw the lowest EHP of the three would force miners to make an actual decision. 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!
It got more room to fit a tank. So fit one.
|
Buck Futz
Suddenly Violence Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
72
|
Posted - 2012.09.03 22:23:00 -
[3262] - Quote
Shalua Rui wrote:Buck Futz wrote:Giving the Mackinaw the lowest EHP of the three would force miners to make an actual decision. 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!
Oh wait.... 1. Nothing drops from 'special' cargo bays. Code needs badly to be updated, just like the Orca Corp Hangar. But.....CCP tends to be lazy about fixing stuff that benefits 'the wrong customers'. You know, the people the game was originally marketed for......
2. Tanking is something you can do by yourself, so being alone is hardly an issue.
Being AFK, however - IS an issue. Certainly not something that CCP should be actively encouraging through lazy or indulgent ship design.
Yet it is exactly this style of play that miners are defending most vigorously..... |
Yokai Mitsuhide
Exiled Mining
1549
|
Posted - 2012.09.03 22:35:00 -
[3263] - Quote
Buck Futz wrote:Shalua Rui wrote:Buck Futz wrote:Giving the Mackinaw the lowest EHP of the three would force miners to make an actual decision. 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! Oh wait.... 1. Nothing drops from 'special' cargo bays. Code needs badly to be updated, just like the Orca Corp Hangar. But.....CCP tends to be lazy about fixing stuff that benefits 'the wrong customers'. You know, the people the game was originally marketed for...... 2. Tanking is something you can do by yourself, so being alone is hardly an issue. Being AFK, however - IS an issue. Certainly not something that CCP should be actively encouraging through lazy or indulgent ship design. Yet it is exactly this style of play that miners are defending most vigorously.....
You can only AFK mine in an industrial unless you're mining ICE. You can't AFK mine ore, the asteroids deplete too quickly for that. |
Pipa Porto
859
|
Posted - 2012.09.03 23:10:00 -
[3264] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:baltec1 wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:
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.
It wouldn't have been possible if the miners didn't fly their ships with no defences at all. Even t3 cruisers can be blown up by a gank destroyers if the have zero tank mods fitted. The only thing that makes zero sense is the miners feeling entitaled to safety without putting any effort into it. 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.
A Tanked Hulk pre-patch could not be profitably ganked. How is that too weak? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Vigilant
Vigilant's Vigilante's
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.03 23:18:00 -
[3265] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Vigilant wrote:Adapt or die Heir Wilkens! Quit whining for damm sakes Every single person who says this in response to what we have to say about this patch is a damn hypocrite and they know it.
Yah Heir takes so much pride in what he says, he uses ALT to do it
He is a freaking ganking b*tch and wants easy targets, nough said. Minus, goto to null sec. and he can kill all day long, wait thats not easy |
Pipa Porto
860
|
Posted - 2012.09.03 23:20:00 -
[3266] - Quote
Vigilant wrote:Adapt or die Heir Wilkens! Quit whining for damm sakes
So, if I were to check your posting history, I'd see your posts telling the miners to adapt or die when suicide ganking became popular? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
731
|
Posted - 2012.09.03 23:23:00 -
[3267] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Vigilant wrote:Adapt or die Heir Wilkens! Quit whining for damm sakes So, if I were to check your posting history, I'd see your posts telling the miners to adapt or die when suicide ganking became popular? Nice use of rule "4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. Does your opponent believe in e-honor and complain about blobbing? Take every opportunity to link battles from their killboard where they failed to live up to their own standards."
See http://themittani.com/books/rules-radicals is a good read Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Vigilant
Vigilant's Vigilante's
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.03 23:25:00 -
[3268] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Vigilant wrote:Adapt or die Heir Wilkens! Quit whining for damm sakes So, if I were to check your posting history, I'd see your posts telling the miners to adapt or die when suicide ganking became popular?
I tank my Exhumers, or back to rule number 1, mine in a BS |
Pipa Porto
860
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 00:03:00 -
[3269] - Quote
Vigilant wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Vigilant wrote:Adapt or die Heir Wilkens! Quit whining for damm sakes So, if I were to check your posting history, I'd see your posts telling the miners to adapt or die when suicide ganking became popular? I tank my Exhumers, or back to rule number 1, mine in a BS
I didn't ask whether you adapted, I asked whether you told other miners to adapt and quit whining. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Vigilant
Vigilant's Vigilante's
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 00:14:00 -
[3270] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Vigilant wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Vigilant wrote:Adapt or die Heir Wilkens! Quit whining for damm sakes So, if I were to check your posting history, I'd see your posts telling the miners to adapt or die when suicide ganking became popular? I tank my Exhumers, or back to rule number 1, mine in a BS I didn't ask whether you adapted, I asked whether you told other miners to adapt and quit whining.
I am sure I did, I don't take sides in the fights. I mine, cause I like it. Call me crazy !
If you can't adapt from each change, just unsub. Don't come here and whine like James/Heir cause your type of gameplay is ruined, if you want to call it that. You can gank a lot easier in other games (WoW anyone....) |
|
Pipa Porto
862
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 00:32:00 -
[3271] - Quote
Vigilant wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Vigilant wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Vigilant wrote:Adapt or die Heir Wilkens! Quit whining for damm sakes So, if I were to check your posting history, I'd see your posts telling the miners to adapt or die when suicide ganking became popular? I tank my Exhumers, or back to rule number 1, mine in a BS I didn't ask whether you adapted, I asked whether you told other miners to adapt and quit whining. I am sure I did, I don't take sides in the fights. I mine, cause I like it. Call me crazy ! If you can't adapt from each change, just unsub. Don't come here and whine like James/Heir cause your type of gameplay is ruined, if you want to call it that. You can gank a lot easier in other games (WoW anyone.... )
I suppose this could count, but it looks quite a bit more facetious than serious.
By the way, Suicide Gankers did adapt (Crucible significantly increased the cost to gank across the board), then the Miners whined harder and louder than ever instead of adapting, so CCP adapted the mining ships to pander to the dumbest miners (while continuing to nerf ganking, banning the Boomerang, etc.), and now when we point out that it's a step to far, that the miners need give up nothing to gain near perfect safety, you're saying that the gankers should "Adapt or Die"?
And when the next nerf to HS violence comes in the form of Crimewatch, is it time for us to "Adapt or Die" again?
When's it the carebear's turn to adapt? Or are they so incapable that CCP has to hold their hand as it has time and time again in the past? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Vigilant
Vigilant's Vigilante's
4
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 00:39:00 -
[3272] - Quote
You point out "rule number 1" for a miner. Problem is lots of miners don't want to "adapt" by mining slower rates than a hulk. Thats their problem, not mine. I learned to mine in cruiser, and mined more BS's than I can count in a BS. Not to mention serveral freighters.
As far as your point on Crimewatch, Yes, they will have to adapt again if they want to continue with easy kills and easy profit. Is it becoming WoW in space, back to my other points in another thread, show up at the next event, and ask them yourself. This going back and forth is complete waste of time. Threads like this should be locked with the following:
"CCP DEV, please ask us at our next event" - Your wasting internet bits
|
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1271
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 01:05:00 -
[3273] - Quote
Vigilant wrote:You point out "rule number 1" for a miner. Problem is lots of miners don't want to "adapt" by mining slower rates than a hulk. Thats their problem, not mine. I learned to mine in cruiser, and mined more BS's than I can count in a BS. Not to mention serveral freighters. As far as your point on Crimewatch, Yes, they will have to adapt again if they want to continue with easy kills and easy profit. Is it becoming WoW in space, back to my other points in another thread, show up at the next event, and ask them yourself. This going back and forth is complete waste of time. Threads like this should be locked with the following: "CCP DEV, please ask us at our next event" - Your wasting internet bits Ganking was not easy profit. It was difficult to profit, and to do so required either decent work (scouting and scanning) or an utter moron (deadspace active tank) and luck of the draw.
And no, as much as people like them, tears do not count as income. |
Buck Futz
Suddenly Violence Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
72
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 03:17:00 -
[3274] - Quote
Vigilant wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Vigilant wrote:Adapt or die Heir Wilkens! Quit whining for damm sakes Every single person who says this in response to what we have to say about this patch is a damn hypocrite and they know it. Yah Heir takes so much pride in what he says, he uses ALT to do it He is a freaking ganking b*tch and wants easy targets, nough said. Minus, goto to null sec. and he can kill all day long, wait thats not easy
So much stupid. So many failed spellings. Yeah, Herr Wilkus only posted on this thread about, oh 50 times. I'm pretty confident that 'posting with his main' isn't a big problem for him.
Now, Krixtal Icefluxor on the other hand.....THERE is someone that should have def used a posting alt.
And I tend to frequent ice belts and ice systems, so yes, I generally see plenty of totally AFK mining, yes.
And if you have to manually retarget asteroids every cycle - it just means you need to get out of 1.0 systems once in awhile. Trust me, they get bigger outside of starter systems.
|
Tyranis Marcus
The Arrow Project
465
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 05:26:00 -
[3275] - Quote
Soup of the day: Ganker tears. . |
Shalua Rui
FEROX AQUILA
3903
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 05:41:00 -
[3276] - Quote
Buck Futz wrote:Oh wait.... 1. Nothing drops from 'special' cargo bays. Code needs badly to be updated, just like the Orca Corp Hangar. But.....CCP tends to be lazy about fixing stuff that benefits 'the wrong customers'. You know, the people the game was originally marketed for...... 2. Tanking is something you can do by yourself, so being alone is hardly an issue. Being AFK, however - IS an issue. Certainly not something that CCP should be actively encouraging through lazy or indulgent ship design. Yet it is exactly this style of play that miners are defending most vigorously.....
1. Ok, true... I honestly didn't think about that. BUT, T2 ships are more often then not fitted with T2 modules... also expensive.
2. Beeing alone is not an issue, it is a vulnerability. Giving the most feasable highsec solo miner ship the lowest EHP, does only one thing... it invites a revival of "Hulkageddon". The Mack is the #1 exhumer for high sec solo miners now.
As was stated, a real miner is hardly ever AFK for a long time. The cycles aren't that long, and even if you are not activly watching your ship (it can be quite boring, you know) you atleast are listening to what's going on. I, personally, alt-tab much doing something else (work, etc.) while having the sound in background.
I think what you call "long time AFK miners" are really bots... but, countering them is not an issue of game meahanics, it's an iddue for CCP to handle! Ginger forum goddess, space gypsy and stone nibbler extraordinaire! |
Alice Saki
4452
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 07:32:00 -
[3277] - Quote
Tyranis Marcus wrote:Soup of the day: Ganker tears.
Miner Tears are better Mwhahaha ;) Scottish Interweb Spaceshippy Person, Very Easily Confused. I like to show my Love by Smashing people in the face with a big Hammer.
|
Pipa Porto
863
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 07:34:00 -
[3278] - Quote
Shalua Rui wrote:2. Beeing alone is not an issue, it is a vulnerability. Giving the most feasable highsec solo miner ship the lowest EHP, does only one thing... it invites a revival of "Hulkageddon". The Mack is the #1 exhumer for high sec solo miners now.
As was stated, a real miner is hardly ever AFK for a long time. The cycles aren't that long, and even if you are not activly watching your ship (it can be quite boring, you know) you atleast are listening to what's going on. I, personally, alt-tab much doing something else (work, etc.) while having the sound in background.
1. If a miner is atk and paying attention, they don't need any tank to survive suicide ganking. Why should you be almost perfectly safe while you're in space, in an exhumer not designed to be the safe one, and not at the keyboard?
2. The time between needing to be at the keyboard for an AFK fit Mackinaw is about 45 minutes. Ice roids don't deplete. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Tyranis Marcus
The Arrow Project
474
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 08:38:00 -
[3279] - Quote
Alice Saki wrote:Tyranis Marcus wrote:Soup of the day: Ganker tears. Miner Tears are better Mwhahaha ;)
Tears are tears. They all taste good w/ crackers.
. |
Tyranis Marcus
The Arrow Project
478
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 08:59:00 -
[3280] - Quote
Haha..but apparenlty miner tears aren't on the menu today. . |
|
baltec1
Bat Country
2027
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 10:15:00 -
[3281] - Quote
Tyranis Marcus wrote:Haha..but apparenlty miner tears aren't on the menu today.
This ladies and gentlemen is what happens when a scrub takes an EVE meme and spams it all over the place without understanding it. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
610
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 10:27:00 -
[3282] - Quote
Vigilant wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Vigilant wrote:Adapt or die Heir Wilkens! Quit whining for damm sakes Every single person who says this in response to what we have to say about this patch is a damn hypocrite and they know it. Yah Heir takes so much pride in what he says, he uses ALT to do it He is a freaking ganking b*tch and wants easy targets, nough said. Minus, goto to null sec. and he can kill all day long, wait thats not easy Wait, are you saying I'm a Herr Wilkus alt? L O L http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Shalua Rui
FEROX AQUILA
3923
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 11:32:00 -
[3283] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:1. If a miner is atk and paying attention, they don't need any tank to survive suicide ganking. Why should you be almost perfectly safe while you're in space, in an exhumer not designed to be the safe one, and not at the keyboard?
2. The time between needing to be at the keyboard for an AFK fit Mackinaw is about 45 minutes. Ice roids don't deplete.
1. To survive a suivicide gank, sure! For a non-PvP experianced player, it is pretty hard to predict an incoming s-gank... by the time most of them notice, it is already too late... we are talking about seconds here.
2. What are we talking about here (a question I find asking myself on a regular basis when this topic comes up)? Ice mining is NOT the most common form of mining (especially in highsec *dah*) and it is NOT what the Mack is used for exclusively since the buff, not by a long shot... Ginger forum goddess, space gypsy and stone nibbler extraordinaire! |
Pipa Porto
863
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 12:25:00 -
[3284] - Quote
Shalua Rui wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:1. If a miner is atk and paying attention, they don't need any tank to survive suicide ganking. Why should you be almost perfectly safe while you're in space, in an exhumer not designed to be the safe one, and not at the keyboard?
2. The time between needing to be at the keyboard for an AFK fit Mackinaw is about 45 minutes. Ice roids don't deplete. 1. To survive a suicide gank, sure! For a non-PvP experienced player, it is pretty hard to predict an incoming s-gank... by the time most of them notice, it is already too late... we are talking about seconds here. 2. What are we talking about here (a question I find asking myself on a regular basis when this topic comes up)? Ice mining is NOT the most common form of mining (especially in highsec *dah*) and it is NOT what the Mack is used for exclusively since the buff, not by a long shot...
1. Then they learn. To be successful in EVE you have to have some understanding of mechanics that affect you.
2. Ice mining is where the Mack's AFKness truly shines. That's not saying that it's not also great for semi-afk Ore mining. I never said it was the most common use of the Mack nor did I say that it's the exclusive use for the Mack.
Why are you expecting the most convenient Exhumer (least hauling/attention needed) to also keep you safe while you're not looking at the computer? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Shalua Rui
FEROX AQUILA
3929
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 12:54:00 -
[3285] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Why are you expecting the most convenient Exhumer (least hauling/attention needed) to also keep you safe while you're not looking at the computer?
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... Ginger forum goddess, space gypsy and stone nibbler extraordinaire! |
baltec1
Bat Country
2027
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 13:36:00 -
[3286] - Quote
Shalua Rui wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Why are you expecting the most convenient Exhumer (least hauling/attention needed) to also keep you safe while you're not looking at the computer? 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...
You will still be able to do what you are doing now after the macks base tank gets brought in line with the hulks. |
Yokai Mitsuhide
Exiled Mining
1586
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 13:41:00 -
[3287] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Shalua Rui wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Why are you expecting the most convenient Exhumer (least hauling/attention needed) to also keep you safe while you're not looking at the computer? 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... You will still be able to do what you are doing now after the macks base tank gets brought in line with the hulks.
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. |
Shalua Rui
FEROX AQUILA
3931
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 13:44:00 -
[3288] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:You will still be able to do what you are doing now after the macks base tank gets brought in line with the hulks.
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? Ginger forum goddess, space gypsy and stone nibbler extraordinaire! |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
736
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 13:47:00 -
[3289] - Quote
Shalua Rui wrote:baltec1 wrote:You will still be able to do what you are doing now after the macks base tank gets brought in line with the hulks. 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? Nope just gankers wishing for easy targets again Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
2027
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 13:48:00 -
[3290] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:
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.
They already got a CPU buff. There is more than enough room for a good tank now. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country
2027
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 13:50:00 -
[3291] - Quote
Shalua Rui wrote:baltec1 wrote:You will still be able to do what you are doing now after the macks base tank gets brought in line with the hulks. 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?
Of course you dont see miners complain. Why would they? This is like handing vagabond pilots back the ability to speed tank missiles.
The problem here is the mack is doing the skiffs job as well as its own. Brining the base tank down to the level the hulk is on would mean the skiff gets to do its job. Both the hulk and the mack would still have the same base tank as a heavy assault ship too and the CPU upgrade means they can fit a good tank too. |
Yokai Mitsuhide
Exiled Mining
1586
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 13:51:00 -
[3292] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Shalua Rui wrote:baltec1 wrote:You will still be able to do what you are doing now after the macks base tank gets brought in line with the hulks. 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? Nope just gankers wishing for easy targets again
Thats pretty much all I see from them. I recently saw a few destroyers gank a mackinaw in an ice field, can't remember how many it was either 2 or 3 of them(he had no midslots) so it is still clearly easy enough to get the foolish ones who dont fit a tank, which is the ones they were going after anyway pre patch so Im not really seeing the issue. Our profession gives us a huge selection of 6 ships, we deserve higher ehp in my opinion. We are not invincible, but it makes sense for the highest end mining ships to have more hitpoints. |
Yokai Mitsuhide
Exiled Mining
1586
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 13:52:00 -
[3293] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Shalua Rui wrote:baltec1 wrote:You will still be able to do what you are doing now after the macks base tank gets brought in line with the hulks. 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? Of course you dont see miners complain. Why would they? The problem here is the mack is going the skiffs job as well as its own. Brining the base tank down to the level the hulk is on would mean the skiff gets to do its job. Bot the hulk and the mack would still have the same base tank as a heavy assault ship too.
You see what the problem is here? Heavy Assault ships need a buff...not nerfing mining ships. And since CCP are rebalancing ships, I am sure that will happen eventually :) |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1273
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 13:57:00 -
[3294] - Quote
Shalua Rui wrote:baltec1 wrote:You will still be able to do what you are doing now after the macks base tank gets brought in line with the hulks. 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? Miners complained. A lot. mostly that the ships didn't get buffed enough. Or about crystals.
