Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4362
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 15:29:00 -
[271] - Quote
Smohq Anmirorz wrote:So you don't think the recent changes have made it so that it costs more to gank miners? Or you don't think the quote above suggests they are using cost to balance the game?
you /can't/ use cost to balance the game because nothing is balanced by cost
a Vindicator is not ten times better than a Megathron, despite costing ten times as much; a Hulk does not mine ten times better than a Covetor despite costing ten times as much. "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Smohq Anmirorz
State War Academy Caldari State
34
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 15:32:00 -
[272] - Quote
Andski wrote:Smohq Anmirorz wrote:So you don't think the recent changes have made it so that it costs more to gank miners? Or you don't think the quote above suggests they are using cost to balance the game? you /can't/ use cost to balance the game because nothing is balanced by cost a Vindicator is not ten times better than a Megathron, despite costing ten times as much; a Hulk does not mine ten times better than a Covetor despite costing ten times as much.
Before you could gank a mac with one cat. Now you need 2-3. It COSTS more. They have balanced the game so that it costs more to gank. How is this not a cost-balancing effect? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9109
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 15:34:00 -
[273] - Quote
Smohq Anmirorz wrote:So you don't think the recent changes have made it so that it costs more to gank miners? Or you don't think the quote above suggests they are using cost to balance the game? There's a reason he was basically called an idiot, if not in those exact terms, for making that sloppy statement. They've tried to use cost as a balancing factor once. We've been living with the never-ending problem of Titans ever sinceGǪ
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?
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4362
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 15:34:00 -
[274] - Quote
Smohq Anmirorz wrote:Before you could gank a mac with one cat. Now you need 2-3. It COSTS more. They have balanced the game so that it costs more to gank. How is this not a cost-balancing effect?
Put down the spreadsheet for a second and think "2-3 catalysts rather than one."
The increased ISK cost is irrelevant here - it's increased effort. "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Smohq Anmirorz
State War Academy Caldari State
34
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 15:49:00 -
[275] - Quote
Read it however you want, the quote clearly shows that they are considering cost. "money you paid...compared to...money you lost", "numbers can still be adjusted".
I didn't say they're using cost to fine-tune those numbers, but they clearly have considered costs or he wouldn't have mentioned it. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1846
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 17:56:00 -
[276] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Zishy wrote:you have no ******* clue what you can fit on a ship do you? Sure I do. For instance, I know how to get a MSE on there, which does you a whole lot more good than an active booster. Quote:i have not lost a single hulk or mack yet - why? because i dont mine in ******* empire space. Then the booster is even more meaningless. They have no clock to fight against and your active tank is insignificant compared to the DPS they can bring, even if they choose to go after your main resists. There's also no unavoidable loss so they can bring whatever they like. How many cycles do you think you'll get off when you're staring down the barrel of 5k DPS? In short: don't fit an active booster. It does. Not. Help. You.
I suppose you have not mined in low or null sec?
Your buffer tank helps quite little against spawns, the ships die after 2 minutes. The deadspace shield boosters are one of the ways to perma rep those ships while before the escort kills the rats.
If hostiles land on you in low and zero sec, the buffer tank won't help very much anyway, there's not Concord to come within some seconds. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1846
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 18:08:00 -
[277] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Suddenly Boom wrote:The numbers don't lie, almost all orca mining groups are using macs, even group miners don't want the hulk. See for yourself all the orcas in the belts in these screens and the overwhelming mac dominance even in the presence of many orcas. You're missing a rather important column in those screen shots. There's nothing to suggest that any of those actually group mine. The numbers don't lie, but all they're showing is that people like the solo playstyle. This is not news. It doesn't contradict that the Hulk is a better mining ship and that it excels in fleets.
Actually Suddenly Boom is right.
The Hulk, despite the purposedly applied annoyances, would have fulfilled its purpose ***IF*** some high sec mechanic would actually made them defendable by the fleet they are meant to always have around.
There are NOBODY, even paid for it (I know, I have been in the miners protection mercs business) who will waste their life sitting close to some stupid Hulks all day long. There's an host of better and more fun and more paid stuff to do in EvE than that.
Even corpies after 2-3 weeks of that ordeal give up and just park a RR Domi or similar AFK repping the ships and go do something more fun.
So that leaves you with your 2-3 Hulks, you have to bring in YOUR AC Tornado alt to the belt and stare to the screen like an hawk for hours. So fun... almost nobody does it.
Mack comes very much close (any small delay in operation immediately kills the Hulk efficiency and delays over hours long operations happen. Even just moving belt / getting an empty roid kills efficiency.
So yes, Mack >>>>>> Hulk for fleets because it has no hassle at all, can always be used at peak efficiency, can always bring all the needed crystals, can get > 30k EHP before Orca buffs. You can easily reposition MAcks at distant roids with no logistics hassle and all of these advantages immediately and oppressively destroy Hulk viability, even in its own main job.
I have now tried all sorts of Hulk and Mack combos, both ice and belts and missions roids and the outcome is always the same: for the easily lost yield advantage (any mistake does that) you get every possible bad deal from the Hulk => not worth even for fleet. Even for a 3 corps fleet is still not worth it, actually it gets worse.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Ezra Tair
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
87
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 18:17:00 -
[278] - Quote
Suddenly Boom wrote:
This guy spelled it out right here. With the hulk he has to drop the ore every 104 seconds, with the mack you can mine for a much longer period without worrying about ore overflow, you can have afk breaks. Over a long period a mac user will mine more than a hulk user because they can mine and relax at the same time, resulting in much longer mining sessions.
Solo yes. But its been pretty well presented that the point is to make the mack a better solo miner. The mack will not outmine the hulk when its not solo mining. The skiff will not outmine anything, with the possible exception of a mack over a long period of time if it has a hauler.
I've watched your posts, I'm not sure what you are up in arms about other than "Dem other people are enjoying the game and mining semi-afk" or "My hulk is not as good at solo mining as it once was"
Perhaps you should engage your energy to compel CCP to make mining more entertaining, so people afk less? And spend less of it pointing out the obvious. Because, given the track record, I don't think its going to change back. |
Sarton Wells
Blackmoon Ltd.
15
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 18:21:00 -
[279] - Quote
Since I don't have an easy way to calculate it what's the yield of a 30k EHP mack and that of a full yield hulk? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9112
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 18:22:00 -
[280] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:I suppose you have not mined in low or null sec? I suppose that, like Zishy, you are not familiar with the word GÇ£contextGÇ¥. He offered it up as something that could not be ganked by Catalysts. In highsec, the shield booster is a bad choice because it doesn't help any more (and in fact much less) than an expander would; outside of highsec, it doesn't help at all.
Yes, you would need a booster if you're caught alone, but that's completely irrelevant to the kind of problem he incorrectly claimed it could solve. Either way, it only makes you an easier and more worth-while target and thinking that gankers would GÇ£cryGÇ¥ when coming across it is nothing but laughable.
Quote:The Hulk, despite the purposedly applied annoyances, would have fulfilled its purpose ***IF*** some high sec mechanic would actually made them defendable by the fleet they are meant to always have around. There are. ECM, logi, counter-ganking, mutual webbing, etc. etc. etc.
Quote:Actually Suddenly Boom is right. GǪexcept that his screen shots do not particularly support the claim he's making.
Quote:So yes, Mack >>>>>> Hulk for fleets because it has no hassle at all, can always be used at peak efficiency, can always bring all the needed crystals, can get > 30k EHP before Orca buffs. You can easily reposition MAcks at distant roids with no logistics hassle and all of these advantages immediately and oppressively destroy Hulk viability, even in its own main job. GǪand none of those are problematic for a well-sorted fleet to overcome. A fleet is not a goup of people solo-mining together GÇö it's a group where each person fills a slot and does a specific job. Again, that is what Zishy's picture show: people solo-mining together. If you do not intend to use a fleet properly then yes, a Mack will do a better job. This is by design. If you get your act together, then the supposed disadvantages of the Hulk become irrelevant and its advantages destroy all competition in terms of yield. 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?
|
|
sYnc Vir
Wolfsbrigade Lost Obsession
313
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 18:28:00 -
[281] - Quote
A skiff gets close to an No MLU hulk, and seeing how untanked hulks are die when the wind picks up too quick, no one should fly them.