As it is, there is no reason in HS to fly a Skiff (which was the whole point of the changes, to make each one useful). It is already not profitable to gank a 2MLU tanked Mack in a .5 system. In a 1.0, it takes more isk to kill the Mack than the Mack costs.
The only people who will gank Macks will be those who don't care about isk (or those new to ganking who don't understand it yet). Little Edit: this of course assumes people aren't morons when fitting their Macks, which we know is not the case. But it is not CCP's job to try to patch stupid.
If however, CCP brought the base HP of the Mack in line with the Hulk, then the Skiff would have its intended purpose. Those who wanted to be near AFK: Skiff. Those who wanted to mine solo: Mack.
Me... I'll still be playing with my old Proc from 2 years ago. It looks nicer than all the others. |
Yokai Mitsuhide
Exiled Mining
1592
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 14:03:00 -
[3295] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:Shalua Rui wrote:baltec1 wrote:You will still be able to do what you are doing now after the macks base tank gets brought in line with the hulks. 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? Miners complained. A lot. mostly that the ships didn't get buffed enough. Or about crystals. As it is, there is no reason in HS to fly a Skiff (which was the whole point of the changes, to make each one useful). It is already not profitable to gank a 2MLU tanked Mack in a .5 system. In a 1.0, it takes more isk to kill the Mack than the Mack costs. The only people who will gank Macks will be those who don't care about isk (or those new to ganking who don't understand it yet). Little Edit: this of course assumes people aren't morons when fitting their Macks, which we know is not the case. But it is not CCP's job to try to patch stupid. If however, CCP brought the base HP of the Mack in line with the Hulk, then the Skiff would have its intended purpose. Those who wanted to be near AFK: Skiff. Those who wanted to mine solo: Mack. Me... I'll still be playing with my old Proc from 2 years ago. It looks nicer than all the others.
I keep seeing people saying things like that..."nobody uses anything but the Mackinaw" yet for the most part I only see them in ice belts which is no different than it was pre patch. I am still seeing plenty of hulks, covetors, and Ive seen a ton of skiffs. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2028
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 14:06:00 -
[3296] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote: You see what the problem is here?
Yep. Miners as a whole are the most useless people in the galaxy. They would rather have an imbalanced ship lineup that provides a ship that does it all than have to make choices on both what ship to pick and how to fit them.
Hell, they didn't even bother the test these ships on sisi, that was left to the "evil gankers" who tried to get all barges to be equally usefull. CCP very nearly got it right, all they have to do is tone down the macks base HP to the level of the hulk and its more or less perfect. |
Yokai Mitsuhide
Exiled Mining
1593
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 14:09:00 -
[3297] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote: You see what the problem is here?
Yep. Miners as a whole are the most useless people in the galaxy. They would rather have an imbalanced ship lineup that provides a ship that does it all than have to make choices on both what ship to pick and how to fit them. Hell, they didn't even bother the test these ships on sisi, that was left to the "evil gankers" who tried to get all barges to be equally usefull. CCP very nearly got it right, all they have to do is tone down the macks base HP to the level of the hulk and its more or less perfect.
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. |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1274
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 14:14:00 -
[3298] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:Shalua Rui wrote:baltec1 wrote:You will still be able to do what you are doing now after the macks base tank gets brought in line with the hulks. 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? Miners complained. A lot. mostly that the ships didn't get buffed enough. Or about crystals. As it is, there is no reason in HS to fly a Skiff (which was the whole point of the changes, to make each one useful). It is already not profitable to gank a 2MLU tanked Mack in a .5 system. In a 1.0, it takes more isk to kill the Mack than the Mack costs. The only people who will gank Macks will be those who don't care about isk (or those new to ganking who don't understand it yet). Little Edit: this of course assumes people aren't morons when fitting their Macks, which we know is not the case. But it is not CCP's job to try to patch stupid. If however, CCP brought the base HP of the Mack in line with the Hulk, then the Skiff would have its intended purpose. Those who wanted to be near AFK: Skiff. Those who wanted to mine solo: Mack. Me... I'll still be playing with my old Proc from 2 years ago. It looks nicer than all the others. I keep seeing people saying things like that..."nobody uses anything but the Mackinaw" yet for the most part I only see them in ice belts which is no different than it was pre patch. I am still seeing plenty of hulks, covetors, and Ive seen a ton of skiffs. I never said nobody flew anything but any ship. I said there is no reason to.
Other than PvP, there is no reason to use a Skiff over a Mack.
However, I am glad that people are using the Skiff despite this. It means the change was at least a partial success. |
Yokai Mitsuhide
Exiled Mining
1597
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 14:16:00 -
[3299] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote: I never said nobody flew anything but any ship. I said there is no reason to.
Other than PvP, there is no reason to use a Skiff over a Mack.
However, I am glad that people are using the Skiff despite this. It means the change was at least a partial success.
There is plenty of reason, I use a skiff because it lets me have 100k ehp, and 15k ore hold. It's a safe ship to mine in. |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1275
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 14:21:00 -
[3300] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:Corina Jarr wrote: I never said nobody flew anything but any ship. I said there is no reason to.
Other than PvP, there is no reason to use a Skiff over a Mack.
However, I am glad that people are using the Skiff despite this. It means the change was at least a partial success.
There is plenty of reason, I use a skiff because it lets me have 100k ehp, and 15k ore hold. It's a safe ship to mine in. Right. And with my 35k ehp Mack, I mine more than you, have a larger hold than you, and am safe from anything you would be.
Because anything that could gank me would not be for profit, but for fun, and 35k or 100k makes no difference when it comes to fun. |
|
Alice Saki
4484
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 14:25:00 -
[3301] - Quote
Best mining Ship?
Ferox :D Scottish Interweb Spaceshippy Person, Very Easily Confused. I like to show my Love by Smashing people in the face with a big Hammer.
|
Inquisitor Kitchner
Galaxy Punks Executive Outcomes
48
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 14:28:00 -
[3302] - Quote
I'll be honest, when I first so this had 160 pages I was actually hope for a massive story chain that started off with "One day, in the land of New Eden, Minnie the Mining Barge was mining her way happily along, when suddenly...." and then there was 160 pages of people carrying it on post by post into an epic tale.
Instead it some gankers complaining about mining barge buffs and miners being equally as whiny about.... well pretty much everything, including unironically being offended by the fact someone is whining about the fact they can't play the game how they selfishly want to anymore (which is also ironic as thats what most miners do all the time).
1/10, will not read again. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2028
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 14:35:00 -
[3303] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote: 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.
As opposed to the months of miners BAWing in the forums.
While there might be some bad posters its doesn't change the fact that the mack is doing another ships job as well as its own. |
stoicfaux
1539
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 14:45:00 -
[3304] - Quote
I'll bite, why is it important for mining ships to be suicide-gankable in high sec?
You can tell me what is and isn't Truth when you pry the tinfoil from my cold, lifeless head.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
2028
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 14:59:00 -
[3305] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:I'll bite, why is it important for mining ships to be suicide-gankable in high sec?
Name the other risks high sec miners face. Its also important because its the only way we have to deal with bots who damage the game for other miners. Everyone else also faces the risk of being ganked if they do something silly like fit no tank so why should miners be exempt?
|
Pookie McPook
The Whiskers of Kurvi-Tasch
13
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 15:12:00 -
[3306] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:stoicfaux wrote:I'll bite, why is it important for mining ships to be suicide-gankable in high sec?
Name the other risks high sec miners face.
Apart from being ridiculed in these forums? |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1275
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 15:19:00 -
[3307] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:I'll bite, why is it important for mining ships to be suicide-gankable in high sec?
Because if they are not suicide gankable, that means they are invincible/untargettable/protected by magic. And this woudl be very very bad for the game.
You should have phased your question as, why should they be reasonably suicide-gankable.
The answer is three fold.
1) because they are not combat ships and should not be used as such. They should however be able to be protected by a bodyguard... too bad not many folks want to sit and watch people mine just in case they are attacked.
2) because it is one of the only risks they face, other than missing a cycle and wasting a few minutes.
3) because one of the trailers from way back showed this (willfully ignores all the other trailers that depict things that do not happen in EVE). |
Pookie McPook
The Whiskers of Kurvi-Tasch
13
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 15:24:00 -
[3308] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:I'll bite, why is it important for mining ships to be suicide-gankable in high sec?
Why is it that suicide gankers are targetting any form of mining barge anyway? Apart from any Hulkageddon payout what are they hoping to get out of it? A transport or two of ore? Ooh, a couple of mining drones? If they're just trying to boost their KVD figures most people would look at the kill board and ridicule them for taking advantage of the lowest form of pvp outside baiting noobs.
Storm in a tea cup. Move on. |
stoicfaux
1539
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 15:42:00 -
[3309] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:stoicfaux wrote:I'll bite, why is it important for mining ships to be suicide-gankable in high sec?
Name the other risks high sec miners face. Its also important because its the only way we have to deal with bots who damage the game for other miners. Everyone else also faces the risk of being ganked if they do something silly like fit no tank so why should miners be exempt?
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.
You can tell me what is and isn't Truth when you pry the tinfoil from my cold, lifeless head.
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
166
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 16:20:00 -
[3310] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Name the other risks high sec miners face. Its also important because its the only way we have to deal with bots who damage the game for other miners. Everyone else also faces the risk of being ganked if they do something silly like fit no tank so why should miners be exempt?
Haven't seen many T2 fit Marauders ganked recently. Have you seen any? |
|
Yokai Mitsuhide
Exiled Mining
1623
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 16:47:00 -
[3311] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote: 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.
As opposed to the months of miners BAWing in the forums. While there might be some bad posters its doesn't change the fact that the mack is doing another ships job as well as its own.
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. |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1275
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 16:54:00 -
[3312] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:baltec1 wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote: 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.
As opposed to the months of miners BAWing in the forums. While there might be some bad posters its doesn't change the fact that the mack is doing another ships job as well as its own. 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. For a few weeks, there were at least 20 threads between S&M and GD, probably more in F&I and AH.
All were the same annoying whining, which unfortunately overwhelmed the small bits of legitimacy they did have.
Fortunately, CCP was able to see the small bits (Hulk and Mack being the only ones worth flying) and attempted to fix it. Good attempt, needs some work (as usual, nothing is perfect).
Then, miners whined about a combination of lack of room for crystals, and the fact that their Cargo Rigged Hulk was no longer king. |
Rats
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
181
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 16:55:00 -
[3313] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:stoicfaux wrote:I'll bite, why is it important for mining ships to be suicide-gankable in high sec?
Name the other risks high sec miners face.
Terminal boredom
Tal
-áI Fought the Law, and the Law Won... -áTalon Silverhawk-á |
baltec1
Bat Country
2031
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 16:59:00 -
[3314] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:baltec1 wrote:stoicfaux wrote:I'll bite, why is it important for mining ships to be suicide-gankable in high sec?
Name the other risks high sec miners face. Its also important because its the only way we have to deal with bots who damage the game for other miners. Everyone else also faces the risk of being ganked if they do something silly like fit no tank so why should miners be exempt? 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.
CCP bans bots but untill then we kill them to cripple their cash flow. You should have seen the rage on the bot forums about us.
Now, the problem is macks are doing the skiffs job which goes against the whole point of the barge update. The simple fact of life here is the only risk these people will ever face in highsec is people like us but we are hardly going to go around killing macks at a loss. Macks being just about risk free is bad for this game in many ways and will end up hurting miners the most in the long run. Ganking has always been about proft, the tears are simply a bonus and a rather rare one at that and if you think that macks having a bigger tank somehow means we now face a bigger challange you are sadly mistaken. They are just as easy to kill, its simply a question of extra firepower.
Reducing the base tank on the mack to the same level of the hulk would mean you can still tank it to survive but the skiff would provide the better option. The hulk would also be in a better position as people who want max yeild would pick that and not be tempted to get a mack because of the better tank. |
Yokai Mitsuhide
Exiled Mining
1630
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 17:02:00 -
[3315] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:baltec1 wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote: 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.
As opposed to the months of miners BAWing in the forums. While there might be some bad posters its doesn't change the fact that the mack is doing another ships job as well as its own. 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. For a few weeks, there were at least 20 threads between S&M and GD, probably more in F&I and AH. All were the same annoying whining, which unfortunately overwhelmed the small bits of legitimacy they did have. Fortunately, CCP was able to see the small bits (Hulk and Mack being the only ones worth flying) and attempted to fix it. Good attempt, needs some work (as usual, nothing is perfect). Then, miners whined about a combination of lack of room for crystals, and the fact that their Cargo Rigged Hulk was no longer king.
The few forum complainers don't speak for the entire playerbase of miners. |
Yokai Mitsuhide
Exiled Mining
1630
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 17:03:00 -
[3316] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:stoicfaux wrote:baltec1 wrote:[quote=stoicfaux]I'll bite, why is it important for mining ships to be suicide-gankable in high sec?
Name the other risks high sec miners face. Its also important because its the only way we have to deal with bots who damage the game for other miners. Everyone else also faces the risk of being ganked if they do something silly like fit no tank so why should miners be exempt? CCP deals with bots. You can report bots to CCP, so there's no need for you to shoot them.
Botting should be less and less of an issue though, if I recall correctly CCP are now doing hardware bans...which is quite a good way to go about it. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2031
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 17:03:00 -
[3317] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:baltec1 wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote: 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.
As opposed to the months of miners BAWing in the forums. While there might be some bad posters its doesn't change the fact that the mack is doing another ships job as well as its own. 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.
From the start of this year we had 8 months of constant miner rage over how they were helpless. It started right after the gallente ice interdiction hit the roof in the BAT Country caldari ice interdiction.
For 8 months I posted fits and tactics for miners to use that would save them. They didnt listen, they still are not listening. |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1276
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 17:08:00 -
[3318] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:baltec1 wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote: 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.
As opposed to the months of miners BAWing in the forums. While there might be some bad posters its doesn't change the fact that the mack is doing another ships job as well as its own. 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. For a few weeks, there were at least 20 threads between S&M and GD, probably more in F&I and AH. All were the same annoying whining, which unfortunately overwhelmed the small bits of legitimacy they did have. Fortunately, CCP was able to see the small bits (Hulk and Mack being the only ones worth flying) and attempted to fix it. Good attempt, needs some work (as usual, nothing is perfect). Then, miners whined about a combination of lack of room for crystals, and the fact that their Cargo Rigged Hulk was no longer king. The few forum complainers don't speak for the entire playerbase of miners. Of course not.
Just like Ank did not speak for the entirety of high sec. She still made us all look like morons.
Perception is key.
Also, the complaints were not just on the forums. Help channel was filled with whining. |
Yokai Mitsuhide
Exiled Mining
1633
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 17:09:00 -
[3319] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote: Of course not.
Just like Ank did not speak for the entirety of high sec. She still made us all look like morons.
Perception is key.
Also, the complaints were not just on the forums. Help channel was filled with whining.
Help channel is always full of that.
|
betoli
Ketogenic Killzone
42
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 17:09:00 -
[3320] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:stoicfaux wrote:I'll bite, why is it important for mining ships to be suicide-gankable in high sec?
Name the other risks high sec miners face. Its also important because its the only way we have to deal with bots who damage the game for other miners. Everyone else also faces the risk of being ganked if they do something silly like fit no tank so why should miners be exempt?
They are still gankable, and they would still be gankable if you doubled their tanks again. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country
2032
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 17:13:00 -
[3321] - Quote
betoli wrote:
They are still gankable, and they would still be gankable if you doubled their tanks again.
Ganking them isnt the problem, its just as simple, the problem is its not profitable to do so. Not being profitable to gank is the best tank of them all. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
166
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 17:19:00 -
[3322] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:The hulk would also be in a better position as people who want max yeild would pick that and not be tempted to get a mack because of the better tank.
Hulk/Covetor isn't for solo mining anymore... |
betoli
Ketogenic Killzone
42
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 17:21:00 -
[3323] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:betoli wrote:
They are still gankable, and they would still be gankable if you doubled their tanks again.
Ganking them isnt the problem, its just as simple, the problem is its not profitable to do so. Not being profitable to gank is the best tank of them all.
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!
|
baltec1
Bat Country
2032
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 17:30:00 -
[3324] - Quote
betoli wrote:baltec1 wrote:betoli wrote:
They are still gankable, and they would still be gankable if you doubled their tanks again.
Ganking them isnt the problem, its just as simple, the problem is its not profitable to do so. Not being profitable to gank is the best tank of them all. 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!
Not even our bank account is endless. The reason we could keep doing the interdiction for a month is because we were making money on it. As we went on the price of the ships we were using started to go up because our demand out stripped supply. These higher costs were met by the profits we made on the ganking.
In the end, we came out even discounting the isk we made on the market panic. A war on high sec miners is not cheap. Right now we are working out ways to kill macks as cheaply as possible but even so we are not breaking even. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2032
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 17:30:00 -
[3325] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:baltec1 wrote:The hulk would also be in a better position as people who want max yeild would pick that and not be tempted to get a mack because of the better tank. Hulk/Covetor isn't for solo mining anymore...
People dont just use them for solo mining. Hulks dont mine enough to justify losing the cargo hold and the tank of a mack which is why the bots are all going for Macks. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
166
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 17:48:00 -
[3326] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Not even our bank account is endless. The reason we could keep doing the interdiction for a month is because we were making money on it. As we went on the price of the ships we were using started to go up because our demand out stripped supply. These higher costs were met by the profits we made on the ganking.
In the end, we came out even discounting the isk we made on the market panic. A war on high sec miners is not cheap. Right now we are working out ways to kill macks as cheaply as possible but even so we are not breaking even.
Bigger bounty maybe...
baltec1 wrote:People dont just use them for solo mining. Hulks dont mine enough to justify losing the cargo hold and the tank of a mack which is why the bots are all going for Macks.
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. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2032
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 17:52:00 -
[3327] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Bigger bounty maybe...
There is no bounty. The funds don't magically appear from thin air, it must be a break even at least for it to work.
Quote:
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.
Bolded the none relevant part. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
166
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 17:57:00 -
[3328] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Bolded the none relevant part.
"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 |
baltec1
Bat Country
2032
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 18:01:00 -
[3329] - Quote
Do you really need me to bullet point everything that was wrong with what you said?
|
stoicfaux
1540
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 18:19:00 -
[3330] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: CCP bans bots but untill then we kill them to cripple their cash flow. You should have seen the rage on the bot forums about us.
Interesting point, but that's no consolation to legitimate miners.