If you're Ice Mining in a fleet, and don't need the Ore Hold, use the Skiff, it can have Two IMU and the Mining rig, pulls more ice then a full tank hulk and has 80K EHP. I believe the cycle time on max skills with no implant is 58.7 seconds.
Hulks no buff was a major nerf to its usefulness. Happy I sold mine @ 300m before the patch. Only paid 120 for them 2 years ago.
If CCP's goal was too make all the barges useful, they need to check again cause only the stupid fly the hulk now. Or those looking for T2 Salvage opportunities and pretty fireworks. |
James 315
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
2393
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 18:29:00 -
[282] - Quote
sYnc Vir wrote:If CCP's goal was too make all the barges useful, they need to check again cause only the stupid fly the hulk now. Excellent observation.
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ MinerBumping.com -½-½-½-½-½-½-½-½-½-½The daily saga of one man's quest to bring civilization to highsec by bumping miners out of range. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1850
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 18:35:00 -
[283] - Quote
Tippia wrote:I suppose that, like Zishy, you are not familiar with the word GÇ£contextGÇ¥. He offered it up as something that could not be ganked by Catalysts. In highsec, the shield booster is a bad choice because it doesn't help any more (and in fact much less) than an expander would; outside of highsec, it doesn't help at all.
Yes, you would need a booster if you're caught alone, but that's completely irrelevant to the kind of problem he incorrectly claimed it could solve.
For some reason I immediately understood he's talking about 0.0. That's his context and he's teasing hi seccers in the same posts even when referring to catalysts (something he and you well know he won't see in 0.0 anyway). Now feel free to start your umpteenth tirade and hair splitting, but his post was just about that, not about your context and nothing you say will change that.
Tippia wrote: There are. ECM, logi, counter-ganking, mutual webbing, etc. etc. etc.
Once again you theorycraft and speak out pure on paper reality. You can count those fleets on the tip of one finger, which is the middle finger people show at you and Ruby Porto when you suggest theoretical garbage like mutual webbing and similar.
Tippia wrote: GǪand none of those are problematic for a well-sorted fleet to overcome. A fleet is not a goup of people solo-mining together GÇö it's a group where each person fills a slot and does a specific job. Again, that is what Zishy's picture show: people solo-mining together. If you do not intend to use a fleet properly then yes, a Mack will do a better job. This is by design. If you get your act together, then the supposed disadvantages of the Hulk become irrelevant and its advantages destroy all competition in terms of yield.
A fleet is formed by GAMERS (not serious RL logistics nutjobs) who want to do X to achieve Y. As of now the :effort: of using Hulks vs the meager reward completely skews their viability. And most of all, cost vs zero survivability even when guarded. Also, for being a fleet ship, Hulks are the ship that gets the worst from Orca buffs, that's so much fail right in that. At least they should have made an Hulk unique Orca buff 130% multiplier just to make Hulks benefit as much as the other ships do in absolute tank terms.
It's days I only and exclusively find: Macks, Retrievers (even more than Macks!) - glad my BPOs are churning them out in droves, some procurers and a rare Skiff. There are some Hulks some times but they are old relics waiting to get popped (Hulks are what gankers ATM go after, they are the bright shining white flea) or going to be used outside belts.
You can paper-pretend all day long, Macks are the new king. Unlike others, I don't complain as I am getting even more money than I thought I'd stop doing at patch speculation day AND I actually love those ships so much I am tempted to mine again myself.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
2351
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 18:38:00 -
[284] - Quote
Errrm, one would think it's rather evident that the numbers of Hulks would decrease significantly in high sec in favor of the Mac or Skiff... most likely the Mac because greed is more motivating than lazy.
The intent was for Hulks to see more use in Null Sec where it is much easier to see the enemy coming from several systems away and get the Hulk fleet to safety.
I don't see why people are surprised Mac's have gained popularity in high sec while the Hulks has declined... as this is exactly what was intended.
Go out to Null, if you can find a mining fleet that hasn't dispersed by the time you get into system you'll likely find that (aside from the odd solo miner out there) that the majority are in Hulks with a proper mining fleet. Primarily because, in typical blue space Null Sec conditions, there is zero reason to use a Mac over the Hulk unless you are mining solo. 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. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9112
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 18:43:00 -
[285] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:For some reason I immediately understood he's talking about 0.0. GǪmeaning his comment was both off-topic and full of bad advice. He was just flat-out wrong.
Quote:Once again you theorycraft and speak out pure on paper reality. You can count those fleets on the tip of one finger That's their problem. It doesn't mean the means and mechanics are not there GÇö it means they are not willing to use them and claiming that nothing exist is ignorant.
Quote:A fleet is formed by GAMERS (not serious RL logistics nutjobs) who want to do X to achieve Y. As of now the :effort: of using Hulks vs the meager reward completely skews their viability. And most of all, cost vs zero survivability even when guarded. Yes. And the effort pays off. A tiny bit of effort will also give them far more than zero survivability. The purpose of the Hulk is to achieve maximum yield. It does exactly that when supported by a fleet. If you GÇ£YGÇ¥ is something else than GÇ£get the most mineralsGÇ¥ then yes, the Hulk might not be the right choice. This is by design.
Quote:Also, for being a fleet ship, Hulks are the ship that gets the worst from Orca buffs They get the same buffs everyone else gets.
Quote:It's days I only and exclusively find: Macks, Retrievers (even more than Macks!) Yes? And? People like to solo mine. Macks and Retrievers are the solo mining ships. What's the problem? 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
1852
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 20:16:00 -
[286] - Quote
Tippia wrote:GǪmeaning his comment was both off-topic and full of bad advice. He was just flat-out wrong.
Forgot you are the resident forum mod, deciding what the others can and cannot post. Oh wait, you usually derail everything with your overblown hair splitting turning a 5 pages thread in a 20 pages likes farming nitpick-naught.
Tippia wrote: That's their problem. It doesn't mean the means and mechanics are not there GÇö it means they are not willing to use them and claiming that nothing exist is ignorant.
The world is full of means and mechanics... that get ignored because they are not worth it. Current Hulk - as stated since weeks now - is one of them.
Tippia wrote: Yes. And the effort pays off. A tiny bit of effort will also give them far more than zero survivability. The purpose of the Hulk is to achieve maximum yield. It does exactly that when supported by a fleet. If you GÇ£YGÇ¥ is something else than GÇ£get the most mineralsGÇ¥ then yes, the Hulk might not be the right choice. This is by design.
"Tiny bit of effort"... tiny enough that nobody bothers and Hulks now are deep blueball 0.0 material. But hey, I suppose if you try hard enough you may demostrate the sky is pink too.
Tippia wrote:Yes? And? People like to solo mine. Macks and Retrievers are the solo mining ships. What's the problem?
I don't see a problem (see? I also go off topic, sue me). But I do see how Hulks are seriously not worth it even for fleets. When something is relegated to small scale (notice the contradiction of intended usage) L4 mission mining or blue ball sov 0.0 it means that it's now a super small niche feature.
I did not miss the Tiericide plan of making all ships flown (not totally equally but still...). Did you?
Because now Hulk is the new Procurer. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Sarton Wells
Blackmoon Ltd.
15
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 20:26:00 -
[287] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:"Tiny bit of effort"... tiny enough that nobody bothers and Hulks now are deep blueball 0.0 material.
And that's what they were designed to be. "Glass cannons" for roid munching.
|
Idris Helion
University of Caille Gallente Federation
27
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 20:35:00 -
[288] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Because now Hulk is the new Procurer.
If you truly think that then you shouldn't be flying a mining ship, because you obviously don't know what the hell you're doing.
The old Procurer was truly worthless: tank-less, hold-starved, and it could be outmined by an Osprey. Its only value was as a hull for the Skiff. (The new Procuerer? Pure awesomesauce. Cheap, too!) The new Hulk is still the king of yield, and if you're using a Mack instead of a Hulk in a fleet, you're leaving about 20% of your yield on the table because you're too lazy to use the right ship for the op. If you're a solo miner or a dual-boxer, then the new Hulk isn't intended to be your ship -- that's what the Retriever/Mackinaw is for. And those ships are awesome in that role; I still can't believe the whining from people who ought to be crazed with glee.