Quote:Now, the problem is macks are doing the skiffs job which goes against the whole point of the barge update. The simple fact of life here is the only risk these people will ever face in highsec is people like us but we are hardly going to go around killing macks at a loss. 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.)
Quote:Macks being just about risk free is bad for this game in many ways and will end up hurting miners the most in the long run. Ganking has always been about proft, the tears are simply a bonus and a rather rare one at that and if you think that macks having a bigger tank somehow means we now face a bigger challange you are sadly mistaken. They are just as easy to kill, its simply a question of extra firepower.
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?
Quote:Reducing the base tank on the mack to the same level of the hulk would mean you can still tank it to survive but the skiff would provide the better option. The hulk would also be in a better position as people who want max yeild would pick that and not be tempted to get a mack because of the better tank. 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.
tl;dr - No longer being able to make a career of suicide ganking mining ships in high-sec is a problem that doesn't need fixing.
You can tell me what is and isn't Truth when you pry the tinfoil from my cold, lifeless head.
|
|
baltec1
Bat Country
2032
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 18:37:00 -
[3331] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:[quote=baltec1]
Interesting point, but that's no consolation to legitimate miners. Higher mineral prices are something a miner would be very interested in.
Quote: 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.)
All barges are balanced against eachother, no matter the sec status of the system. The skiff is ment to be the tanky one, a job the mack is also doing.
Quote:
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?
They can blow up an oil tanker with a skiff full of explosives. Thats why when an LPG tanker puts into port in boston they shut down the entire river, port and access roads. It doesnt matter how much your ships costs or how much mine costs, you never blance ships that way. If we did then a 1 billion isk battleship should never die to a 15 million isk frigate.
Quote: 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.
People get the mack because it offers a great bay, good yeild and good tank. The other two exhumers only offer either great yeild or great tank. Also CCP more or less ignored miners when they made these changes because gankers were the only ones to provide any feedback from testing them. Most of the changes were made to the sound of miner rage. CCP almost got it right, they only need to change the mack slightly to make the whole range of barges balanced against eachother.
Naturally miners do not want to lose their one size fits all ship. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
166
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 18:55:00 -
[3332] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Higher mineral prices are something a miner would be very interested in.
Do you know what higher mineral prices do to price of your Catalyst/Tornado? |
betoli
Ketogenic Killzone
42
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 19:00:00 -
[3333] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: Naturally miners do not want to lose their one size fits all ship.
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. |
Buck Futz
Suddenly Violence Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
72
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 19:11:00 -
[3334] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:I'll bite, why is it important for mining ships to be suicide-gankable in high sec?
And its not just 'bots'. Personally, I don't really care about bots - they do far more damage to miner income than gankers ever will - forcing them to mine longer for less smaller rewards.
But ganking needs to be possible because wardecs are broken, and always will be.
Suppose you want to harass, inconvenience, or drive away your industrial competition in highsec?
How do you do this? Wardecs are less than useless because after you've wasted millions of ISK - industrial assets will drop to an NPC corp and continue operating as before.
Suicide ganking allows individuals to attack those assets despite wardec evasion.
If CCP decides to make ganking 'impossible' or just so impractical that nobody participates in the activity, it removes the last real threat to players in highsec. All warfare becomes consensual, and highsec becomes a great deal more boring.
Even for the the miners, ganking improves the game experience. At least, miners who consider EVE a game....not PVE 'ISK farmers'.
True story:
I terrorized the hell out of 6 Gallente Icebelts, starting with the introduction of the Tornado. I was boomeranging Exhumers, solo, on an industrial scale - (final tally was, I believe, around 1200+ Exhumers and pods.)
What developed though, was quite interesting: The miners actually got organized, called out when I showed up in local, and made active efforts to stop me, or at least discourage my attacks. At one point, they even declaring war on the POS I used for staging attacks.
Then I took a break for a few weeks. A couple of them actually convoed me and confessed that, now, mining in the belts was 'dull' without all the fireworks.... (of course, Hulkageddon V began a couple weeks later....)
There ARE miners out there I quite like. They have the right attitude, generally are aware enough to keep themselves from getting ganked. Sometimes they'll even work with gankers just to see their clueless competition explode.
They are the real gamers. As opposed to carebear 'farmers' grinding ISK, who tend to scream and throw tantrums when their greed or stupidity gets them killed. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2032
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 19:17:00 -
[3335] - Quote
betoli wrote:baltec1 wrote: Naturally miners do not want to lose their one size fits all ship.
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.
You dont have to do anything to a mack to make it unprofitable in 0.7 space. The vast bulk of miners still fit no tank at all in these things. This means that the skiff is reduced to an all but pointless ship.
Also CCP have a very good anti bot toolset but they do still need the playerbase to report them. Do not try to bot to test their tools as CCP will most likely pick up on it and punish you, even on sisi. It simply is not worth it. |
Belshazzar Babylon
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
70
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 19:41:00 -
[3336] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:stoicfaux wrote:I'll bite, why is it important for mining ships to be suicide-gankable in high sec?
Because if they are not suicide gankable, that means they are invincible/untargettable/protected by magic. And this woudl be very very bad for the game. You should have phased your question as, why should they be reasonably suicide-gankable. The answer is three fold. 1) because they are not combat ships and should not be used as such. They should however be able to be protected by a bodyguard... too bad not many folks want to sit and watch people mine just in case they are attacked. 2) because it is one of the only risks they face, other than missing a cycle and wasting a few minutes. 3) because one of the trailers from way back showed this (willfully ignores all the other trailers that depict things that do not happen in EVE).
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. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2032
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 19:44:00 -
[3337] - Quote
Belshazzar Babylon wrote:
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.
No, we just bring a cruiser instead of a destroyer. What stops us from doing so is that you cannot make a profit. |
Buck Futz
Suddenly Violence Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
72
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 19:45:00 -
[3338] - Quote
I've scanned thousands of Exhumers. The old Hulk/Mack used to be fit 3 ways.
Max EHP (maybe 5% except during HG) Yield (maybe 30%) Cargo (65+%)
This tells us that Cargo is the most valued asset these ships have, not Yield.
The 3 'new' Exhumers are supposed to fit those roles.
Problem is simple.
Yield: Hulk > Mack > Skiff. (and the differences are relatively minor) EHP: Skiff >>> Mack >> Hulk (the differences are quite large, assuming similar fits) Cargo: Mack >> Skiff >> Hulk (the differences are quite large, as well.
See it?
Hulk = #1, #3 and #3 (with only a mild advantage in the Yield category) Mackinaw = #2, #2, and #1. (#1 in the most important category, a comfortable second in the others) Skiff = #3, #2, #1. (#1 in EHP - but only 5% of miners looked for EHP anyway - and the Mack has more than enough.)
Mackinaw isn't far behind the Hulk in Yield, while its average EHP is comfortably above the range of any 'solo' suicide ganker, and many small gangs. It FAR outstrips the other ships in the most important category, Cargo.
Is it really any surprise that the Mackinaw (and Retriever) has, by and large, replaced the others?
Easy solution is to make each ship #1, #2 and #3. Give the Mackinaw the worst EHP, at or below the current Hulk. Perhaps reduce the Skiff's yield a touch to allow the Hulk to stand out more.
-Mackinaw benefits of the cargo bay and ease of AFK mining is tempered by risk of ganking losses. -Hulk benefits of higher yield are tempered by the annoyingly small ore bay. -Peace of mind granted by the Skiff, tempered by lower overall profits over time.
Sorted. Gankers get more targets, miners get real choices - and aren't rewarded for mining AFK in, as Baltec1 says - "the one size fits all" ship.
|
Belshazzar Babylon
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
70
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 19:54:00 -
[3339] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Belshazzar Babylon wrote:
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.
No, we just bring a cruiser instead of a destroyer. What stops us from doing so is that you cannot make a profit.
Okay then move onto another way of making ISK then and stop whining about it. Gank freighters, gank blingy Tengus at Dodixie. No one really cares about how you make your iskies. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2032
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 20:03:00 -
[3340] - Quote
Belshazzar Babylon wrote:
Gank freighters
We are, on an industrial scale so expect some rather bitter hate filled topics to pop up soon.
However we will not give up on getting the balance right on mining ships. |
|
Buck Futz
Suddenly Violence Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
72
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 20:12:00 -
[3341] - Quote
Belshazzar Babylon wrote:baltec1 wrote:Belshazzar Babylon wrote:
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.
No, we just bring a cruiser instead of a destroyer. What stops us from doing so is that you cannot make a profit. Okay then move onto another way of making ISK then and stop whining about it. Gank freighters, gank blingy Tengus at Dodixie. No one really cares about how you make your iskies.
The point isn't whether or not it is profitable. I think plenty of gankers are willing to gank at a moderate loss. Breakeven point was killing 2 Mackinaws per Tornado. Anything over 3 was profit, 5-6 per Tornado was fantastic profit, but those days are long gone.
When CCP sets the game conditions to the point where gankers are spending 200M ISK to kill a a 280M ISK Exhumer that drops maybe 20M in loot/salvage, people just stop ganking.
If you force people to exclusively run in 5 man gangs just to kill Exhumers, people stop doing it.
And when ganking stops - only realistic threat to highsec miners in EVE disappears completely.
And I'm sure there are a lot of farmers out there who are good with that. But these people - the Mack could have been given the best yield, the best cargo AND the best EHP, and they'd STILL defend it.
The Mackinaw clearly is unbalanced. Hell, even miners (the slowest of the slow learners) have picked on that surprisingly quickly and voted with their ISK.
|
Belshazzar Babylon
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
70
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 20:15:00 -
[3342] - Quote
Buck Futz wrote:Belshazzar Babylon wrote:baltec1 wrote:Belshazzar Babylon wrote:
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.
No, we just bring a cruiser instead of a destroyer. What stops us from doing so is that you cannot make a profit. Okay then move onto another way of making ISK then and stop whining about it. Gank freighters, gank blingy Tengus at Dodixie. No one really cares about how you make your iskies. The point isn't whether or not it is profitable. I think plenty of gankers are willing to gank at a moderate loss. Breakeven point was killing 2 Mackinaws per Tornado. Anything over 3 was profit, 5-6 per Tornado was fantastic profit, but those days are long gone. When CCP sets the game conditions to the point where gankers are spending 200M ISK to kill a a 280M ISK Exhumer that drops maybe 20M in loot/salvage, people just stop ganking. If you force people to exclusively run in 5 man gangs just to kill Exhumers, people stop doing it. And when ganking stops - only realistic threat to highsec miners in EVE disappears completely. And I'm sure there are a lot of farmers out there who are good with that. But these people - the Mack could have been given the best yield, the best cargo AND the best EHP, and they'd STILL defend it. The Mackinaw clearly is unbalanced. Hell, even miners (the slowest of the slow learners) have picked on that surprisingly quickly and voted with their ISK.
Really at this point all I'm reading is crying. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2035
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 20:18:00 -
[3343] - Quote
Belshazzar Babylon wrote:
Really at this point all I'm reading is crying.
Then you are truly clueless. |
Buck Futz
Suddenly Violence Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
72
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 20:20:00 -
[3344] - Quote
Belshazzar Babylon wrote:Buck Futz wrote:
Hey, Mackinaws are OP and unbalanced and here's why!
I'm perfectly OK with an unbalanced Mackinaw because I'm an idiot who got ganked once and am still mad.
I think that about sums it up.
|
Belshazzar Babylon
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
70
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 20:28:00 -
[3345] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Belshazzar Babylon wrote:
Really at this point all I'm reading is crying.
Then you are truly clueless.
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.
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
166
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 20:28:00 -
[3346] - Quote
Could someone show me where they said suicide ganking mining ships should be profitable. |
Belshazzar Babylon
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
70
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 20:35:00 -
[3347] - Quote
Buck Futz wrote:Belshazzar Babylon wrote:Buck Futz wrote:
Hey, Mackinaws are OP and unbalanced and here's why!
I'm perfectly OK with an unbalanced Mackinaw because I'm an idiot who got ganked once and am still mad. I think that about sums it up.
That's me I'm mad you can just here in my post. |
Buck Futz
Suddenly Violence Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
72
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 20:37:00 -
[3348] - Quote
Belshazzar Babylon wrote:Buck Futz wrote:Belshazzar Babylon wrote:Buck Futz wrote:
Hey, Mackinaws are OP and unbalanced and here's why!
I'm perfectly OK with an unbalanced Mackinaw because I'm an idiot who got ganked once and am still mad. I think that about sums it up. That's me I'm mad you can just hear in my post.
Its your avatar. I can't put my finger on it, but for some reason you look angry. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2035
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 20:46:00 -
[3349] - Quote
Belshazzar Babylon wrote:
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.
No you don't recognize crying when you see it, as you just demonstrated when you responed to Buck's post without reading it.
We also dont have to work harder to kill miners and wardecs are still as broken as ever and useless for targeting miners.
The mack is still doing the skiffs job which is the main argument here. The whole point of the skiff is to stop gankers but whats the point of the skiff if the mack does that job too as well as having the best hold and a yeild not too far from a hulk?
If we just wanted easy kills why in the name of Odin would we want a ship like the skiff at all?
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
167
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 20:59:00 -
[3350] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:The mack is still doing the skiffs job which is the main argument here. The whole point of the skiff is to stop gankers but whats the point of the skiff if the mack does that job too as well as having the best hold and a yeild not too far from a hulk?
Why it's only Mack? Max tanked Hulk has 38k EHP. That's only 6,4k EHP less than lol-triple-tanked Mack. |
|
baltec1
Bat Country
2035
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 21:02:00 -
[3351] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:baltec1 wrote:The mack is still doing the skiffs job which is the main argument here. The whole point of the skiff is to stop gankers but whats the point of the skiff if the mack does that job too as well as having the best hold and a yeild not too far from a hulk? Why it's only Mack? Max tanked Hulk has 38k EHP. That's only 6,4k EHP less than lol-triple-tanked Mack.
Its the base tank we are talking about. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
168
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 21:09:00 -
[3352] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Its the base tank we are talking about.
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. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2036
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 21:16:00 -
[3353] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:baltec1 wrote:Its the base tank we are talking about. 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.
And that 24% makes all the difference. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
168
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 21:20:00 -
[3354] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:baltec1 wrote:Its the base tank we are talking about. 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. And that 24% makes all the difference.
Ship with best yield has best tank... "Risk vs. reward"? |
Buck Futz
Suddenly Violence Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
72
|
Posted - 2012.09.04 22:27:00 -
[3355] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:baltec1 wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:baltec1 wrote:Its the base tank we are talking about. 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. And that 24% makes all the difference. Ship with best yield has best tank... "Risk vs. reward"?
You left out cargo space.
Seeing as how the vast majority of Exhumers before August 8 were fit for cargo, its obviously the most valued statistic.
Hulk should have the best yield, worst cargo and in the middle on EHP. Mack should have the best cargo, middle yield and worst EHP. Skiff should have the best EHP, middle cargo and worst yield.
Since the Olympics just ended, lets use a Medal Chart!
The Hulk won a Gold medal and two Bronzes. (And even then, just barely edged out the competition.) Skiff gets a Gold, Silver and Bronze. (Except the Gold medal was in archery. WTF cares about archery?) The Mackinaw? A Gold and two Silvers. (And the Gold medal was in a kickass, money event like the Decathalon)
Its pretty easy to see why the Hulk and Skiff are falling by the wayside.
|
Tyranis Marcus
The Arrow Project
491
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 01:03:00 -
[3356] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:This ladies and gentlemen is what happens when a scrub takes an EVE meme and spams it all over the place without understanding it.
Pffft. So easy to troll. And too angry to see straight. Someone had better invent an IQ pill, soon. . |
Yokai Mitsuhide
Exiled Mining
1657
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 01:10:00 -
[3357] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Belshazzar Babylon wrote:
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.
No you don't recognize crying when you see it, as you just demonstrated when you responed to Buck's post without reading it. We also dont have to work harder to kill miners and wardecs are still as broken as ever and useless for targeting miners. The mack is still doing the skiffs job which is the main argument here. The whole point of the skiff is to stop gankers but whats the point of the skiff if the mack does that job too as well as having the best hold and a yeild not too far from a hulk? If we just wanted easy kills why in the name of Odin would we want a ship like the skiff at all?
If we were all flying Skiffs, you'd just complain about getting that one nerfed though. You wont be happy with anything us miners do. |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1277
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 01:43:00 -
[3358] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:baltec1 wrote:Belshazzar Babylon wrote:
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.
No you don't recognize crying when you see it, as you just demonstrated when you responed to Buck's post without reading it. We also dont have to work harder to kill miners and wardecs are still as broken as ever and useless for targeting miners. The mack is still doing the skiffs job which is the main argument here. The whole point of the skiff is to stop gankers but whats the point of the skiff if the mack does that job too as well as having the best hold and a yeild not too far from a hulk? If we just wanted easy kills why in the name of Odin would we want a ship like the skiff at all? If we were all flying Skiffs, you'd just complain about getting that one nerfed though. You wont be happy with anything us miners do. No, we would chuckle and probably mention something about risk averse carebears.
The Skiff is (IMO) fine as is with relation to the Hulk.
However, because the Mack can get a great yield and still tank enough to dissuade a price based gank, there is no reason (other than paranoia and PvP) to fly a Skiff. |
Yokai Mitsuhide
Exiled Mining
1661
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 02:52:00 -
[3359] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:baltec1 wrote:Belshazzar Babylon wrote:
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.
No you don't recognize crying when you see it, as you just demonstrated when you responed to Buck's post without reading it. We also dont have to work harder to kill miners and wardecs are still as broken as ever and useless for targeting miners. The mack is still doing the skiffs job which is the main argument here. The whole point of the skiff is to stop gankers but whats the point of the skiff if the mack does that job too as well as having the best hold and a yeild not too far from a hulk? If we just wanted easy kills why in the name of Odin would we want a ship like the skiff at all? If we were all flying Skiffs, you'd just complain about getting that one nerfed though. You wont be happy with anything us miners do. No, we would chuckle and probably mention something about risk averse carebears. The Skiff is (IMO) fine as is with relation to the Hulk. However, because the Mack can get a great yield and still tank enough to dissuade a price based gank, there is no reason (other than paranoia and PvP) to fly a Skiff.