The Hulk was badly overpowered before the patch; there was no point in flying any other mining vessel if you could fly a Hulk. That's no longer true...and that's a good thing. Smart miners will figure out ways to leverage all the hulls now instead of just defaulting to the Hulk all the time. This helps the EVE economy in a lot of ways (miners profit, ship-builders profit, traders profit, and gankers will profit once they figure out a counter to all the Macks now inhabiting the belts of hisec.)
This patch has just convinced me all over again that mining in EVE is the one trade that benefits most from the ability to do math, yet draws people who have no ability to actually do math.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1852
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 20:38:00 -
[289] - Quote
Sarton Wells wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:"Tiny bit of effort"... tiny enough that nobody bothers and Hulks now are deep blueball 0.0 material. And that's what they were designed to be. "Glass cannons" for roid munching.
That kind of goes against the whole "tiericide" CCP project.
Care to demonstrate how replacing the One King To Rule Them All with another goes along with tiericide?I can foresee a majority going for the Mack but it should be 60% not 90% (then 7% Skiffs). Ofc the numbers are taken out of my ass but they quite describe what's easily visible in both ice and roid belts in The Forge and around Rens. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Sarton Wells
Blackmoon Ltd.
15
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 20:45:00 -
[290] - Quote
The hulk was better than every other mining ship in every single way (except ice mining perhaps). The current mackinaw is not better than any other ship in every single way. Actually it's not better in any way. It's a ship for compromises. Which happens to fit what the solo afk miner likes to do.
The tiercide was not meant to make all the ships equally used. It was meant to create roles for every ship. And that's what it has done. |
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1852
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 20:55:00 -
[291] - Quote
Sarton Wells wrote:The hulk was better than every other mining ship in every single way (except ice mining perhaps). The current mackinaw is not better than any other ship in every single way. Actually it's not better in any way. It's a ship for compromises. Which happens to fit what the solo afk miner likes to do.
The tiercide was not meant to make all the ships equally used. It was meant to create roles for every ship. And that's what it has done.
Of course, after all we have those T2 battleships that are so fitting a role and... wait, there are more titans than T2 battleships (so a dev blog said).
So, making all ships get a role is one step but making them played is good game design.
CCP should rethink their game design before the go ahead with further Tiericide else it'll be just the same fail we have today, just with different ships being neglected and others being the king. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
4464
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 20:59:00 -
[292] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Sarton Wells wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:"Tiny bit of effort"... tiny enough that nobody bothers and Hulks now are deep blueball 0.0 material. And that's what they were designed to be. "Glass cannons" for roid munching. That kind of goes against the whole "tiericide" CCP project. Care to demonstrate how replacing the One King To Rule Them All with another goes along with tiericide?I can foresee a majority going for the Mack but it should be 60% not 90% (then 7% Skiffs). Ofc the numbers are taken out of my ass but they quite describe what's easily visible in both ice and roid belts in The Forge and around Rens.
What are the percentages in 0.0? Since you speak so definitely, I assume you are in possession of those statistics? 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/ |
Sarton Wells
Blackmoon Ltd.
15
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 21:04:00 -
[293] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Sarton Wells wrote:The hulk was better than every other mining ship in every single way (except ice mining perhaps). The current mackinaw is not better than any other ship in every single way. Actually it's not better in any way. It's a ship for compromises. Which happens to fit what the solo afk miner likes to do.
The tiercide was not meant to make all the ships equally used. It was meant to create roles for every ship. And that's what it has done. Of course, after all we have those T2 battleships that are so fitting a role and... wait, there are more titans than T2 battleships (so a dev blog said). So, making all ships get a role is one step but making them played is good game design. CCP should rethink their game design before the go ahead with further Tiericide else it'll be just the same fail we have today, just with different ships being neglected and others being the king.