So because cheap destroyers can't gank Mackinaws is still the only argument any of you griefer/gankers can offer. The issue isn't the Mackinaw...it's you who expect to be able to gank expensive mining ships for little to no cost. It's an exhumer, top of the line mining ship...it SHOULD require more then a couple of destroyers to gank one in high sec. Or should we expect to be able to gank an orca with 3 or 4 destroyers in high sec? Or maybe Battleships? Command ships? |
Buck Futz
Suddenly Violence Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
72
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 03:37:00 -
[3360] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote: I dont understand why you guys can't wrap your heads around
Hulk - Best Yield, Lowest EHP, Lowest ORE hold Mackinaw - Medium Yield, Medium EHP, Largest Ore hold Skiff - Lowest Yield, Largest EHP, Medium ORE Hold all I see here is a nice balance between ships.
No, it shows a lack of balance. Why can't you wrap your head around that? Hulk is 1-3-3. (#1 in Yield, the 2nd most preferred capability) Mack is 1-2-2. (#1 in Cargo, most preferred capability) Skiff is 1-2-3. (#1 In EHP, the least important capability)
Not only is the Mack BEST at what miners want MOST - it is a strong second in the other two categories. Hulk and Skiff are left in the dust. On top of that, the Mack has a cheaper base build cost - high demand is pushing prices ever higher, though.
It doesn't get any more straightforward on paper - and if you can't figure that out, you are simply being willfully ignorant.
But don't ask me - ask the hundreds of miners who are selling off their Hulks and replacing them with Mackinaws - even for fleet operations. The market doesn't lie.
EDIT: Besides, what do you have your panties in such a twist for? Even if the Mackinaw was properly rebalanced to have the worst EHP of the 3 Exhumers, you could still tank it and be perfectly OK. You might need to pack a DC II instead of three MLU IIs, but you'd be just fine. Why do you care if other miners who are too dim to tank, are getting popped? It doesn't really affect you at all... |
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1297
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 04:41:00 -
[3361] - Quote
Buck Futz wrote:EDIT: Besides, what do you have your panties in such a twist for? Even if the Mackinaw was properly rebalanced to have the worst EHP of the 3 Exhumers, you could still tank it and be perfectly OK. You might need to pack a DC II instead of three MLU IIs, but you'd be just fine. Why do you care if other miners who are too dim to tank, are getting popped? It doesn't really affect you at all... Just ask for the mack to get some more EHP buffs. I mean, it worked the last time. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
168
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 06:55:00 -
[3362] - Quote
Buck Futz wrote:Hulk should have the best yield, worst cargo and in the middle on EHP. Mack should have the best cargo, middle yield and worst EHP. Skiff should have the best EHP, middle cargo and worst yield.
So you want old system back. Welcome back Retriever and Hulk. And goodbye everything else.
Hulk actually has best cargo: Since Hulk is now fleet ship you have to remember that Mack can't beat Orca in cargo capacity. You also have haulers in fleets: please tell me a cheap ship that can beat Itty5 in cargo capacity. No need to hurry, take your time. |
Buck Futz
Suddenly Violence Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
74
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 15:29:00 -
[3363] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Buck Futz wrote:Hulk should have the best yield, worst cargo and in the middle on EHP. Mack should have the best cargo, middle yield and worst EHP. Skiff should have the best EHP, middle cargo and worst yield. So you want old system back. Welcome back Retriever and Hulk. And goodbye everything else. Hulk actually has best cargo: Since Hulk is now fleet ship you have to remember that Mack can't beat Orca in cargo capacity. You also have haulers in fleets: please tell me a cheap ship that can beat Itty5 in cargo capacity. No need to hurry, take your time.
No. Pay attention.
Old system was Hulk 1-1-1, Mackinaw, 2-2-2 (except ice yield), and Skiff 3-3-3 (except Merx yield) I'm proposing 1-2-3 for each ship. Its really simple to understand if you try.
If the Mackinaw is properly balanced by reducing the base EHP, do you seriously think an occasional gank will stop miners from using the Mackinaw?
"Hulk has the best cargo, because it has an Orca." Right now we see Mackinaws mining in fleets, even through that is what the Hulk is for. Simply for the convenience factor of not having to move ore every 90 seconds. Even in fleets, miners like to AFK it.
Mining with a Hulk and a hauler is just not worth it when you can simply use two Mackinaws instead. I know you are trying to protect your overbuffed Mackinaw (if I mined, I would too.)
But as sad as I was when my Vagabond got nerfed, I have to admit the game is better since ships were slowed down. All Mackinaw, all the time, is clear evidence of a problem given the stated goals of 'Tiericide'. |
Shalua Rui
FEROX AQUILA
3940
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 15:31:00 -
[3364] - Quote
What you and other here are proposing is not 1-2-3, it's 1-3-3 for every ship... just saying.
It already IS 1-2-3. Ginger forum goddess, space gypsy and stone nibbler extraordinaire! |
Buck Futz
Suddenly Violence Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
74
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 15:57:00 -
[3365] - Quote
Shalua Rui wrote:What you and other here are proposing is not 1-2-3, it's 1-3-3 for every ship... just saying.
It already IS 1-2-3.
If so, I don't think you will have trouble pointing out which category the Mackinaw is #3 in. Cargo? Tank? or Yield? |
Yokai Mitsuhide
Exiled Mining
1706
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 16:10:00 -
[3366] - Quote
Buck Futz wrote:Shalua Rui wrote:What you and other here are proposing is not 1-2-3, it's 1-3-3 for every ship... just saying.
It already IS 1-2-3. If so, I don't think you will have trouble pointing out which category the Mackinaw is #3 in. Cargo? Tank? or Yield?
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. |
Shalua Rui
FEROX AQUILA
3941
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 16:14:00 -
[3367] - Quote
Pure mathematics? Yield...
Skiff +200% strip miner yield on one module Mack +50% strip miner yield on two modules Ginger forum goddess, space gypsy and stone nibbler extraordinaire! |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
169
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 16:56:00 -
[3368] - Quote
Buck Futz wrote:No. Pay attention.
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)? |
baltec1
Bat Country
2037
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 17:10:00 -
[3369] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Buck Futz wrote:No. Pay attention. 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)?
It wouldnt get the highest risk factor. It would be on the same level as the hulk.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
2037
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 17:18:00 -
[3370] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:
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?
Why are you so terrorfied of gankers being able to make a profit on the stupid? |
|
Yokai Mitsuhide
Exiled Mining
1715
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 17:21:00 -
[3371] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:
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?
Why are you so terrorfied of gankers being able to make a profit on the stupid?
Im not, untanked exhumers should be easy to gank...AND THEY ARE. There is nothing that needs fixing/nerfing/changing with the Mackinaw. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2037
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 17:25:00 -
[3372] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:
Im not, untanked exhumers should be easy to gank...AND THEY ARE. There is nothing that needs fixing/nerfing/changing with the Mackinaw.
Apart from the ehp that makes the skiff redundent. |
Yokai Mitsuhide
Exiled Mining
1715
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 17:25:00 -
[3373] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:
Im not, untanked exhumers should be easy to gank...AND THEY ARE. There is nothing that needs fixing/nerfing/changing with the Mackinaw.
Apart from the ehp that makes the skiff redundent.
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. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2037
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 17:29:00 -
[3374] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:
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.
The mack will tank enough to deture gankers but gets a bigger ore bay and mines more. There is no reason to use the skiff. |
Yokai Mitsuhide
Exiled Mining
1715
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 17:33:00 -
[3375] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:
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.
The mack will tank enough to deture gankers but gets a bigger ore bay and mines more. There is no reason to use the skiff.
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. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
169
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 17:37:00 -
[3376] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:It wouldnt get the highest risk factor. It would be on the same level as the hulk.
Lowest EHP does mean highest risk factor.
After all you wanted that 1-2-3 thing. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2037
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 17:40:00 -
[3377] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:
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.
It doesnt matter how much safer the skiff is, the mach reaches the point thatits not profitable to gank and that means just about every single ganker will not go for it. 99% of ganking is done for profit, something miners such as yourself seemingly cannot understand. It doesn't matter how much more the skiff will tank, once you hit the magic marker where you cost more to gank then you are worth you become safe from ganks.
The skiff will remain pointless so long as the mack tanks as well as it does now which goes against the entire point of the barge update. |
Trindara Eayil
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 18:06:00 -
[3378] - Quote
The new mackinaw is too powerful from an afk perspective, especially for ice mining.
I don't necessarily agree that requires a reduction in tank (with its obvious attractions to the ganking community), a reduction in yield would be effective.
For instance, changing the ice harvester accelerator rig so it could only be fit to hulks... |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1278
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 18:42:00 -
[3379] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:baltec1 wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:
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.
The mack will tank enough to deture gankers but gets a bigger ore bay and mines more. There is no reason to use the skiff. 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. Right now the Mack can be tanked with 2MLUs to be nearly impossible to break even with a suicide (I think a few thousand newb ships can do it cheap enough).
So, unless the ganker is just doing it for the sake of ganking, a Mack is as safe as a Skiff, but gets better yield and cargo.
If the ganker is doing it for fun, the Skiff is no safer than any other ship. The only thing that might make the Skiff any safer is that it cost less and so may not generate the tears the ganker is looking for. Other than that, it is just as likely to be ganked for fun as a Mack.
Now, the Skiff may survive that for fun gank better, but that only tends to lead to more of them showing up. |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1278
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 19:09:00 -
[3380] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:Right now the Mack can be tanked with 2MLUs to be nearly impossible to break even with a suicide (I think a few thousand newb ships can do it cheap enough).
So, unless the ganker is just doing it for the sake of ganking, a Mack is as safe as a Skiff, but gets better yield and cargo.
If the ganker is doing it for fun, the Skiff is no safer than any other ship. The only thing that might make the Skiff any safer is that it cost less and so may not generate the tears the ganker is looking for. Other than that, it is just as likely to be ganked for fun as a Mack.
Now, the Skiff may survive that for fun gank better, but that only tends to lead to more of them showing up. - Risk vs. reward - 1-2-3 Mack gets worst tank. Ok, that means it should have best yield. Now we get to important part. What it needs so that 1-2-3 would happen? Yes, ore bay from Skiff. Do you know where that would lead to? It's bloody obvious: one ship to rule them all. I personally think it should have the same tank and tankability (approximately) as a Hulk.
Hulk purely for yield with a cargo forcing it to be fleet based (like it is now). Mack for cargo with decent yield for more solo players (like it is now minus a little tank). Skiff for those who didn't bother tanking their ships before and want to be "safe". |
|
baltec1
Bat Country
2041
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 19:11:00 -
[3381] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote: I personally think it should have the same tank and tankability (approximately) as a Hulk.
I agree. |
Mukuro Gravedigger
Republic University Minmatar Republic
24
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 19:15:00 -
[3382] - Quote
If this has been brought up and discussed, then I apologize.
Since CCP granted the Covetor and Hulk with the best yield but poor space due to being fleet ships, why not grant a bonus to the Orca's and Rorqual's ore hold based upon the Industrial Command Ships and Capital Industrial Ships skills respectively?
Of course, I will mention that I do fly an Orca so I am a tad biased. |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1278
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 19:20:00 -
[3383] - Quote
Mukuro Gravedigger wrote:If this has been brought up and discussed, then I apologize. Since CCP granted the Covetor and Hulk with the best yield but poor space due to being fleet ships, why not grant a bonus to the Orca's and Rorqual's ore hold based upon the Industrial Command Ships and Capital Industrial Ships skills respectively? Of course, I will mention that I do fly an Orca so I am a tad biased. No one has touched that, since we have been going in circles about the mining ships themselves.
I don't actually have an opinion either way on that, since my corp uses new folks for dedicated hauling when we do large mining ops. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
169
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 19:21:00 -
[3384] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:I personally think it should have the same tank and tankability (approximately) as a Hulk.
1-2-3? You want everyone to fly one ship and one ship only. |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1278
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 19:29:00 -
[3385] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:I personally think it should have the same tank and tankability (approximately) as a Hulk. 1-2-3? You want everyone to fly one ship and one ship only. Can you read?
Hulk: flown by large ops (as it is now in small numbers; the Mack is still favored due to its larger tank). Mack: flown for solo or small groups (unlike now, where it is used for both small and large groups because of its better tank over tthe hulk). Skiff: flown to avoid profit based ganks (close to now, except no reason to not use a Mack as it can avoid those same ganks).
All three woudl be flown, depending on what you are doing/how worried you are.
Right now, the only reason people fly Skiffs is because they think they are safer (but they aren't) than in a tanked Mack. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
169
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 19:51:00 -
[3386] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:Hulk: flown by large ops (as it is now in small numbers; the Mack is still favored due to its larger tank). Mack: flown for solo or small groups (unlike now, where it is used for both small and large groups because of its better tank over tthe hulk). Skiff: flown to avoid profit based ganks (close to now, except no reason to not use a Mack as it can avoid those same ganks).
All three woudl be flown, depending on what you are doing/how worried you are.
Right now, the only reason people fly Skiffs is because they think they are safer (but they aren't) than in a tanked Mack.
Mack with worst tank would need support. Not for solo mining anymore. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2042
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 19:54:00 -
[3387] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote: Mack with worst tank would need support. Not for solo mining anymore.
No it would simply require you to fit something other than only MLU. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
169
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 19:55:00 -
[3388] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote: Mack with worst tank would need support. Not for solo mining anymore.
No it would simply require you to fit something other than only MLU.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1882439#post1882439 |
Valari Nala Zena
Perkone Caldari State
44
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 19:59:00 -
[3389] - Quote
TL;DR I really can't fathom why people would chose tank over yield. In all my years of mining, i would missed out on several billions of profit choosing tank over yield. That is even calculating the amount of times i got suicide ganked successfully. /TL;DR
I mine because it's profitable, and currently can afk a lot/do something else on my computer. 3 macks and an orca.
Because of the big hold, i can tolerate the mining (laptop + synergy). Every 25 minutes i have to drag and drop cubes to the orca, every 50 minutes i have to offload a full orca.
The ore hold of the hulk is to small, and the yield of the mack is very close to the yield of a hulk, so my choice is made. Ore hold > yield > tank = mackinaw.
In 5 years of mining, i've been suicide ganked 3 times, lost 1 mackinaw each time. There has been a couple more attempts but only failed ones.
In the end, even with 3 lost macks, it was worth it because i'm mining at a faster rate for years. These 3 lost macks mean nothing, compared to the billions i would have lost choosing tank instead of more yield. |
Pipa Porto
867
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 22:05:00 -
[3390] - Quote
Shalua Rui wrote:Pure mathematics? Yield...
Skiff +200% strip miner yield on one module Mack +50% strip miner yield on two modules
You don't quite know how math works, do you?
Skiff has 1 Module yielding (100%+200%=) 300% of the yield of 1 unbonused module. Mackinaw has 2 Modules yielding (100%+50%+100%+50%=) 300% of the yield of 1 unbonused module.
(The Mackinaw also has a third low slot allowing it a DC2 or an extra MLUII) EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
|
Pipa Porto
867
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 22:09:00 -
[3391] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:Hulk: flown by large ops (as it is now in small numbers; the Mack is still favored due to its larger tank). Mack: flown for solo or small groups (unlike now, where it is used for both small and large groups because of its better tank over tthe hulk). Skiff: flown to avoid profit based ganks (close to now, except no reason to not use a Mack as it can avoid those same ganks).
All three woudl be flown, depending on what you are doing/how worried you are.
Right now, the only reason people fly Skiffs is because they think they are safer (but they aren't) than in a tanked Mack. Mack with worst tank would need support. Not for solo mining anymore.
You forgot a word there. AFK. The Mack would no longer work well for Solo, AFK mining.
If you're actually playing the game, you can easily keep yourself from getting ganked without any need for a tank. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Buck Futz
Suddenly Violence Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
74
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 22:41:00 -
[3392] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:Right now the Mack can be tanked with 2MLUs to be nearly impossible to break even with a suicide (I think a few thousand newb ships can do it cheap enough).
So, unless the ganker is just doing it for the sake of ganking, a Mack is as safe as a Skiff, but gets better yield and cargo.
If the ganker is doing it for fun, the Skiff is no safer than any other ship. The only thing that might make the Skiff any safer is that it cost less and so may not generate the tears the ganker is looking for. Other than that, it is just as likely to be ganked for fun as a Mack.
Now, the Skiff may survive that for fun gank better, but that only tends to lead to more of them showing up. - Risk vs. reward - 1-2-3 Mack gets worst tank. Ok, that means it should have best yield. Now we get to important part. What it needs so that 1-2-3 would happen? Yes, ore bay from Skiff. Do you know where that would lead to? It's bloody obvious: one ship to rule them all.
No, if the Mack has the worst tank, it doesn't need the 'best yield' because it already has, by far, the biggest cargo bay. Cargo, not yield is the most desired characteristic for Exhumers, based on how miners used to fit them. See? Easy.
|
Yokai Mitsuhide
Exiled Mining
1742
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 01:03:00 -
[3393] - Quote
Buck Futz wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:Right now the Mack can be tanked with 2MLUs to be nearly impossible to break even with a suicide (I think a few thousand newb ships can do it cheap enough).
So, unless the ganker is just doing it for the sake of ganking, a Mack is as safe as a Skiff, but gets better yield and cargo.
If the ganker is doing it for fun, the Skiff is no safer than any other ship. The only thing that might make the Skiff any safer is that it cost less and so may not generate the tears the ganker is looking for. Other than that, it is just as likely to be ganked for fun as a Mack.
Now, the Skiff may survive that for fun gank better, but that only tends to lead to more of them showing up. - Risk vs. reward - 1-2-3 Mack gets worst tank. Ok, that means it should have best yield. Now we get to important part. What it needs so that 1-2-3 would happen? Yes, ore bay from Skiff. Do you know where that would lead to? It's bloody obvious: one ship to rule them all. No, if the Mack has the worst tank, it doesn't need the 'best yield' because it already has, by far, the biggest cargo bay. Cargo, not yield is the most desired characteristic for Exhumers, based on how miners used to fit them. See? Easy.
So nerf our yield but leave the hit points alone. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1302
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 03:10:00 -
[3394] - Quote
Valari Nala Zena wrote:In 5 years of mining, i've been suicide ganked 3 times, lost 1 mackinaw each time. There has been a couple more attempts but only failed ones.
In the end, even with 3 lost macks, it was worth it because i'm mining at a faster rate for years. These 3 lost macks mean nothing, compared to the billions i would have lost choosing tank instead of more yield. And the secret comes out. A bunch of miners just don't give a damn when they get ganked. If they get ganked.
Not bad though, less than one a year on average... Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Buck Futz
Suddenly Violence Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
75
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 04:19:00 -
[3395] - Quote
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.
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
626
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 04:23:00 -
[3396] - Quote
Posting in 1... 2... 3... http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Herr Hammer Draken
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
99
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 04:31:00 -
[3397] - 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" |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
626
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 04:33:00 -
[3398] - Quote
I think we should be at least encouraging people to play with others, so the solo miner (Mack) should be the easiest one to gank, unless of course that person deliberately sacrifices quite a bit of yield in exchange for a good tank (Skiff).
Of course that doesn't preclude the multiboxers with their Hulk/Orca fleets, but at the point where you can afford to field such fleets yourself an occasional Hulk loss doesn't hurt all that much. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
169
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 04:37:00 -
[3399] - Quote
And let nullbears print ISK while logged off... |
betoli
Ketogenic Killzone
45
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 08:27:00 -
[3400] - Quote
Herr Hammer Draken wrote: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.
Most peoples perspective is that they want to discourage solo/afk, yours is to discourage teamplay. Sounds like the miners in your area are working as designed to the point where there is a resource contention.
You shouldn't gank them, just wardec them, they are clearly stealing YOUR ore :-)
I'm liking the 1-2-3 argument. probably the HP on on mack and hulk should be swapped. However the consequences of doing that are a buff to the yield of the high yield ship, which can now fit 2 MLU without need for a tank.
|
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1302
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 12:26:00 -
[3401] - Quote
betoli wrote:Most peoples perspective is that they want to discourage solo/afk, yours is to discourage teamplay. Sounds like the miners in your area are working as designed to the point where there is a resource contention.
You shouldn't gank them, just wardec them, they are clearly stealing YOUR ore :-) Yeah, that should impress on them the importance of using NPC corps. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
baltec1
Bat Country
2070
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 17:32:00 -
[3402] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:
So nerf our yield but leave the hit points alone.
Then the skiff would still be a pointless ship. |
Pipa Porto
873
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 18:02:00 -
[3403] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:And let nullbears print ISK while logged off...
Where's this offline isk faucet you're imagining? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
baltec1
Bat Country
2072
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 18:08:00 -
[3404] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:And let nullbears print ISK while logged off... Where's this offline isk faucet you're imagining?
I'm assuming moon goo. Something we have been fighting to get changed for a long time now. |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1286
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 18:23:00 -
[3405] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:And let nullbears print ISK while logged off... Where's this offline isk faucet you're imagining? I'm assuming moon goo. Something we have been fighting to get changed for a long time now. And it isn't even a faucet. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
630
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 18:34:00 -
[3406] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:baltec1 wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:And let nullbears print ISK while logged off... Where's this offline isk faucet you're imagining? I'm assuming moon goo. Something we have been fighting to get changed for a long time now. And it isn't even a faucet. People seem to conveniently forget that the ISK we get from moon mining was already in the economy. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
170
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 19:10:00 -
[3407] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:People seem to conveniently forget that the ISK we get from moon mining was already in the economy.
And it's different from mining? |
Yokai Mitsuhide
Exiled Mining
1803
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 20:00:00 -
[3408] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:
So nerf our yield but leave the hit points alone.
Then the skiff would still be a pointless ship.
I agree. I will admit after arguing with you guys you've helped me see the issue I was blind to. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
631
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 20:33:00 -
[3409] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:People seem to conveniently forget that the ISK we get from moon mining was already in the economy. And it's different from mining? Yes, because believe it or not we incur significantly more risk. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
170
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 20:37:00 -
[3410] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Yes, because believe it or not we incur significantly more risk.
I meant the part where you think miners print isk. |
|
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1287
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 20:38:00 -
[3411] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Yes, because believe it or not we incur significantly more risk. I meant the part where you think miners print isk. Who in this thread said such a thing? |
Pipa Porto
874
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 20:41:00 -
[3412] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:People seem to conveniently forget that the ISK we get from moon mining was already in the economy. And it's different from mining?
Nobody's said mining is an ISK faucet. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
4539
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 20:44:00 -
[3413] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:People seem to conveniently forget that the ISK we get from moon mining was already in the economy. And it's different from mining?
Let me tell you about this thing called insurance
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1302
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 23:12:00 -
[3414] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:People seem to conveniently forget that the ISK we get from moon mining was already in the economy. And it's different from mining? Nobody's said mining is an ISK faucet. Tech is evil and needs to be nerfed even more, is what they were trying to go for I guess? Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
betoli
Ketogenic Killzone
45
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 23:19:00 -
[3415] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Yes, because believe it or not we incur significantly more risk. I meant the part where you think miners print isk. Who in this thread said such a thing?
use crrl-f and type
"And let nullbears print ISK while logged off..."
|
Pipa Porto
878
|
Posted - 2012.09.06 23:57:00 -
[3416] - Quote
betoli wrote:Corina Jarr wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Yes, because believe it or not we incur significantly more risk. I meant the part where you think miners print isk. Who in this thread said such a thing? use crrl-f and type "And let nullbears print ISK while logged off..."
Try taking a look at who posted that little lie. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
285
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 02:37:00 -
[3417] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:People seem to conveniently forget that the ISK we get from moon mining was already in the economy. And it's different from mining? Let me tell you about this thing called insurance While I'm not sure the ratio of fully insurable tech one hulls to other hulls used in nullsec combat defending moons, I'd think that in an environment where a far larger scale of ship loss is occurring and in which neither party is forfeiting their ability to receive insurance would generate a far greater influx of isk from insurance payouts. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1302
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 05:17:00 -
[3418] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Malcanis wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:People seem to conveniently forget that the ISK we get from moon mining was already in the economy. And it's different from mining? Let me tell you about this thing called insurance While I'm not sure the ratio of fully insurable tech one hulls to other hulls used in nullsec combat defending moons, I'd think that in an environment where a far larger scale of ship loss is occurring and in which neither party is forfeiting their ability to receive insurance would generate a far greater influx of isk from insurance payouts. Well some people like their AHACs, T3 crusiers, faction/pirate ships....
But the good old drake gets a good chunk back from insurance. Always nice when the magic spacepolice helps make it easier to afford losing ships. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Yokai Mitsuhide
Exiled Mining
1931
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 14:23:00 -
[3419] - Quote
Ok so if you bring down the Mackinaws base hitpoints to that of the Hulks of close to it, what about giving the Mackinaw say 40 more CPU to make up for it. Would that be an even trade off? |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
632
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 14:38:00 -
[3420] - Quote
Why? The Mack already has plenty of CPU to fit a tank. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
170
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 14:38:00 -
[3421] - Quote
"We want miners to use Hulks again because ganking those isn't a problem!" "CCP, why we have to tolerate these 30k EHP Hulks?! This game is for gankers after all."
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
632
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 14:40:00 -
[3422] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:"We want miners to use Hulks again because ganking those isn't a problem!" "CCP, why we have to tolerate these 30k EHP Hulks?! This game is for gankers after all." Yeah, because we never said anything like "switch the EHP of the Hulk and the Mackinaw." Nope, not at all. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Yokai Mitsuhide
Exiled Mining
1933
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 14:41:00 -
[3423] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Why? The Mack already has plenty of CPU to fit a tank.
To fit all tank, you need a cpu upgrade or rig, so a slot is wasted on that. I just think an even tradeoff if you're going to drop the base hp down would be more cpu so those of us who want to fit the extra tank have the option. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
632
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 14:41:00 -
[3424] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Why? The Mack already has plenty of CPU to fit a tank. To fit all tank, you need a cpu upgrade or rig. You mean those two free rig spots you have now that the cargo expanders are useless? http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Yokai Mitsuhide
Exiled Mining
1933
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 14:44:00 -
[3425] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Why? The Mack already has plenty of CPU to fit a tank. To fit all tank, you need a cpu upgrade or rig. You mean those two free rig spots you have now that the cargo expanders are useless?
I use them for tanking. But if I don't put a cpu rig on there, I have to use a cpu upgrade on one of my low slows instead of my reinforced bulkhead II's |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
170
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 14:49:00 -
[3426] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Yeah, because we never said anything like "switch the EHP of the Hulk and the Mackinaw." Nope, not at all.
That's most pupular "solution" mentioned by gankers in this and other "I hate AFK isk printing" threads. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
632
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 14:49:00 -
[3427] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Why? The Mack already has plenty of CPU to fit a tank. To fit all tank, you need a cpu upgrade or rig. You mean those two free rig spots you have now that the cargo expanders are useless? I use them for tanking. But if I don't put a cpu rig on there, I have to use a cpu upgrade on one of my low slows instead of my reinforced bulkhead II's Why are you putting reinforced bulkhead IIs on a shield tanked ship? http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Yokai Mitsuhide
Exiled Mining
1934
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 14:52:00 -
[3428] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Why? The Mack already has plenty of CPU to fit a tank. To fit all tank, you need a cpu upgrade or rig. You mean those two free rig spots you have now that the cargo expanders are useless? I use them for tanking. But if I don't put a cpu rig on there, I have to use a cpu upgrade on one of my low slows instead of my reinforced bulkhead II's Why are you putting reinforced bulkhead IIs on a shield tanked ship?
Because with my dmg control 2, it adds a lot of extra ehp. Nothing else to put down there, I don't care about my yield when mining since I do it for fun so no point in Mining Upgrades. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
632
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 14:52:00 -
[3429] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Yeah, because we never said anything like "switch the EHP of the Hulk and the Mackinaw." Nope, not at all. That's most pupular "solution" mentioned by gankers in this and other "I hate AFK isk printing" threads. It couldn't possibly be that we want the exhumers to have proper roles, which is what CCP attempted to do. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
170
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 14:53:00 -
[3430] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Why are you putting reinforced bulkhead IIs on a shield tanked ship?
It seems like someone loves ganking 200k EHP Orcas. |
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
632
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 14:58:00 -
[3431] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Why are you putting reinforced bulkhead IIs on a shield tanked ship? It seems like someone loves ganking 200k EHP Orcas. It seems like someone loves strawmen. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
170
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 15:07:00 -
[3432] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:It seems like someone loves strawmen.
No, I don't use 4chan. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
632
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 15:10:00 -
[3433] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:It seems like someone loves strawmen. No, I don't use 4chan. Please educate yourself. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
170
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 15:12:00 -
[3434] - Quote
Wikipedia... Greatest source ever...
It was last edited on 3 September 2012. You? |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
632
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 15:14:00 -
[3435] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Wikipedia... Greatest source ever... It was last edited on 3 September 2012. You? Gee, it's almost as if you live in this little bubble where facts bounce right off and only rhetoric can come out. You need to be freed, my friend, before you languish in there forever. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
170
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 15:16:00 -
[3436] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Gee, it's almost as if you live in this little bubble where facts bounce right off and only rhetoric can come out. You need to be freed, my friend, before you languish in there forever.
Prove that Wikipedia pages can't be edited by 14 year old kids. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
632
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 15:18:00 -
[3437] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Gee, it's almost as if you live in this little bubble where facts bounce right off and only rhetoric can come out. You need to be freed, my friend, before you languish in there forever. Prove that Wikipedia pages can't be edited by 14 year old kids. Prove that that has anything to do with this topic. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
170
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 15:42:00 -
[3438] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Why it's so important to be able to profit from ganking? Again, what does that have to do with what I said?
Read OP. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
632
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 15:46:00 -
[3439] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Why it's so important to be able to profit from ganking? Again, what does that have to do with what I said? Read OP. You're not talking to him. You're talking to me. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
632
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 15:47:00 -
[3440] - Quote
Why don't I approach this from a different angle.
Why is it so important for you to be able to AFK ice mine? http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
170
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 15:50:00 -
[3441] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Why is it so important for you to be able to AFK ice mine?
Because nullseccers can do it too? |
Buck Futz
Suddenly Violence Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
76
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 16:05:00 -
[3442] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:Ok so if you bring down the Mackinaws base hitpoints to that of the Hulks of close to it, what about giving the Mackinaw say 40 more CPU to make up for it. Would that be an even trade off?
As a ganker, I think the 'base EHP' of a Mackinaw should be below 10K. A fail-tanked Mackinaw (Max yield, Civilian Shield boosters) should be instapopped by a Tornado, or soloed by a max-Skill T2 Catalyst. A max-tanked Mackinaw should top out around 30K.
Don't have a big problem with the Hulk getting a minor EHP buff, to make it 2nd overall in EHP. After all, mining in a fleet doesn't confer all that much protection from suicide ganking. In one sense, non-bot Hulk-miners are earning their pay through ore hold micromanagement. But it should still be low enough to be vulnerable - otherwise the Skiff becomes pointless.
And the Skiff should simply be 'not rationally gankable' - but the ISK/hr should be significantly less. (not 'equal' to the Mackinaw, except for the lack of MLU low-slots.)
I'd also dial back the Macks Ore hold size.....but allow Cargo Expanders to increase its size beyond what is currently possible. Give miners a reason to cargo-fit again. Right now its just a 'Tank vs Yield'. The choice should be 'Tank vs Yield vs Cargo'.
That was originally the point of the thread - that CCP is simply patronizing miners by taking away fitting choices and trade offs with one-size-fits all.
Mackinaw: Easiest mining, but riskiest vs ganking Hulk: Fastest mining, slightly safer - but pain in the ass due to micro and needing an Orca. Skiff: Safest mining, but not as convenient as the Mack, nor as fast as the Hulk.
Barges need a similar adjustment.
Done right, I think you'd see a much healthier mixture of the 3 Exhumers in highsec.
Oh, also - as a ganker, I wish CCP would make the ORE Strip Miners have a Yield increase instead of a silly range increase. Give miners a reason to use them.
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
632
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 16:15:00 -
[3443] - Quote
Buck Futz wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:Ok so if you bring down the Mackinaws base hitpoints to that of the Hulks of close to it, what about giving the Mackinaw say 40 more CPU to make up for it. Would that be an even trade off? As a ganker, I think the 'base EHP' of a Mackinaw should be below 10K. A fail-tanked Mackinaw (Max yield, Civilian Shield boosters) should be instapopped by a Tornado, or soloed by a max-Skill T2 Catalyst. A max-tanked Mackinaw should top out around 30K. Don't have a big problem with the Hulk getting a minor EHP buff, to make it 2nd overall in EHP. After all, mining in a fleet doesn't confer all that much protection from suicide ganking. In one sense, non-bot Hulk-miners are earning their pay through ore hold micromanagement. But it should still be low enough to be vulnerable - otherwise the Skiff becomes pointless. And the Skiff should simply be 'not rationally gankable' - but the ISK/hr should be significantly less. (not 'equal' to the Mackinaw, except for the lack of MLU low-slots.) I'd also dial back the Macks Ore hold size.....but allow Cargo Expanders to increase its size beyond what is currently possible. Give miners a reason to cargo-fit again. Right now its just a 'Tank vs Yield'. The choice should be 'Tank vs Yield vs Cargo'. That was originally the point of the thread - that CCP is simply patronizing miners by taking away fitting choices and trade offs with one-size-fits all. Mackinaw: Easiest mining, but riskiest vs ganking Hulk: Fastest mining, slightly safer - but pain in the ass due to micro and needing an Orca. Skiff: Safest mining, but not as convenient as the Mack, nor as fast as the Hulk. Barges need a similar adjustment. Done right, I think you'd see a much healthier mixture of the 3 Exhumers in highsec. Oh, also - as a ganker, I wish CCP would make the ORE Strip Miners have a Yield increase instead of a silly range increase. Give miners a reason to use them. This guy gets it. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
170
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 16:21:00 -
[3444] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:This guy gets it.
Sure, if we all can wardec Goons and Razer for free. |
Yokai Mitsuhide
Exiled Mining
1943
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 16:22:00 -
[3445] - Quote
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. |
Buck Futz
Suddenly Violence Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
76
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 16:46:00 -
[3446] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote: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.
Oh, I just want miners to scratch their heads a little bit about which Exhumer to use.... ....and then scratch their head again when they figure out how to fit it.
Some will do fine, others will fail. Gankers want to be able to kill the failures without spending a fortune to do it.
I also want miners to have some options.
How would you like a Mack that could be Cargo expanded/rigged up to say, 40 or even 50K? (even if the base size is lower)I'm sure a lot of miners would like that. And with the EHP penalty, gankers would too.
Too bad that CCP doesn't allow those kinds of choices anymore. Today its "How many MLU II do you want?"
For combat ships, it would be as if CCP just decided to remove all speed mods, and then gave some types of ships built-in MWDs. Thats what they did here, for Exhumers. Tiericide shouldn't mean 'dumbing down'.
Also, I the 'special rigs' for Ice or Merx concept was a slapped on, rushed fail-job. Goes a long way to illustrate how little thought or effort they put into the Aug. 8 Patch. It was simply a reactive lurch to get it done ASAP, rather than doing it properly in the winter expansion.
At minimum there should have been a 3rd rig for 'standard Ore'. Why should miners be punished for mining Ice or Merx? Why not just get rid of them entirely? |
Buck Futz
Suddenly Violence Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
76
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 17:10:00 -
[3447] - Quote
Incidentally, this same 'lack of fitting choices' is one of the reasons I was irritated about the Boomerang nerf.
Gankers, for the first time in a long time, actually had an actual fitting choice, beyond, "Duhhhhhhh, Maximum gankage!" As it is, Concord makes 95% of all the mods you could put on a suicide gankship completely pointless.
There were significant benefits to be had if you fit the Tornado for agility. The only problem? More agility meant lowering your damage potential.
Some interesting fits emerged in the (very) brief time between when the tactic 'went public' and when it was patched out/became exploit.
So now, we are back to "Duhhhhhh...maximum gankage!"
No room for cleverness in CCP's post-Incarna ant farm, apparently - for ganker or victim alike.
|
Guttripper
State War Academy Caldari State
176
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 17:30:00 -
[3448] - Quote
Buck Futz wrote:No room for cleverness in CCP's post-Incarna ant farm, apparently - for ganker or victim alike.
Lowest common denominator rakes in the most money in the bean counter's mind. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2084
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 17:34:00 -
[3449] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote: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.
Mack got a CPU buff with the update. You can tank them very well even with a hulks base ehp.
I might be part of the corp who brought about the gank destroyers but I also gave miners the supertank barges. We know how to make these things fortresses. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
632
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 17:37:00 -
[3450] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:This guy gets it. Sure, if we all can wardec Goons and Razer for free. And their alts. Go ahead and wardec us, and realize just how much of a waste of money it is when you can shoot us for free where we live anyway.
Not to mention if you really want to hurt our tech supply chains, you can do that just fine in highsec and you don't even need a wardec.