The difference being that the hulk is useful and the t2 battleships - not so much. For example I'm still solo mining with a covetor. For my play-style it gives me better isk/hr than a retriever. So why should I be using a retriever? That's not the case with black ops (I assume you meant them since the marauders are quite common). |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
9115
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 21:15:00 -
[294] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Forgot you are the resident forum mod, deciding what the others can and cannot post. Good thing that I said nothing of the kind. I'm merely stating the fact that while everyone is talking about suicide ganks, he steps up with a nonsensical fit and claims that it is enough to protect against a catalyst gankGǪ and when called on it tries to get away by discussing a completely different and completely irrelevant scenario.
Quote:The world is full of means and mechanics... GǪso don't be dishonest by claiming that there are none.
Quote:"Tiny bit of effort"... tiny enough that nobody bothers and Hulks now are deep blueball 0.0 material. Tough. Miners are apparently a lazy bunchGǪ who'd'a thunk it? Again, it's no surprise that people who have consistently shown a preference for solo and AFK work has a matching preference for the solo and AFK ship.
Quote:I don't see a problem (see? I also go off topic, sue me). But I do see how Hulks are seriously not worth it even for fleets. They're worth it because they can squeeze out that much more ore in the time available. If you've never found yourself in a situation where time is a factor, then good for you. vOv
Quote:That kind of goes against the whole "tiericide" CCP project. No, it really doesn't. It's fully in line with tiercide: they are to mining ships what tier-3 BCs introduced to that class of ships GÇö more oomph at the cost of almost everything else. Glass cannon is an excellent parallel and it shows perfectly with the idea that each ship has its own role and speciality. 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
1852
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 21:52:00 -
[295] - Quote
Tippia wrote:I'm merely stating the fact that while everyone is talking about suicide ganks, he steps up with a nonsensical fit and claims that it is enough to protect against a catalyst gankGǪ and when called on it tries to get away by discussing a completely different and completely irrelevant scenario.
Playing forum sheriff is not your business. The other readers can make their own opinion about him without you showing them the light.
Tippia wrote:so don't be dishonest by claiming that there are none.
Close to useless tends to none.
Tippia wrote:Again, it's no surprise that people who have consistently shown a preference for solo and AFK work has a matching preference for the solo and AFK ship.
It's not about AFK work. Its about "CBA to bother with menial tasks done through a laggy and terrible UI (you should know about it, eh?) to get somehow better yield". My industry alt has been CEO in an industry corp (Minerva) that peaked at 50 members, all involved in mining operations both in hi and 0.0 sec. Just in May I was having multi-corp mining ops with 2 other corps. I am a sample of a mining op because I have done and organized it in practice and if I tell you that Hulks are NOT worth the hassle maybe it's because it's true. The crystal menial task per se would not be so bad if it did not also add to a number of other purposedly imposed hassles. Try, just TRY to defend a wet paper fleet against motivated gankers. I have seen how it goes, the only place where Hulks may still be used is strong sov 0.0. But wait, I did not read that Tiericide = one ship class now is relegated to strong sov 0.0. On paper you can pretend to do the fleet thingy in hi sec but hey, even the same friends who ALWAYS used Hulks now all replaced them with Macks.
Are everybody who don't conform to your theories "soloers" now?
Tippia wrote:No, it really doesn't. It's fully in line with tiercide: they are to mining ships what tier-3 BCs introduced to that class of ships GÇö more oomph at the cost of almost everything else. Glass cannon is an excellent parallel and it shows perfectly with the idea that each ship has its own role and speciality.
Of course I also have Tier 3 BCs BPOs so maybe I tested them?
Tier 3 BCs have this thing: they effing shine at their purpose. Hulks don't shine. They crawl above the others and only in very situational "all stars aligned" situations.
I suppose your idea of Tiericide on BCs will involve making a Tornado alpha 15% more than a Cyclone right? And when they will fail you'll tell it's just intended?
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Suddenly Boom
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
19
|
Posted - 2012.08.15 22:37:00 -
[296] - Quote
edit |
Urgg Boolean
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
211
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 00:17:00 -
[297] - Quote
Smohq Anmirorz wrote:Urgg Boolean wrote: Skiff : L4 Recon 3 - the ONLY ship I know of that has decent speed and can tank the poison clouds then harvest all that juicy ore on the far side. This is the ONLY way to make L4 Recon 3 actually pay. If any corp member gets L4 Recon 3, we fleet up and run it with three Skiffs.