All the tools are there, it's your fault and yours alone for not using them. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
|
Yokai Mitsuhide
Exiled Mining
1965
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 17:45:00 -
[3451] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote: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. Mack got a CPU buff with the update. You can tank them very well even with a hulks base ehp. I might be part of the corp who brought about the gank destroyers but I also gave miners the supertank barges. We know how to make these things fortresses.
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.
|
Yokai Mitsuhide
Exiled Mining
1965
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 17:47:00 -
[3452] - Quote
Buck Futz wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote: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. Oh, I just want miners to scratch their heads a little bit about which Exhumer to use.... ....and then scratch their head again when they figure out how to fit it. Some will do fine, others will fail. Gankers want to be able to kill the failures without spending a fortune to do it. I also want miners to have some options. How would you like a Mack that could be Cargo expanded/rigged up to say, 40 or even 50K? (even if the base size is lower)I'm sure a lot of miners would like that. And with the EHP penalty, gankers would too. Too bad that CCP doesn't allow those kinds of choices anymore. Today its "How many MLU II do you want?" For combat ships, it would be as if CCP just decided to remove all speed mods, and then gave some types of ships built-in MWDs. Thats what they did here, for Exhumers. Tiericide shouldn't mean 'dumbing down'.Also, I the 'special rigs' for Ice or Merx concept was a slapped on, rushed fail-job. Goes a long way to illustrate how little thought or effort they put into the Aug. 8 Patch. It was simply a reactive lurch to get it done ASAP, rather than doing it properly in the winter expansion. At minimum there should have been a 3rd rig for 'standard Ore'. Why should miners be punished for mining Ice or Merx? Why not just get rid of them entirely?
Can't believe it but, I am agreeing with you more and more...lol :p |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
632
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 17:47:00 -
[3453] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:baltec1 wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote: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. Mack got a CPU buff with the update. You can tank them very well even with a hulks base ehp. I might be part of the corp who brought about the gank destroyers but I also gave miners the supertank barges. We know how to make these things fortresses. 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. And a Navy Apoc can't fit all Tachyon Beams without a powergrid upgrade. So? http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Yokai Mitsuhide
Exiled Mining
1967
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 18:00:00 -
[3454] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:baltec1 wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote: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. Mack got a CPU buff with the update. You can tank them very well even with a hulks base ehp. I might be part of the corp who brought about the gank destroyers but I also gave miners the supertank barges. We know how to make these things fortresses. 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. And a Navy Apoc can't fit all Tachyon Beams without a powergrid upgrade. So?
Oh so you're totally fine with nerfing our ship...but if we want a tiny increase in cpu so we have better options when fitting it..thats just out of the question. If you want more use out of these ships or more options for miners...we need the ability to be able to fit the entire 6 ship lineup we have. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
632
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 18:39:00 -
[3455] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:baltec1 wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote: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. Mack got a CPU buff with the update. You can tank them very well even with a hulks base ehp. I might be part of the corp who brought about the gank destroyers but I also gave miners the supertank barges. We know how to make these things fortresses. 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. And a Navy Apoc can't fit all Tachyon Beams without a powergrid upgrade. So? Oh so you're totally fine with nerfing our ship...but if we want a tiny increase in cpu so we have better options when fitting it..thats just out of the question. If you want more use out of these ships or more options for miners...we need the ability to be able to fit the entire 6 ship lineup we have. You already do. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1289
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 18:49:00 -
[3456] - Quote
I did find my CPU lacking for my Mack (2 IMU2s a DC and some meta 4 invultns with T2 icers) and had to use CPU rigs. But my shields skills, including the one that reduces CPU cost, are crap. So I may be able to get it down to one CPU rig later.
Strangely, the hulk was much easier to fit, though got a little less EHP since I expect bonuses and support from an Orca. |
Yokai Mitsuhide
Exiled Mining
2010
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 19:20:00 -
[3457] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:I did find my CPU lacking for my Mack (2 IMU2s a DC and some meta 4 invultns with T2 icers) and had to use CPU rigs. But my shields skills, including the one that reduces CPU cost, are crap. So I may be able to get it down to one CPU rig later.
Strangely, the hulk was much easier to fit, though got a little less EHP since I expect bonuses and support from an Orca.
With all 5's related to fitting, you can get it down to 1 cpu rig but id really like to be able to not need even that. I think the fact that miners only have such a small handful of ships...the 3 exhumers should get a little extra cpu/pg |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
632
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 19:47:00 -
[3458] - Quote
Again, since you seem incapable of comprehending: many PVP ships have to use fitting mods and/or rigs as well. Why should the exhumers be any different? http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Yokai Mitsuhide
Exiled Mining
2027
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 19:49:00 -
[3459] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Again, since you seem incapable of comprehending: many PVP ships have to use fitting mods and/or rigs as well. Why should the exhumers be any different?
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. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
632
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 20:07:00 -
[3460] - Quote
If you want more tank, then maybe you should fly the exhumer that's designed for tank. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
|
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1289
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 20:07:00 -
[3461] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Again, since you seem incapable of comprehending: many PVP ships have to use fitting mods and/or rigs as well. Why should the exhumers be any different? 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. Miners are grouped with industrialists, so we also have all the Indies, plus the Orca and for non HS ops, the Rorq. |
Infinite Force
Hammer Of Light Covenant of the Phoenix Alliance
136
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 20:21:00 -
[3462] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:If you want more tank, then maybe you should fly the exhumer that's designed for tank. Bah .. "Use an Orca" (tm) HROLT CEO Live Free; Die Proud
Hammer Mineral Compression - The only way to go! |
Yokai Mitsuhide
Exiled Mining
2037
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 20:32:00 -
[3463] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Again, since you seem incapable of comprehending: many PVP ships have to use fitting mods and/or rigs as well. Why should the exhumers be any different? 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. Miners are grouped with industrialists, so we also have all the Indies, plus the Orca and for non HS ops, the Rorq.
Mining ships, Rorq/Orca can't mine(Minus drones) and really...industrial ships are very stupid for mining in. It's not like im asking for a game breaking change, I just think a slight buff to the CPU output of the mackinaw and in return you lower the base HP. That way we could easily fit all of our slots for tanking if we so choose without the need of a cpu upgrade/rig or implants. It wouldn't create an imbalance at all, and I still think exhumers deserve it for being the top tier mining ship you can get. Ill stop complaining if they say create Tech 3 mining barges for us to customize ourselves or create higher end mining vessels. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
632
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 20:44:00 -
[3464] - Quote
No, you don't deserve anything. You have enough CPU to fit a decent tank along with mining lasers. Why do you want more? http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
104
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 20:54:00 -
[3465] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:No, you don't deserve anything. You have enough CPU to fit a decent tank along with mining lasers. Why do you want more?
Pretty sure its so he can fit 3MLU's and a Ice rig. Greedy pigs are greedy pigs |
baltec1
Bat Country
2085
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 20:55:00 -
[3466] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:
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.
You simply haven't found the way to do it. The old mack could be made gank proof so the new one is even easyer. I'll see about posting some fits when I get access to my PC. |
Yokai Mitsuhide
Exiled Mining
2037
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 20:57:00 -
[3467] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:No, you don't deserve anything. You have enough CPU to fit a decent tank along with mining lasers. Why do you want more?
I don't want more...unless they nerf the hitpoints. If it stays the way it is now, I'm fine the way it is...but if it gets nerfed...we deserve more cpu. It deserves more than a "decent" tank...you can't train any higher mining ships than exhumers. Would be like me complaining that Titans have too much ehp and do to much dps. Why should they get both huge tanks and high dps? Shouldn't that have to pick? No..they shouldn't because thats what they are designed for...just like exhumers are the best line of ships for miners..they should at least feel like they are. So I think they should be left alone until CCP designs a new line of higher end mining ships. |
Yokai Mitsuhide
Exiled Mining
2037
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 20:58:00 -
[3468] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:
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.
You simply haven't found the way to do it. The old mack could be made gank proof so the new one is even easyer. I'll see about posting some fits when I get access to my PC.
Nothing is Gank proof dude, you know this.
|
Yokai Mitsuhide
Exiled Mining
2037
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 20:59:00 -
[3469] - Quote
MIrple wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:No, you don't deserve anything. You have enough CPU to fit a decent tank along with mining lasers. Why do you want more? Pretty sure its so he can fit 3MLU's and a Ice rig. Greedy pigs are greedy pigs
I like your reading abilities. I said previously that I don't care about yield or isk/hr so I don't fit any mining upgrades...I fit all tank. Learn to read before making stupid comments. |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
105
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 21:00:00 -
[3470] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:No, you don't deserve anything. You have enough CPU to fit a decent tank along with mining lasers. Why do you want more? I don't want more...unless they nerf the hitpoints. If it stays the way it is now, I'm fine the way it is...but if it gets nerfed...we deserve more cpu. It deserves more than a "decent" tank...you can't train any higher mining ships than exhumers. Would be like me complaining that Titans have too much ehp and do to much dps. Why should they get both huge tanks and high dps? Shouldn't that have to pick? No..they shouldn't because thats what they are designed for...just like exhumers are the best line of ships for miners..they should at least feel like they are. So I think they should be left alone until CCP designs a new line of higher end mining ships.
And here is where you show you don't know anything about the game. The Titan can either do High DPS or have a Huge Tank it can not do both at the same time. |
|
Abel Merkabah
The Executioners Capital Punishment.
144
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 21:04:00 -
[3471] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:baltec1 wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:
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.
You simply haven't found the way to do it. The old mack could be made gank proof so the new one is even easyer. I'll see about posting some fits when I get access to my PC. Nothing is Gank proof dude, you know this.
I'm sure plenty of miners that fly intelligently would argue against that statement...and they probably don't even need to fit a tank...
Fly smart and pay attention to your surroundings and you will be effectively gank proof... James315 for CSM 8! |
Yokai Mitsuhide
Exiled Mining
2037
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 21:04:00 -
[3472] - Quote
MIrple wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:No, you don't deserve anything. You have enough CPU to fit a decent tank along with mining lasers. Why do you want more? I don't want more...unless they nerf the hitpoints. If it stays the way it is now, I'm fine the way it is...but if it gets nerfed...we deserve more cpu. It deserves more than a "decent" tank...you can't train any higher mining ships than exhumers. Would be like me complaining that Titans have too much ehp and do to much dps. Why should they get both huge tanks and high dps? Shouldn't that have to pick? No..they shouldn't because thats what they are designed for...just like exhumers are the best line of ships for miners..they should at least feel like they are. So I think they should be left alone until CCP designs a new line of higher end mining ships. And here is where you show you don't know anything about the game. The Titan can either do High DPS or have a Huge Tank it can not do both at the same time.
Nice way to deflect your inability to read :) You're right, the fact that I'm not a pro on Titans means I don't know anything about EVE at all :) |
Abel Merkabah
The Executioners Capital Punishment.
144
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 21:12:00 -
[3473] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:Abel Merkabah wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:baltec1 wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:
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.
You simply haven't found the way to do it. The old mack could be made gank proof so the new one is even easyer. I'll see about posting some fits when I get access to my PC. Nothing is Gank proof dude, you know this. I'm sure plenty of miners that fly intelligently would argue against that statement...and they probably don't even need to fit a tank... Fly smart and pay attention to your surroundings and you will be effectively gank proof... That doesn't keep you safe. Nothing stopping the gank crew from having a scout warp in in a harmless looking ship getting close to you and creating a bookmark or having the others warp to him. By the time you see what is going on...you won't have time to escape. And I am not saying you should have time to escape...if you're not tanked and get caught by suicide gankers you deserve it...but that isn't what this is about. It's about making the Mackinaw more balanced in comparison to the other 2 which I can admit it's not... but some people just want to nerf it too much.
Really, because if you are mining aligned to safe spots, you can warp out before they can lock...how do they gank you if they can't lock?...hmmm? You simply need a little prep in the system you are in and to be there paying attention so you can warp when they hit grid. And if you are using DScan defensively, you should see them while they are warping in, to be ready for it.
But I guess that is probably asking for too much active play... James315 for CSM 8! |
MIrple
BSC LEGION Tactical Narcotics Team
105
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 21:13:00 -
[3474] - Quote
The Exhumers should follow this in my opinion we will call it Hi/Low/Low
Skiff Hi tank Low cargo Low Yield
Mak Hi Cargo Low tank Low Yield
Hulk Hi Yield Low tank Low Cargo
What we have atm is
Hulk Hi low low Mak Med Med Hi Skif Hi Med Med
|
Yokai Mitsuhide
Exiled Mining
2038
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 21:14:00 -
[3475] - Quote
Abel Merkabah wrote:
Really, because if you are mining aligned to safe spots, you can warp out before they can lock...how do they gank you if they can't lock?...hmmm? You simply need a little prep in the system you are in and to be there paying attention so you can warp when they hit grid. And if you are using DScan defensively, you should see them while they are warping in, to be ready for it.
But I guess that is probably asking for too much active play...
If you're aligned and moving sure...its hard to stop you. But if you're aligned and moving you're constantly out of range of your asteriods so thats just not gonna happen and would make mining even less desirable. If you're aligned but not moving...no, they will lock you before you can warp. I feel like none of you have ever mined before...you should try being on both sides before arguing about it. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2085
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 21:18:00 -
[3476] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:
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.
Its like giving my megathron more powergrid or CPU. They dont need it and if you give them more room it means you dont have to make hard choices with fittings. The mack has the CPU to do its job. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
634
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 21:19:00 -
[3477] - Quote
Because getting a corp frigate to web you is too much ******* work to make sure your precious exhumer can warp out at the first sign of trouble.
We've listed literally dozens of ways in this thread you can keep yourself safe, but the fact that you refuse to do these, got the buff, and still feel entitled to more protection from CCP infuriates me and anybody else who understands this game.
It's not ganker tears, it's "our favorite gaming company is selling out to the lowest common denominator" tears. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Abel Merkabah
The Executioners Capital Punishment.
145
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 21:21:00 -
[3478] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:Abel Merkabah wrote:
Really, because if you are mining aligned to safe spots, you can warp out before they can lock...how do they gank you if they can't lock?...hmmm? You simply need a little prep in the system you are in and to be there paying attention so you can warp when they hit grid. And if you are using DScan defensively, you should see them while they are warping in, to be ready for it.
But I guess that is probably asking for too much active play...
If you're aligned and moving sure...its hard to stop you. But if you're aligned and moving you're constantly out of range of your asteriods so thats just not gonna happen and would make mining even less desirable. If you're aligned but not moving...no, they will lock you before you can warp. I feel like none of you have ever mined before...you should try being on both sides before arguing about it.
There are methods of doing exactly that. Setup book marks around the belts over 150km away, then you can switch alignment to different bookmarks as you need to stay in range effectively forcing an orbit around the roid constantly aligned; even better if you can mine with someone else and web each other. Also better to have your bookmarks off grid, the more distance, the more variation in bearing is allowed while still staying "aligned".
Just because you don't know doesn't mean it is not possible. James315 for CSM 8! |
Yokai Mitsuhide
Exiled Mining
2039
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 21:22:00 -
[3479] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Because getting a corp frigate to web you is too much ******* work to make sure your precious exhumer can warp out at the first sign of trouble.
We've listed literally dozens of ways in this thread you can keep yourself safe, but the fact that you refuse to do these, got the buff, and still feel entitled to more protection from CCP infuriates me and anybody else who understands this game.
It's not ganker tears, it's "our favorite gaming company is selling out to the lowest common denominator" tears.
I don't think I am entitled to anything, you could remove exhumers tomorrow I would find something else to do in EVE. I am just trying to figure out with you guys who want the Mackinaw nerfed...something that would still keep miners happy without keeping things unbalanced. |
Abel Merkabah
The Executioners Capital Punishment.
145
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 21:22:00 -
[3480] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Because getting a corp frigate to web you is too much ******* work to make sure your precious exhumer can warp out at the first sign of trouble.
We've listed literally dozens of ways in this thread you can keep yourself safe, but the fact that you refuse to do these, got the buff, and still feel entitled to more protection from CCP infuriates me and anybody else who understands this game.
It's not ganker tears, it's "our favorite gaming company is selling out to the lowest common denominator" tears.
It's like you are channeling my thoughts...
GET OUT OF MY MIND!!!! James315 for CSM 8! |
|
Hypercake Mix
Magical Rainbow Bakery
34
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 21:23:00 -
[3481] - Quote
Could use a Skiff to find targets. No one would suspect a Skiff with a passive targeter and ship scanner until they read this post. Maybe can even bump with nanos and crafty AB usage. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
634
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 21:25:00 -
[3482] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Because getting a corp frigate to web you is too much ******* work to make sure your precious exhumer can warp out at the first sign of trouble.
We've listed literally dozens of ways in this thread you can keep yourself safe, but the fact that you refuse to do these, got the buff, and still feel entitled to more protection from CCP infuriates me and anybody else who understands this game.
It's not ganker tears, it's "our favorite gaming company is selling out to the lowest common denominator" tears. I don't think I am entitled to anything, you could remove exhumers tomorrow I would find something else to do in EVE. I am just trying to figure out with you guys who want the Mackinaw nerfed...something that would still keep miners happy without keeping things unbalanced. You do realize what we're suggesting is also a buff to the Hulk, right?
All this would mean is that the Mackinaw isn't the end all be all ship of choice, be it solo play or fleet. The Hulk will be the definitive fleet option, and the Mackinaw will still be a solo option but you'll simply be required to pay more attention to your ship instead of going semi-AFK. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Yokai Mitsuhide
Exiled Mining
2039
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 21:26:00 -
[3483] - Quote
Abel Merkabah wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:Abel Merkabah wrote:
Really, because if you are mining aligned to safe spots, you can warp out before they can lock...how do they gank you if they can't lock?...hmmm? You simply need a little prep in the system you are in and to be there paying attention so you can warp when they hit grid. And if you are using DScan defensively, you should see them while they are warping in, to be ready for it.
But I guess that is probably asking for too much active play...
If you're aligned and moving sure...its hard to stop you. But if you're aligned and moving you're constantly out of range of your asteriods so thats just not gonna happen and would make mining even less desirable. If you're aligned but not moving...no, they will lock you before you can warp. I feel like none of you have ever mined before...you should try being on both sides before arguing about it. There are methods of doing exactly that. Setup book marks around the belts over 150km away, then you can switch alignment to different bookmarks as you need to stay in range effectively forcing an orbit around the roid constantly aligned; even better if you can mine with someone else and web each other. Also better to have your bookmarks off grid, the more distance, the more variation in bearing is allowed while still staying "aligned". Just because you don't know doesn't mean it is not possible.
Honestly you expect to much from the dullest profession in EVE. You expect miners to do too much while having low hit point ships, while Gankers literally just have to warp in, target, press f1. You are only thinking of yourselves... |
Yokai Mitsuhide
Exiled Mining
2039
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 21:27:00 -
[3484] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Because getting a corp frigate to web you is too much ******* work to make sure your precious exhumer can warp out at the first sign of trouble.
We've listed literally dozens of ways in this thread you can keep yourself safe, but the fact that you refuse to do these, got the buff, and still feel entitled to more protection from CCP infuriates me and anybody else who understands this game.
It's not ganker tears, it's "our favorite gaming company is selling out to the lowest common denominator" tears. I don't think I am entitled to anything, you could remove exhumers tomorrow I would find something else to do in EVE. I am just trying to figure out with you guys who want the Mackinaw nerfed...something that would still keep miners happy without keeping things unbalanced. You do realize what we're suggesting is also a buff to the Hulk, right? All this would mean is that the Mackinaw isn't the end all be all ship of choice, be it solo play or fleet. The Hulk will be the definitive fleet option, and the Mackinaw will still be a solo option but you'll simply be required to pay more attention to your ship instead of going semi-AFK.
I am completely fine with that too! But I still think you guys want to nerf the Mackinaw just a little too much. The small added CPU inplace of downgrading the hitpoints would be a fair tradeoff in my opinion. Or am I missing something that would create a larger issue here? |
Abel Merkabah
The Executioners Capital Punishment.
145
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 21:28:00 -
[3485] - Quote
Hypercake Mix wrote:Could use a Skiff to find targets. No one would suspect a Skiff with a passive targeter and ship scanner until they read this post. Maybe can even bump with nanos and crafty AB usage.
So how much is a skiff right now? I'm assuming you mean the skiff would apply the point to prevent the miner from leaving?
If that is the case, then enjoy having that skiff corded. Not cost effective. And if I were a miner I'd be ready to leave as soon as some entered point range...that is just prudence. James315 for CSM 8! |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
634
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 21:31:00 -
[3486] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:Honestly you expect to much from the dullest profession in EVE. You expect miners to do too much while having low hit point ships, while Gankers literally just have to warp in, target, press f1. You are only thinking of yourselves... If a ganker actually has an objective other than simply destroying your ship, it's a bit more complicated than that.
If they want to make it cost-effective for example, the ganker has to pre-scout and scan the exhumers to find the untanked ones, and gank those. See, the thing about tank is it's supposed to discourage ganks from happening in the first place, not because the tank will help all that much if they really want to break your tank.
Gankers are lazy, and 9/10 times they'll only target you if you make yourself an easy target. So don't. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Abel Merkabah
The Executioners Capital Punishment.
145
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 21:34:00 -
[3487] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:Abel Merkabah wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:Abel Merkabah wrote:
Really, because if you are mining aligned to safe spots, you can warp out before they can lock...how do they gank you if they can't lock?...hmmm? You simply need a little prep in the system you are in and to be there paying attention so you can warp when they hit grid. And if you are using DScan defensively, you should see them while they are warping in, to be ready for it.
But I guess that is probably asking for too much active play...
If you're aligned and moving sure...its hard to stop you. But if you're aligned and moving you're constantly out of range of your asteriods so thats just not gonna happen and would make mining even less desirable. If you're aligned but not moving...no, they will lock you before you can warp. I feel like none of you have ever mined before...you should try being on both sides before arguing about it. There are methods of doing exactly that. Setup book marks around the belts over 150km away, then you can switch alignment to different bookmarks as you need to stay in range effectively forcing an orbit around the roid constantly aligned; even better if you can mine with someone else and web each other. Also better to have your bookmarks off grid, the more distance, the more variation in bearing is allowed while still staying "aligned". Just because you don't know doesn't mean it is not possible. Honestly you expect to much from the dullest profession in EVE. You expect miners to do too much while having low hit point ships, while Gankers literally just have to warp in, target, press f1. You are only thinking of yourselves...
1. Maybe if miners were constantly busy protecting themselves it would be so god awful boring to mine. And god forbid miners have to take some of the same protective precautions PvP players do to survive.
2. I have never once ganked a miner; I just do not care for scrubs; whine for mechanics changes when they really need to just learn 2 play. How does it make you feel that I apparently know more about protecting yourself as a miner then you, and I have not mined since the tutorial. Classic case of scrub behavior coming from this thread. James315 for CSM 8! |
Yokai Mitsuhide
Exiled Mining
2039
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 21:34:00 -
[3488] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:Honestly you expect to much from the dullest profession in EVE. You expect miners to do too much while having low hit point ships, while Gankers literally just have to warp in, target, press f1. You are only thinking of yourselves... If a ganker actually has an objective other than simply destroying your ship, it's a bit more complicated than that. If they want to make it cost-effective for example, the ganker has to pre-scout and scan the exhumers to find the untanked ones, and gank those. See, the thing about tank is it's supposed to discourage ganks from happening in the first place, not because the tank will help all that much if they really want to break your tank. Gankers are lazy, and 9/10 times they'll only target you if you make yourself an easy target. So don't.
You're right. As long as the nerfing to the mackinaw doesn't make it easy to kill while tanked I guess I have nothing to really complain about. Perhaps I was expecting a little to much :) |
Yokai Mitsuhide
Exiled Mining
2039
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 21:37:00 -
[3489] - Quote
Abel Merkabah wrote:
2. I have never once ganked a miner; I just do not care for scrubs; whine for mechanics changes when they really need to just learn 2 play. How does it make you feel that I apparently know more about protecting yourself as a miner then you, and I have not mined since the tutorial. Classic case of scrub behavior coming from this thread.
I underlined the part I find hilarious as you have one currently in your signature. You don't care for those who whine for mechanics changes yet that is all James 315 does...lol. But lets get back on topic.
There is no need to get hostile, its just a game :)
Edit: although...you're whining about changing the Mackinaw....so, you're a hypocrite. :) |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
636
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 21:48:00 -
[3490] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:Honestly you expect to much from the dullest profession in EVE. You expect miners to do too much while having low hit point ships, while Gankers literally just have to warp in, target, press f1. You are only thinking of yourselves... If a ganker actually has an objective other than simply destroying your ship, it's a bit more complicated than that. If they want to make it cost-effective for example, the ganker has to pre-scout and scan the exhumers to find the untanked ones, and gank those. See, the thing about tank is it's supposed to discourage ganks from happening in the first place, not because the tank will help all that much if they really want to break your tank. Gankers are lazy, and 9/10 times they'll only target you if you make yourself an easy target. So don't. You're right. As long as the nerfing to the mackinaw doesn't make it easy to kill while tanked I guess I have nothing to really complain about. Perhaps I was expecting a little to much :) Anything can be easy to kill as long as the ganker brings enough firepower, but on the Hulk right now you can easily discourage ganking by fitting a tank. With the EHP switch the same will be true for the Mackinaw, and the Hulk will be able to focus a bit more on getting the higher yield, which is after all its role. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
|
Abel Merkabah
The Executioners Capital Punishment.
147
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 21:50:00 -
[3491] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:Abel Merkabah wrote:
2. I have never once ganked a miner; I just do not care for scrubs; whine for mechanics changes when they really need to just learn 2 play. How does it make you feel that I apparently know more about protecting yourself as a miner then you, and I have not mined since the tutorial. Classic case of scrub behavior coming from this thread.
I underlined the part I find hilarious as you have one currently in your signature. You don't care for those who whine for mechanics changes yet that is all James 315 does...lol. But lets get back on topic. There is no need to get hostile, its just a game :) Edit: although...you're whining about changing the Mackinaw....so, you're a hypocrite. :)
I haven't whined once in favor of a change for the mining barges; I have argued that there is no reason for changes. All I've done is point out that you can protect yourself. Nice ad hominen, no real argument, so you resort to attempting to discredit me.
Take the advice offered in this thread and you will be fine. Fly safe. James315 for CSM 8! |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
286
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 21:54:00 -
[3492] - Quote
MIrple wrote: What we have atm is
Hulk Hi low low Mak Med Med Hi Skif Hi Med Med
You have one too many med's in there. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
637
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 22:12:00 -
[3493] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:MIrple wrote: What we have atm is
Hulk Hi low low Mak Med Med Hi Skif Hi Med Med
You have one too many med's in there. He needs his meds, don't take them away from him. You cruel, heartless bastard. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Johan Civire
Dirty Curse inc.
106
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 23:00:00 -
[3494] - Quote
MIrple wrote:The Exhumers should follow this in my opinion we will call it Hi/Low/Low
Skiff Hi tank Low cargo Low Yield
Mak Hi Cargo Low tank Low Yield
Hulk Hi Yield Low tank Low Cargo
What we have atm is
Hulk Hi low low Mak Med Med Hi Skif Hi Med Med
Its a new song right? |
Infinite Force
Hammer Of Light Covenant of the Phoenix Alliance
136
|
Posted - 2012.09.07 23:25:00 -
[3495] - Quote
Johan Civire wrote:MIrple wrote:The Exhumers should follow this in my opinion we will call it Hi/Low/Low
Skiff Hi tank Low cargo Low Yield
Mak Hi Cargo Low tank Low Yield
Hulk Hi Yield Low tank Low Cargo
What we have atm is
Hulk Hi low low Mak Med Med Hi Skif Hi Med Med
Its a new song right? I can't help it ....
Sung to the tune of the 7 Dwarfs "Hi Ho" from the original Snow White.
Hi low, hi low, it's off to mine we go, With Miner II's and M L U's, hi low, hi low, hi low
Hi low, hi low, it's back to mids we go, To tank a Mack like quarterbacks, hi low, hi low, hi low
Hi low, hi low, it's off to Skiffs we go, To bait our prey and make our day, hi low, hi low, hi low
Hi low, hi low, it's back to Hulks we go, They have the yield just need a field to mine, to mine, to mine
I'm done, I'm done, this song is really done.
/facepalm ..... LOL HROLT CEO Live Free; Die Proud
Hammer Mineral Compression - The only way to go! |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
290
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 02:42:00 -
[3496] - Quote
Infinite Force wrote: I can't help it ....
Sung to the tune of the 7 Dwarfs "Hi Ho" from the original Snow White.
Hi low, hi low, it's off to mine we go, With Miner II's and M L U's, hi low, hi low, hi low
Hi low, hi low, it's back to mids we go, To tank a Mack like quarterbacks, hi low, hi low, hi low
Hi low, hi low, it's off to Skiffs we go, To bait our prey and make our day, hi low, hi low, hi low
Hi low, hi low, it's back to Hulks we go, They have the yield just need a field to mine, to mine, to mine
I'm done, I'm done, this song is really done.
/facepalm ..... LOL
That was very amusing |
Pipa Porto
884
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 05:36:00 -
[3497] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote: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.
So, you want more CPU so you can fit more tan K, is that It? I think that you'll Find that CCP has provided you with a Fine ship that's designed to fill your needs.
If only I could remember it's name. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Hypercake Mix
Magical Rainbow Bakery
34
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 06:43:00 -
[3498] - Quote
Abel Merkabah wrote:So how much is a skiff right now? I'm assuming you mean the skiff would apply the point to prevent the miner from leaving?
If that is the case, then enjoy having that skiff corded. Not cost effective. And if I were a miner I'd be ready to leave as soon as some entered point range...that is just prudence.
Of course not! It's just to gather intel, as ganking can be team PvP activity. The greens scout out for potential targets and lead the reds to the prey. Hell, brush up to the unsuspecting miner and have the dessies warp to zero on you. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
171
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 06:59:00 -
[3499] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:So, you want more CPU so you can fit more tan K, is that It? I think that you'll Find that CCP has provided you with a Fine ship that's designed to fill your needs.
If only I could remember it's name.
When you gankers were ganking 10 Hulks with just one Tornado, you said miners should tank their ships. Now you want all miners to forget that tanking thing and go for full yield so you can gank 10 Hulks and get 250M from doing it.
Funny how some people still think that tanked Skiff can't be ganked... |
Hypercake Mix
Magical Rainbow Bakery
34
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 07:31:00 -
[3500] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Funny how some people still think that tanked Skiff can't be ganked...
Can be. Rarely is it ever worth the effort. |
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
171
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 07:39:00 -
[3501] - Quote
Hypercake Mix wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Funny how some people still think that tanked Skiff can't be ganked... Can be. Rarely is it ever worth the effort.
Get ganker friends and effort required is smaller. |
Soundwave Plays Diablo
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
120
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 07:39:00 -
[3502] - Quote
Hypercake Mix wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Funny how some people still think that tanked Skiff can't be ganked... Can be. Rarely is it ever worth the effort.
Its always worth it when I see the smiles on the kids faces. There's some things that ISK can't buy.
Miners write the best hatemail.
|
Hypercake Mix
Magical Rainbow Bakery
34
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 08:04:00 -
[3503] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Get ganker friends and effort required is smaller. Rarely is it ever worth the combined effort.
Could get 5 buddies and gank 5 Mackinaws and get 5 hate-mails or gank 1 Skiff and get one "GJ" in local.
Edit: Though, I could be overestimating the way people fit their Skiff. Mine doesn't undock without an AB. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2088
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 08:12:00 -
[3504] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Again, since you seem incapable of comprehending: many PVP ships have to use fitting mods and/or rigs as well. Why should the exhumers be any different? 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.
Black ops have a choice of 4 ships. Bombers have a choice of 4 ships. Logistics have a choice of 2 ships.
|
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
171
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 08:41:00 -
[3505] - Quote
Hypercake Mix wrote:Edit: Though, I could be overestimating the way people fit their Skiff. Mine doesn't undock without an AB.
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
|
baltec1
Bat Country
2088
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 08:43:00 -
[3506] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Hypercake Mix wrote:Edit: Though, I could be overestimating the way people fit their Skiff. Mine doesn't undock without an AB. 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
Willing to be there is someone stupid enough to do this. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
171
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 08:48:00 -
[3507] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Willing to be there is someone stupid enough to do this.
I've tried to fit MWD. Not enough PG. |
Hypercake Mix
Magical Rainbow Bakery
34
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 09:11:00 -
[3508] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:I've tried to fit MWD. Not enough PG. Here ya go.
[Skiff, Mario Kart] Navy Micro Auxiliary Power Core Navy Micro Auxiliary Power Core
10MN Digital Booster Rockets Federation Navy Stasis Webifier Domination Warp Disruptor [empty med slot] [empty med slot]
[empty high slot]
Medium Ancillary Current Router II Medium Ancillary Current Router II
w/ both Geno implants and 6% PG implant. |
Pipa Porto
884
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 14:26:00 -
[3509] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:So, you want more CPU so you can fit more tan K, is that It? I think that you'll Find that CCP has provided you with a Fine ship that's designed to fill your needs.
If only I could remember it's name. When you gankers were ganking 10 Hulks with just one Tornado, you said miners should tank their ships. Now you want all miners to forget that tanking thing and go for full yield so you can gank 10 Hulks and get 250M from doing it. Funny how some people still think that tanked Skiff can't be ganked...
Where did anyone say miners shouldn't tank their ships? All we're saying is that CCP shouldn't be tanking the miners ships for them (besides the skiff, being that it actually sacrifices something for its tank).
Explain exactly how you can make a profit (or break even) ganking a Skiff. Keep in mind that profitable (or at least break-even) ganking is the only thing that allows industrialized ganking, which is the only thing that provides any significant risk to the HS mining fleet. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Yokai Mitsuhide
Exiled Mining
2100
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 14:39:00 -
[3510] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Again, since you seem incapable of comprehending: many PVP ships have to use fitting mods and/or rigs as well. Why should the exhumers be any different? 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. Black ops have a choice of 4 ships. Bombers have a choice of 4 ships. Logistics have a choice of 2 ships.
But overall hundreds of ships that are combat based....mining still only has the 3 barges and 3 exhumers. |
|
Hypercake Mix
Magical Rainbow Bakery
35
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 15:07:00 -
[3511] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Explain exactly how you can make a profit (or break even) ganking a Skiff. Keep in mind that profitable (or at least break-even) ganking is the only thing that allows industrialized ganking, which is the only thing that provides any significant risk to the HS mining fleet. SkiffGuy gets ganked by a few Tornados. SkiffGuy: *totally racist British accent* Good show ol' chaps. You're the first to successfully gank my tug-boat 'ere. *gives 500mil to gankers* I say, I applaud that jolly good show!
Well... that'd probably never happen. Maybe if you caught a Skiff on a gate that was sitting there all day and two gank attempts already happened on it and it's on fire from sitting in low structure and you found out it's got a bunch of deadspace mods on it. That probably wouldn't happen either.
Whatever. Casual high-sec mining is for when you feel a need for mystical space-zen meditation or those "how the heck did we run out of ammo" moments when your hauler guy went afk looking for his cat six hours ago. |
Abel Merkabah
The Executioners Capital Punishment.
157
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 15:59:00 -
[3512] - Quote
Hypercake Mix wrote:Abel Merkabah wrote:So how much is a skiff right now? I'm assuming you mean the skiff would apply the point to prevent the miner from leaving?
If that is the case, then enjoy having that skiff corded. Not cost effective. And if I were a miner I'd be ready to leave as soon as some entered point range...that is just prudence. Of course not! It's just to gather intel, as ganking can be team PvP activity. The greens scout out for potential targets and lead the reds to the prey. Hell, brush up to the unsuspecting miner and have the dessies warp to zero on you.
If the miner is doing it right it doesn't matter. Second hostile type ships land on grid, warp away; that is the point. If you mine correctly, use DScan, and aren't an idiot, mining is nearly gank proof, no matter what the gankers try to do. James315 for CSM 8! |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1289
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 16:43:00 -
[3513] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:baltec1 wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Again, since you seem incapable of comprehending: many PVP ships have to use fitting mods and/or rigs as well. Why should the exhumers be any different? 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. Black ops have a choice of 4 ships. Bombers have a choice of 4 ships. Logistics have a choice of 2 ships. But overall hundreds of ships that are combat based....mining still only has the 3 barges and 3 exhumers. But mining is not equivalent to combat. That would be industry.
Mining is a subset of industry, just as bomber or black ops is a subset of combat.
There just happen to be more subsets of combat than there are of industry. |
Pipa Porto
886
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 20:26:00 -
[3514] - Quote
Hypercake Mix wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Explain exactly how you can make a profit (or break even) ganking a Skiff. Keep in mind that profitable (or at least break-even) ganking is the only thing that allows industrialized ganking, which is the only thing that provides any significant risk to the HS mining fleet. SkiffGuy gets ganked by a few Tornados. SkiffGuy: *totally racist British accent* Good show ol' chaps. You're the first to successfully gank my tug-boat 'ere. *gives 500mil to gankers* I say, I applaud that jolly good show! Well... that'd probably never happen. Maybe if you caught a Skiff on a gate that was sitting there all day and two gank attempts already happened on it and it's on fire from sitting in low structure and you found out it's got a bunch of deadspace mods on it. That probably wouldn't happen either. Whatever. Casual high-sec mining is for when you feel a need for mystical space-zen meditation or those "how the heck did we run out of ammo" moments when your hauler guy went afk looking for his cat six hours ago.
If you want a meditative experience devoid of risk, you should have to use the Skiff which actually sacrifices something for it's safety. Right now, the Mack is strictly better, so why would you bother? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Agent Akari
Hobo Industries Inc
15
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 00:44:00 -
[3515] - Quote
Ganking mining barges in high sec is a myth. In Ardallabier there over 70-90 hulks and macks in the ice belt and there hasn't been a single gank here for over 48 hours.
Or can we say, the more miners are together, the safer we are? There are a ton of drones here too. |
Hypercake Mix
Magical Rainbow Bakery
36
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 05:27:00 -
[3516] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:If you want a meditative experience devoid of risk, you should have to use the Skiff which actually sacrifices something for it's safety. Right now, the Mack is strictly better, so why would you bother? Because it's fun kiting around my own mining drones as they struggle to bring rocks to me. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2094
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 05:40:00 -
[3517] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote: But overall hundreds of ships that are combat based....mining still only has the 3 barges and 3 exhumers.
Miners can use all of those combat ships too...
Logistic pilots still only have a choice of two ships. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
172
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 13:44:00 -
[3518] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Logistic pilots still only have a choice of two ships.
This is true but it's because armor logis are useless. |
Yokai Mitsuhide
Exiled Mining
2177
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 13:48:00 -
[3519] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote: But overall hundreds of ships that are combat based....mining still only has the 3 barges and 3 exhumers.
Miners can use all of those combat ships too... Logistic pilots still only have a choice of two ships.
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. |
Pipa Porto
889
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 14:01:00 -
[3520] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:baltec1 wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote: But overall hundreds of ships that are combat based....mining still only has the 3 barges and 3 exhumers.
Miners can use all of those combat ships too... Logistic pilots still only have a choice of two ships. 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.
baltec1 wrote:Miners can use all of those combat ships too...
Anyway, like someone else said, mining is a subset of industry like Blops, or Recons, or Bombers are subsets of combat ships. Instead of cool high end ships, you get cool high end manufacturing capabilities. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
649
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 14:46:00 -
[3521] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:baltec1 wrote:Logistic pilots still only have a choice of two ships. This is true but it's because armor logis are useless. No, it's true because for any gang you'll be using either armor or shield. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
baltec1
Bat Country
2100
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 16:19:00 -
[3522] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:baltec1 wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote: But overall hundreds of ships that are combat based....mining still only has the 3 barges and 3 exhumers.
Miners can use all of those combat ships too... Logistic pilots still only have a choice of two ships. 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.
Miners can use all of those combat ships too...
In case you missed it I said it again. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
172
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 16:23:00 -
[3523] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:No, it's true because for any gang you'll be using either armor or shield.
Nobody uses armor in fleets. Scimi and Basi are superior in big fleets compared to armor logis. I've seen many Abaddons with shield buffer. |
Buck Futz
Suddenly Violence Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
76
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 16:48:00 -
[3524] - Quote
Are we complaining about not enough mining ships now? Six different barges/Exhumers, a new mining frigate on the way. Not to mention 4 different mining cruisers and some battleships are well suited to mining.
And the Orca. (Yes, its a mining ship, CCP said when it was stealth patched "it wasn't intended to be used by ninjas") And the Rorq.
|
Yokai Mitsuhide
Exiled Mining
2181
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 17:07:00 -
[3525] - Quote
Buck Futz wrote: Are we complaining about not enough mining ships now? Six different barges/Exhumers, a new mining frigate on the way. Not to mention 4 different mining cruisers and some battleships are well suited to mining.
And the Orca. (Yes, its a mining ship, CCP said when it was stealth patched "it wasn't intended to be used by ninjas") And the Rorq.
Cruisers are only used for mining until you're able to fly a barge. Which takes what? A week? There are years of combat related things to train for... after 3 months you're not able to train for a better mining ship because there isn't anything to train for.
The new mining frigate is useless to anyone who plans on a mining profession in eve...because a barge will be better and a week into playing you can be in one. Orca and Rorqual are mining ships sure...but they don't mine, so....they don't count. |
Buck Futz
Suddenly Violence Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
76
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 17:25:00 -
[3526] - Quote
Well, I'd wait to see the stats on the Frigate, one point of 'tiericide' is that ships are no longer brutally obsolete after a week - but to a point I agree, it isn't going to replace an Exhumer in 'safe' highsec.
Still, six barges, the Rohk and the Apoc isn't bad, plus the auxiliary ships.
I mean, how many different flavors of mining barge do you really need? |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
650
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 17:33:00 -
[3527] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:No, it's true because for any gang you'll be using either armor or shield. Nobody uses armor in fleets. Scimi and Basi are superior in big fleets compared to armor logis. I've seen many Abaddons with shield buffer. And I've flown in several Abaddon fleets which were armor tanked, with Guardian support. There are also armor HAC fleets which NCdot still enjoys using. The only reason shield is more popular in large fleets is because of the popularity of perma-MWD Drakes, welpcanes, and alpha fleets. It has nothing to do with the differences between shield and armor itself. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Yokai Mitsuhide
Exiled Mining
2181
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 17:35:00 -
[3528] - Quote
Buck Futz wrote:Well, I'd wait to see the stats on the Frigate, one point of 'tiericide' is that ships are no longer brutally obsolete after a week - but to a point I agree, it isn't going to replace an Exhumer in 'safe' highsec.
Still, six barges, the Rohk and the Apoc isn't bad, plus the auxiliary ships.
I mean, how many different flavors of mining barge do you really need?
What is the point of recommending a battleship for mining when a retriever is something you can fly a week into playing?
You're not seeing it from a miners perspective. People just expect mining to be a side profession you do when you're not off doing combat related things. Miners gather the resources to build everything, and we have a handful of ships that are even worth flying...and usually only half of that handful is worth flying lol. Could have racial exhumers for instance, each races versions would have different looks obviously, and be better at different aspect of mining/tanking/ect... That would create more variety for us, give us more to do, more to train for, more options. Instead we are getting an ORE Frigate... lol.
Sorry we are going a little off topic now.
TL;DR version More variety would be nice, and I don't think it would be terribly difficult to do.
OT: I've nothing left to say about the Mackinaw changes, I actually agree with you guys about the changes. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
172
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 17:41:00 -
[3529] - Quote
Buck Futz wrote:I mean, how many different flavors of mining barge do you really need?
Are you saying that old "Retriever then Hulk" was better than current?
James Amril-Kesh wrote:And I've flown in several Abaddon fleets which were armor tanked, with Guardian support.
That must have been many years ago... |
Buck Futz
Suddenly Violence Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
76
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 17:48:00 -
[3530] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Buck Futz wrote:I mean, how many different flavors of mining barge do you really need? Are you saying that old "Retriever then Hulk" was better than current?
Nope because before it was "Retriever then Hulk and Mack" Now its "Retriever and Mack."
So if anything, we've gone backwards.
|
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
650
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 17:50:00 -
[3531] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:That must have been many years ago... No. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1292
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 19:16:00 -
[3532] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:baltec1 wrote:Logistic pilots still only have a choice of two ships. This is true but it's because armor logis are useless. Interestingly, the majority of station game logis are Guardians. |
baltec1
Bat Country
2101
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 20:17:00 -
[3533] - Quote
Corina Jarr wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:baltec1 wrote:Logistic pilots still only have a choice of two ships. This is true but it's because armor logis are useless. Interestingly, the majority of station game logis are Guardians.
Armour logi are still good. The limiting factor is that the fleet will only use shield or armour. |
Yokai Mitsuhide
Exiled Mining
2314
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 20:19:00 -
[3534] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:
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.
nobody specialized in mining 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. It works both ways although you have three times more options than logistic pilots.
I only mine... |
baltec1
Bat Country
2101
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 20:21:00 -
[3535] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote: I only mine...
So you made the choice to limit yourself then didnt you. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
172
|
Posted - 2012.09.09 20:48:00 -
[3536] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:So you made the choice to limit yourself then didnt you.
Well, I limited my alt to Orca in the beginning, but I kinda had to train "a few" other skills too... So my alt is actually far better than my main in few special areas. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
651
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 05:03:00 -
[3537] - Quote
Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:baltec1 wrote:Yokai Mitsuhide wrote:
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.
nobody specialized in mining 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. It works both ways although you have three times more options than logistic pilots. I only mine... As baltec said, it was your choice then to limit yourself to those 6 ships. What role could more mining ships possibly fill? http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Pipa Porto
891
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 05:18:00 -
[3538] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:No, it's true because for any gang you'll be using either armor or shield. Nobody uses armor in fleets. Scimi and Basi are superior in big fleets compared to armor logis. I've seen many Abaddons with shield buffer.
Link one major fleet fight battle report with Shield Abaddons or stop lying. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Buck Futz
Suddenly Violence Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
76
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 07:11:00 -
[3539] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:No, it's true because for any gang you'll be using either armor or shield. Nobody uses armor in fleets. Scimi and Basi are superior in big fleets compared to armor logis. I've seen many Abaddons with shield buffer. Link one major fleet fight battle report with Shield Abaddons or stop lying.
This should be good. |
MinefieldS
1 Sick Duck Standss on something
126
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 08:14:00 -
[3540] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:No, it's true because for any gang you'll be using either armor or shield. Nobody uses armor in fleets. Scimi and Basi are superior in big fleets compared to armor logis. I've seen many Abaddons with shield buffer. Link one major fleet fight battle report with Shield Abaddons or stop lying. >> High>>>>>>>> ABSURDITY LEVEL >>>>> Extremely High >>>>>>>>> CCP dev blog >>>>>>>> Drake w/ lasers > Shield Abaddon > Wyvern w/ Gist X-Type X-Large Shield Booster |
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1422
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 11:58:00 -
[3541] - Quote
MinefieldS wrote: Wyvern w/ Gist X-Type X-Large Shield Booster I need to see this. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
baltec1
Bat Country
2107
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 18:16:00 -
[3542] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:MinefieldS wrote: Wyvern w/ Gist X-Type X-Large Shield Booster I need to see this.
I think I saw this one.
Not as good as the nyx that was lost to anom rats mind you. |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
172
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 18:35:00 -
[3543] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Link one major fleet fight battle report with Shield Abaddons or stop lying.
Goons use Drake blobs nowadays...
If you gankers want me to use Skiffs instead of Macks, could you guys be so nice and give 4 of those. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
654
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 18:47:00 -
[3544] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Link one major fleet fight battle report with Shield Abaddons or stop lying. Goons use Drake blobs nowadays... Yeah, cause that's the only thing they fly ever.
Also confirming Goons are the only alliance I could have possibly been talking about, as opposed to my own for example which does have a Hellcat (armor tanked megapulse Abaddon) doctrine complete with armor logi and tech 3 armor heavy tackle. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1440
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 18:58:00 -
[3545] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Link one major fleet fight battle report with Shield Abaddons or stop lying. Goons use Drake blobs nowadays... Yeah, cause that's the only thing they fly ever. Also confirming Goons are the only alliance I could have possibly been talking about, as opposed to my own for example which does have a Hellcat (armor tanked megapulse Abaddon) doctrine complete with armor logi and tech 3 armor heavy tackle. There are armor groups that go around. Just recently I saw xxDeath in their AHACs pew pewing with lasers.
Before and after that, I saw NC. and IRC sending armor HACs as well. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
betoli
Ketogenic Killzone
46
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 19:53:00 -
[3546] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote: As baltec said, it was your choice then to limit yourself to those 6 ships. What role could more mining ships possibly fill?
Given that CCP are planning an ORE frig, one might conjecture an ORE frig
Also stealthy, speedy, ewar defended, armor tanky, ranged, t3/reconfigurable. In fact one could list all the things that make the combat ships diverse apart from the attack specialisations....
Did CCP post recently that 25% of people mine? As such a large profession its fantastically under represented in ships - but mainly its under represented in effort. I think they'd be better spending their time on the mining game mechanics to reduce the botability and boredom factors than making a dozen more barges - though a cloaky T3 indy/hybrid miner one would be fun.
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
656
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 21:48:00 -
[3547] - Quote
betoli wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote: As baltec said, it was your choice then to limit yourself to those 6 ships. What role could more mining ships possibly fill?
Given that CCP are planning an ORE frig, one might conjecture an ORE frig Also stealthy, speedy, ewar defended, armor tanky, ranged, t3/reconfigurable. In fact one could list all the things that make the combat ships diverse apart from the attack specialisations.... Did CCP post recently that 25% of people mine? As such a large profession its fantastically under represented in ships - but mainly its under represented in effort. I think they'd be better spending their time on the mining game mechanics to reduce the botability and boredom factors than making a dozen more barges - though a cloaky T3 indy/hybrid miner one would be fun. The ORE frigate is meant to replace the racial mining frigates that were repurposed due to tiericide.
And why do you need any of those? You can fit a cloak to a mining barge, asking for a covert ops cloak is just ridiculous. The Skiff/Procurer have gotten pretty speedy. There's literally no reason to use ECM on a mining barge, so there's no reason to have EWAR defense. There's no real reason to need separate barges for armor tanking. There's no need for configurable barges. The point is that mining barges sit in one spot and extract ore. That's all they have to do. There's not really many different roles that would accomplish the exact same thing.
You want your tanky exhumer? Use a Skiff. Want cargo? Use a Mack. Want yield above all else? Use a Hulk. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Hypercake Mix
Magical Rainbow Bakery
42
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 22:20:00 -
[3548] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:The Skiff/Procurer have gotten pretty speedy. Procurers are not speedy. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
656
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 22:25:00 -
[3549] - Quote
Hypercake Mix wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:The Skiff/Procurer have gotten pretty speedy. Procurers are not speedy. 250 m/s for a mining barge isn't half bad. Of course most miner scrubs probably don't have Navigation V, but that's hardly CCP's fault, is it? http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Hypercake Mix
Magical Rainbow Bakery
42
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 22:30:00 -
[3550] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:250 m/s for a mining barge isn't half bad. Of course most miner scrubs probably don't have Navigation V, but that's hardly CCP's fault, is it? Skiff's base speed is 200m/s. Procurer's is 90m/s. It's like, the #1 reason I fly Skiff over the other barges. |
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
656
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 22:38:00 -
[3551] - Quote
Ah, that's what I get for assuming the Proc had the same base speed as the Skiff. To be honest I think slower barges are better, so that you can mine webbed + aligned at 75% speed and you'll be in range of the roids for a really long time. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Hypercake Mix
Magical Rainbow Bakery
42
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 23:04:00 -
[3552] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Ah, that's what I get for assuming the Proc had the same base speed as the Skiff. To be honest I think slower barges are better, so that you can mine webbed + aligned at 75% speed and you'll be in range of the roids for a really long time. It strangely kept its base speed from when it was a Mercoxit ship and can effectively fit and use an AB because of that... well, effectively ignoring the bad things about mining at 650m/s. |
Ronzz Mikakka
Sonic Intoxication Flappy Chickens With Teeth
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.10 23:58:00 -
[3553] - Quote
If a miner is smart he would tank fit his Hulk and haul with his alt. |
Pipa Porto
891
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 00:39:00 -
[3554] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Link one major fleet fight battle report with Shield Abaddons or stop lying. Goons use Drake blobs nowadays... If you gankers want me to use Skiffs instead of Macks, could you guys be so nice and give 4 of those.
Are you now claiming that the Drake and the Abaddon are the same ship? Because you claimed to be seeing Shield Abaddons and when called on it, you respond with "people fly shield Drakes."
The words don't even look similar. EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
Corina Jarr
Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built
1301
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 01:07:00 -
[3555] - Quote
Ronzz Mikakka wrote:If a miner is smart he would tank fit his Hulk and haul with his alt. Not entirely.
2 Macks will easily out mine a Hulk and a hauler and be safer.
|
stoicfaux
1562
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 01:09:00 -
[3556] - Quote
Hypercake Mix wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:250 m/s for a mining barge isn't half bad. Of course most miner scrubs probably don't have Navigation V, but that's hardly CCP's fault, is it? Skiff's base speed is 200m/s. Procurer's is 90m/s. It's like, the #1 reason I fly Skiff over the other barges. Interesting.
So, how effective is speed tanking in the context of suicide ganking? Where speed tanking = drop a jet can and orbit it while mining.
You can tell me what is and isn't Truth when you pry the tinfoil from my cold, lifeless head.
|
Qorvis Communications
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 04:07:00 -
[3557] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Hypercake Mix wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:250 m/s for a mining barge isn't half bad. Of course most miner scrubs probably don't have Navigation V, but that's hardly CCP's fault, is it? Skiff's base speed is 200m/s. Procurer's is 90m/s. It's like, the #1 reason I fly Skiff over the other barges. Interesting. So, how effective is speed tanking in the context of suicide ganking? Where speed tanking = drop a jet can and orbit it while mining. wouldn't the firing ship's position be relative? |
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy Caldari State
172
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 04:15:00 -
[3558] - Quote
Pipa Porto wrote:Are you now claiming that the Drake and the Abaddon are the same ship? Because you claimed to be seeing Shield Abaddons and when called on it, you respond with "people fly shield Drakes."
The words don't even look similar.
They fly only Drakes now because Drakes are just better ships. It's as simple as that. |
Pipa Porto
892
|
Posted - 2012.09.11 04:19:00 -
[3559] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Pipa Porto wrote:Are you now claiming that the Drake and the Abaddon are the same ship? Because you claimed to be seeing Shield Abaddons and when called on it, you respond with "people fly shield Drakes."
The words don't even look similar. They fly only Drakes now because Drakes are just better ships. It's as simple as that.
So where is the battle report with Shield Abaddons?
You claimed, quite specifically:
Jorma Morkkis wrote:I've seen many Abaddons with shield buffer.
So why is it so hard to show us where you saw them? EvE: Everyone vs Everyone
-RubyPorto |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 119 :: [one page] |