Any ship can get past the clouds. Timing. Well, I'm talking about making L4 Recon 3 actually pay. Yeah, you can run it with a lot of ships, but which of the ships that can make the crossing can ALSO effectively harvest the ore? The missions pays by rapidly munching rocks at the end.
You say ANY SHIP can make it. If you are suggesting that a Hulk can make the run, post an un-photo-shopped screen snap and I'll gladly eat my words. |
Smohq Anmirorz
State War Academy Caldari State
34
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 00:58:00 -
[298] - Quote
Urgg Boolean wrote:Smohq Anmirorz wrote:Urgg Boolean wrote: Skiff : L4 Recon 3 - the ONLY ship I know of that has decent speed and can tank the poison clouds then harvest all that juicy ore on the far side. This is the ONLY way to make L4 Recon 3 actually pay. If any corp member gets L4 Recon 3, we fleet up and run it with three Skiffs.
Any ship can get past the clouds. Timing. Well, I'm talking about making L4 Recon 3 actually pay. Yeah, you can run it with a lot of ships, but which of the ships that can make the crossing can ALSO effectively harvest the ore? The missions pays by rapidly munching rocks at the end. You say ANY SHIP can make it. If you are suggesting that a Hulk can make the run, post an un-photo-shopped screen snap and I'll gladly eat my words.
I'm saying a shuttle can do it. One ship warps in, tanks the waves, the other warps in just as they're done. They won't reset right away. You're going to get a lvl 4 recon much faster than I will right now, try it out, you'll figure it out. :) |
Sarton Wells
Blackmoon Ltd.
15
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 03:49:00 -
[299] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:I suppose your idea of Tiericide on BCs will involve making a Tornado alpha 15% more than a Cyclone right? In exchange of some asinine UI titillating of course. And when they will fail you'll tell it's just intended?
Actually 15% is quite huge when you start multiplying it by every hulk in a fleet. Let's say corp A uses 10 mackinaws with full fleet boosters etc. They can mine (in theory) about 750-800k m3 per hour. If they're mining arkonor that means about 230m isk per hour. On the other hand corp B is using 10 hulks and they're mining about 1150-1200k m3 per hour. Which translate to about 360m isk per hour. Tell me again why the hulk isn't worth it.
P.s. Those numbers were pulled from the eve isk per hour calculator. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
1863
|
Posted - 2012.08.16 05:26:00 -
[300] - Quote
Sarton Wells wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:I suppose your idea of Tiericide on BCs will involve making a Tornado alpha 15% more than a Cyclone right? In exchange of some asinine UI titillating of course. And when they will fail you'll tell it's just intended? Actually 15% is quite huge when you start multiplying it by every hulk in a fleet. Let's say corp A uses 10 mackinaws with full fleet boosters etc. They can mine (in theory) about 1000k m3 per hour. If they're mining arkonor that means about 350m isk per hour. On the other hand corp B is using 10 hulks and they're mining about 1150-1200k m3 per hour. Which translate to about 410m isk per hour. Tell me again why the hulk isn't worth it. P.s. Those numbers were pulled from the eve isk per hour calculator. Edit: Disregard the m3 per hour. Forgot to account for the reduced cycle times >< Isk per hour should be accurate though.
The problem with "EFT" (or, in this case IPH) theorycrafting is that you get the same kind of information you get when you read new cars reviews.
The manufacturer will tell his car runs 100km with 5 liters, but when you actually buy the car and start using it you find out it uses 6 and not 5. Because 5 was measured at perfect conditions, perfect weather, in a perfectly levelled and straight track, with a 70 kg pilot and nobody else, no baggage...
Hulk too sells with those numbers, then all it takes is a pair of empty-ish roids, 2 crystals to change (having 3, it will happen more often than the othe ships), the "crystals servant" delaying a bit, a need to move 2-3 km to fetch the next roids... and immediately the peak performance plummets into Mack range, while all the annoying drawbacks (beginning with the no survivability for achieving that max yield) are still all there. Mack instead is much more lenient so in no way its numbers would drop down to say Skiff levels. Even when moving, no problem, with all that cargo 2-3 km won't be any trouble. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |