Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 .. 18 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Dajli
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.08.29 19:17:00 -
[391] - Quote
TL;DR:
CCP is a company that makes a product . They want to make profits. They will welcome anybody who wants to play. If you don't like the game you don't play. More people will play based on CCP's business decisions.
Nuff said. Cry moar Nulls. |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
117
|
Posted - 2012.08.29 19:19:00 -
[392] - Quote
kurg wrote:William Walker wrote:What good is a bigger population if I can not shoot them? What good is a game that has no population to shoot at? Like it or not, the only way Eve will continue to grow is to add new players, unfortunately those *new* players (at least the majority) are not in-tune with Eve's unforgiving PvP death system and most quit before giving the game a solid chance or joining a good corp. Eitherway, i can remember back in 2003 how TINY the population was (roughly 2-4k total!) and how much *we* back then complained about *new* players and new changes .. Yet here we are 2012 with over 300K subs!!! ... <<< Like it or not change will come!
See this could be solved with new player retention initiatives instead of moronic things like nerfing highsec aggression. Goonwaffe is now recruiting feel free to message me in game for information about joining! |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
578
|
Posted - 2012.08.29 19:21:00 -
[393] - Quote
Dajli wrote:TL;DR:
CCP is a company that makes a product . They want to make profits. They will welcome anybody who wants to play. If you don't like the game you don't play. More people will play based on CCP's business decisions.
Nuff said. Cry moar Nulls. CCP is not and should not be in the business of pleasing everybody. That's what mainstream MMOs are for. This is not a mainstream MMO. Many of the things that make this game special are also things that some people will absolutely hate about it. So we'll have less players, but that's the price of having a special game where you can do pretty much anything you want. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
117
|
Posted - 2012.08.29 19:23:00 -
[394] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Dajli wrote:TL;DR:
CCP is a company that makes a product . They want to make profits. They will welcome anybody who wants to play. If you don't like the game you don't play. More people will play based on CCP's business decisions.
Nuff said. Cry moar Nulls. CCP is not and should not be in the business of pleasing everybody. That's what mainstream MMOs are for. This is not a mainstream MMO. Many of the things that make this game special are also things that some people will absolutely hate about it. So we'll have less players, but that's the price of having a special game where you can do pretty much anything you want.
Exactly EVE is a niche game and it should remain a niche game. Everyone who wants a mainstream MMO can go sign up for one. Goonwaffe is now recruiting feel free to message me in game for information about joining! |
baltec1
Bat Country
1974
|
Posted - 2012.08.29 19:29:00 -
[395] - Quote
kurg wrote:William Walker wrote:What good is a bigger population if I can not shoot them? What good is a game that has no population to shoot at? Like it or not, the only way Eve will continue to grow is to add new players, unfortunately those *new* players (at least the majority) are not in-tune with Eve's unforgiving PvP death system and most quit before giving the game a solid chance or joining a good corp. Eitherway, i can remember back in 2003 how TINY the population was (roughly 2-4k total!) and how much *we* back then complained about *new* players and new changes .. Yet here we are 2012 with over 300K subs!!! ... <<< Like it or not change will come!
9 years on nothing but year on year growth says the game is fine with people getting ganked in highsec space. |
Agreh Tensenn
Tensenn Holding
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.29 20:13:00 -
[396] - Quote
In the matter of suicide ganking the math definitely did not add upp. Mining barges was, fitted with standard non-pimped modules suited for the task at hand without factoring in suicide ganking, profitable, or almost profitable to suicide gank in high-security space. Now suicide ganking is something that i definitely enjoy myself, and that I definitely think there is place for, I do not see why it has to be easy and profitable to suicide gank everything there is? Think about every other mission ship for example. They rarely fit to counter suicide ganking, but they fit for the task at hand. If they fit standard modules like t2 or cheap deadspace/faction they will (with exceptions) not be worth suicide ganking, but if they fit expensive modules like high-grade deadspace modules for several billions, they will be. That is a clear offset.
The problem becomes even bigger when the mining ships (or ship, namely the hulk) also is damn expensive. Especially considering the actual isk earn per hour mining. While being so cheap to gank while fitted for yield, so that the miner lose up to 25 times the loss of the ganker(s) the ratio is scewed far away from any other ship in the game. And for that, the ganker may even turn a profit from the gank. The hulk must be one of the very few ships in the game that could possibly be ganked for a profit, undocked naked with only it's highslots fitted with t2 modules and some "ammo". Thats while costing 200+ million.
All values above here are pre-buff values.
Speaking of making suicide ganking harder in general I would like to direct you to Red Frog Freight. Their maximum collateral has stayed at 1Bil and their prices has gone up for the following reason: Quote:"even with the insurance removal on concorded ship, it require now less Tornado then Typhoon to gank a freighter. as low as 9 if you got a really skilled crew, where it was 12 or 13 typhoon before.
at some point in january, we should have reduced that to 700 or 800m, but it would have upset a lot of people. now with the price raise on the module (tornado didn't changed much) it bring back the break even at 1b." Even if I cannot find the post right now i think that early summer one guy from RFF said that they lost 1 freighter in 2011, and had lost 4 this far in 2012. That should at least be an indication that High-sec has not been made safer for anyone but miners. And frankly, i dont think it's too safe for them. Please also remember that one of the main ways to kill people in high-sec is meant to be by declaring war on them. If you feel that mechanic is lacking, don't blame that on suicide ganking! |
Clystan
Binaerie Heavy Industries
3
|
Posted - 2012.08.29 20:26:00 -
[397] - Quote
Which statement do you agree with most?
A) No limit holdem > Limit Holdem > Old Maid B) Limit holdem > No limit holdem > Old Maid C) Old Maid > *
If you answered A - goto low sec If you answered B - split your time between high-sec and low sec If you answered C - stay in high sec
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
580
|
Posted - 2012.08.29 20:27:00 -
[398] - Quote
Clystan wrote:Which statement do you agree with most?
A) No limit holdem > Limit Holdem > Old Maid B) Limit holdem > No limit holdem > Old Maid C) Old Maid > *
If you answered A - goto low sec If you answered B - split your time between high-sec and low sec If you answered C - stay in high sec
D) Russian Roulette http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Clystan
Binaerie Heavy Industries
3
|
Posted - 2012.08.29 20:34:00 -
[399] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Clystan wrote:Which statement do you agree with most?
A) No limit holdem > Limit Holdem > Old Maid B) Limit holdem > No limit holdem > Old Maid C) Old Maid > *
If you answered A - goto low sec If you answered B - split your time between high-sec and low sec If you answered C - stay in high sec
D) Russian Roulette
If you answered D - Start a corporation
|
Zanarkand
Enterprise Estonia Northern Coalition.
2
|
Posted - 2012.08.29 20:35:00 -
[400] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:
Exactly EVE is a niche game and it should remain a niche game. Everyone who wants a mainstream MMO can go sign up for one.
James Amril-Kesh wrote: CCP is not and should not be in the business of pleasing everybody. That's what mainstream MMOs are for. This is not a mainstream MMO. Many of the things that make this game special are also things that some people will absolutely hate about it. So we'll have less players, but that's the price of having a special game where you can do pretty much anything you want.
Why isn't either of you whining about nullsec risk nerfs? |
|
baltec1
Bat Country
1974
|
Posted - 2012.08.29 20:36:00 -
[401] - Quote
Agreh Tensenn wrote: Even if I cannot find the post right now i think that early summer one guy from RFF said that they lost 1 freighter in 2011, and had lost 4 this far in 2012. That should at least be an indication that High-sec has not been made safer for anyone but miners.
Over the years highsec has become much safer. Its a shame M0o pre-date the killboards because their terror puts all of us bad guys to shame. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
580
|
Posted - 2012.08.29 20:36:00 -
[402] - Quote
Zanarkand wrote:La Nariz wrote:
Exactly EVE is a niche game and it should remain a niche game. Everyone who wants a mainstream MMO can go sign up for one.
James Amril-Kesh wrote: CCP is not and should not be in the business of pleasing everybody. That's what mainstream MMOs are for. This is not a mainstream MMO. Many of the things that make this game special are also things that some people will absolutely hate about it. So we'll have less players, but that's the price of having a special game where you can do pretty much anything you want.
Why isn't either of you whining about nullsec risk nerfs? Because there aren't any? http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
117
|
Posted - 2012.08.29 20:48:00 -
[403] - Quote
Agreh Tensenn wrote:In the matter of suicide ganking the math definitely did not add upp. Mining barges was, fitted with standard non-pimped modules suited for the task at hand without factoring in suicide ganking, profitable, or almost profitable to suicide gank in high-security space. Now suicide ganking is something that i definitely enjoy myself, and that I definitely think there is place for, I do not see why it has to be easy and profitable to suicide gank everything there is?
No one is advocating for it to be easy and profitable to suicide gank everything there is. We are advocating that cost should not be a factor used in balancing anything (see: supercap problems), that there should be consequences to fitting your ships poorly, and that highsec aggression (risk) has been nerfed way to much for the amount of money (reward) you can earn there so the barge EHP buff should be reverted.
Agreh Tensenn wrote: Think about every other mission ship for example. They rarely fit to counter suicide ganking, but they fit for the task at hand. If they fit standard modules like t2 or cheap deadspace/faction they will (with exceptions) not be worth suicide ganking, but if they fit expensive modules like high-grade deadspace modules for several billions, they will be. That is a clear offset.
That is a good example of consequences for fitting your ship poorly. For some reason though that is not to apply to miners.
Agreh Tensenn wrote: The problem becomes even bigger when the mining ships (or ship, namely the hulk) also is damn expensive. Especially considering the actual isk earn per hour mining. While being so cheap to gank while fitted for yield, so that the miner lose up to 25 times the loss of the ganker(s) the ratio is scewed far away from any other ship in the game. And for that, the ganker may even turn a profit from the gank. The hulk must be one of the very few ships in the game that could possibly be ganked for a profit, undocked naked with only it's highslots fitted with t2 modules and some "ammo". Thats while costing 200+ million.
Cost should never be a balancing factor this has been proven already with the problems CCP had with super caps. Not to mention that it was only a profitable event IFF the miner chose not to tank their hulk.
Agreh Tensenn wrote: Speaking of making suicide ganking harder in general I would like to direct you to Red Frog Freight. Their maximum collateral has stayed at 1Bil and their prices has gone up for the following reason: "even with the insurance removal on concorded ship, it require now less Tornado then Typhoon to gank a freighter. as low as 9 if you got a really skilled crew, where it was 12 or 13 typhoon before.
Even if I cannot find the post right now i think that early summer one guy from RFF said that they lost 1 freighter in 2011, and had lost 4 this far in 2012. That should at least be an indication that High-sec has not been made safer for anyone but miners. And frankly, i dont think it's too safe for them. Please also remember that one of the main ways to kill people in high-sec is meant to be by declaring war on them. If you feel that mechanic is lacking, don't blame that on suicide ganking!
This is a great example of people adapting to a change. Hell I think this is the only example of highsec people adapting to a change. Also you can't claim that highsec has not become safer based off of hearsay. Goonwaffe is now recruiting feel free to message me in game for information about joining! |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
280
|
Posted - 2012.08.29 21:24:00 -
[404] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:Agreh Tensenn wrote: Think about every other mission ship for example. They rarely fit to counter suicide ganking, but they fit for the task at hand. If they fit standard modules like t2 or cheap deadspace/faction they will (with exceptions) not be worth suicide ganking, but if they fit expensive modules like high-grade deadspace modules for several billions, they will be. That is a clear offset.
That is a good example of consequences for fitting your ship poorly. For some reason though that is not to apply to miners. I'm curious as to the number of ships whos base HP would allow them to be ganked for profit before even counting module drops. In the example above the mission ship has to add something to their ship to make it worth the gank, the exhumers on the other hand were stated as being profitable based on potential salvage alone with no tank before the changes.
Edit: Even the tankiest of them prebuff needed to devote all of it's slots to EHP increasing mods to be considered a decent tank while mission ships for the most part have no need to do anything near that to be undesirable for suicide ganking. |
Agreh Tensenn
Tensenn Holding
0
|
Posted - 2012.08.29 21:42:00 -
[405] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:No one is advocating for it to be easy and profitable to suicide gank everything there is. We are advocating that cost should not be a factor used in balancing anything (see: supercap problems), that there should be consequences to fitting your ships poorly, and that highsec aggression (risk) has been nerfed way to much for the amount of money (reward) you can earn there so the barge EHP buff should be reverted. Your points are fair but not perfect. I do not see why cost should not be a factor used in balancing something that basically is just that. Suicide ganking (as a way to actually earn something from someones bad chioce of fitting for example) is all about cost efficiency. It has to be part in balancing suicide ganking. I don't see why it would have to play a part in other kinds of balancing.
Suicide ganking mining barges has, although in cases of bad fits being profitable, mostly been about the tears of the victim. In almost every other area where suicide ganks happen that is not the case, mainly because it cost too much to kill something of a set hull value to make that kind of ganks really cost effective in terms of creating tears. Note that I'm not saying griefing, because I definitely not think it is griefing. In every other part of high-sec a profitable suicide gank means that someone either fit too many expensive modules, or had too valuable cargo, never that they did not have enough tank to withstand the gank. I do not see why that would be different for barges.
I would much rather see deadspace and the like mining upgrades or other expensive mining gear to put that into the same line, how about that?
La Nariz wrote: That is a good example of consequences for fitting your ship poorly. For some reason though that is not to apply to miners.
It definitely does, the difference is though the the mining ships are the only ships actually have to fit a tank to protect the hull (+10M or so in mods/cargo) alone from suicide ganks, that does not apply to any other ship. Also see point above.
La Nariz wrote: Cost should never be a balancing factor this has been proven already with the problems CCP had with super caps. Not to mention that it was only a profitable event IFF the miner chose not to tank their hulk.
I still dont see what you are trying to say with your first point here, feel free to enlighten me how that would apply to this case in any way.
La Nariz wrote: This is a great example of people adapting to a change. Hell I think this is the only example of highsec people adapting to a change. Also you can't claim that highsec has not become safer based off of hearsay.
Yes this is a good example, and as you can see the adaption was not big for them, lets see if you manage to adapt in the same manner.
I have no idea why you have to insult and group together high-sec people. I don't really think that adds to the discussion.
Third I guess the hearsay you mention is that I did not find the source for my comment about RFF ganks. That you had good reason to call me on that as I was far off on my numbers, here is the real quote, 15/4 2012:
"Red Frog Rufen" wrote:If I remember correctly, we lost 5 contracts du to ganking in 2011. it was 0 in 2010, and 2 in 2009. (those are pulled from memory and might not be acurate!)
for 2012, we're already at 8. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1134313#post1134313
I feel that I need to point out that I don't by any means want to say that the current values by any means are perfect and wonderful, but I am trying to say why I think that the old values was far off. |
Zanarkand
Enterprise Estonia Northern Coalition.
2
|
Posted - 2012.08.29 22:18:00 -
[406] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Zanarkand wrote:La Nariz wrote:
Exactly EVE is a niche game and it should remain a niche game. Everyone who wants a mainstream MMO can go sign up for one.
James Amril-Kesh wrote: CCP is not and should not be in the business of pleasing everybody. That's what mainstream MMOs are for. This is not a mainstream MMO. Many of the things that make this game special are also things that some people will absolutely hate about it. So we'll have less players, but that's the price of having a special game where you can do pretty much anything you want.
Why isn't either of you whining about nullsec risk nerfs? Because there aren't any?
Really? Do you really believe what you just said?
D-scan nerf, that didn't make it safer to farm in 0.0?
Moving farming from belts to anoms/deadspace, didn't that make it safer to farm in 0.0?
Nerfing nanogangs didn't make it much harder to roam deep 0.0 space?
Standings in local, didn't help 0.0 bears at all?
Putting Jump Bridges on deathstar poses was obviously a great idea, that didn't make 0.0 easier to live in at all????
JF/Capital Hauling... I could go on and on, throughout the years there have been many more little things that have made 0.0 safer.
Now, many of those changes improved the game by diversifying content, reducing lag and tedious content - but most of them could have been done differently, without as much handholding by CCP. Highsec really isn't the only place that is turning into hello kitty online. |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
117
|
Posted - 2012.08.29 22:44:00 -
[407] - Quote
^: other dude who made an actual thought out post, I'm on anterrible phone right now so I can't get you a source bu it was basically that CCP thought cost would balance and prevent supercap dominance/proliferation.they were terribly wrong and admitted it in a CSM minutes, thread or devblog.
Tyberius Franklin wrote:La Nariz wrote:Agreh Tensenn wrote: Think about every other mission ship for example. They rarely fit to counter suicide ganking, but they fit for the task at hand. If they fit standard modules like t2 or cheap deadspace/faction they will (with exceptions) not be worth suicide ganking, but if they fit expensive modules like high-grade deadspace modules for several billions, they will be. That is a clear offset.
That is a good example of consequences for fitting your ship poorly. For some reason though that is not to apply to miners. I'm curious as to the number of ships whose base HP would allow them to be ganked for profit before even counting module drops. In the example above the mission ship has to add something to their ship to make it worth the gank, the exhumers on the other hand were stated as being profitable based on potential salvage alone with no tank before the changes. Edit: Even the tankiest of them prebuff needed to devote all of it's slots to EHP increasing mods to be considered a decent tank while mission ships for the most part have no need to do anything near that to be undesirable for suicide ganking.
It was the salvage and the modules that dropped which paid out. Any Unfitted hull would be gank for profit immune. Goonwaffe is now recruiting feel free to message me in game for information about joining! |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
117
|
Posted - 2012.08.29 22:49:00 -
[408] - Quote
Zanarkand wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Zanarkand wrote:La Nariz wrote:
Exactly EVE is a niche game and it should remain a niche game. Everyone who wants a mainstream MMO can go sign up for one.
James Amril-Kesh wrote: CCP is not and should not be in the business of pleasing everybody. That's what mainstream MMOs are for. This is not a mainstream MMO. Many of the things that make this game special are also things that some people will absolutely hate about it. So we'll have less players, but that's the price of having a special game where you can do pretty much anything you want.
Why isn't either of you whining about nullsec risk nerfs? Because there aren't any? Really? Do you really believe what you just said? D-scan nerf, that didn't make it safer to farm in 0.0? Moving farming from belts to anoms/deadspace, didn't that make it safer to farm in 0.0? Nerfing nanogangs didn't make it much harder to roam deep 0.0 space? Standings in local, didn't help 0.0 bears at all? Putting Jump Bridges on deathstar poses was obviously a great idea, that didn't make 0.0 easier to live in at all???? JF/Capital Hauling... I could go on and on, throughout the years there have been many more little things that have made 0.0 safer. Now, many of those changes improved the game by diversifying content, reducing lag and tedious content - but most of them could have been done differently, without as much handholding by CCP. Highsec really isn't the only place that is turning into hello kitty online.
You are an idiot that is buttmad over losing that station timer, go whine about us being dishonorable blobbers and evil space bushido violators in CAOD. Goonwaffe is now recruiting feel free to message me in game for information about joining! |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
281
|
Posted - 2012.08.29 22:54:00 -
[409] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:^: other dude who made an actual thought out post, I'm on anterrible phone right now so I can't get you a source bu it was basically that CCP thought cost would balance and prevent supercap dominance/proliferation.they were terribly wrong and admitted it in a CSM minutes, thread or devblog. Tyberius Franklin wrote:La Nariz wrote:Agreh Tensenn wrote: Think about every other mission ship for example. They rarely fit to counter suicide ganking, but they fit for the task at hand. If they fit standard modules like t2 or cheap deadspace/faction they will (with exceptions) not be worth suicide ganking, but if they fit expensive modules like high-grade deadspace modules for several billions, they will be. That is a clear offset.
That is a good example of consequences for fitting your ship poorly. For some reason though that is not to apply to miners. I'm curious as to the number of ships whose base HP would allow them to be ganked for profit before even counting module drops. In the example above the mission ship has to add something to their ship to make it worth the gank, the exhumers on the other hand were stated as being profitable based on potential salvage alone with no tank before the changes. Edit: Even the tankiest of them prebuff needed to devote all of it's slots to EHP increasing mods to be considered a decent tank while mission ships for the most part have no need to do anything near that to be undesirable for suicide ganking. It was the salvage and the modules that dropped which paid out. Any Unfitted hull would be gank for profit immune. 2 things: 1. That ignores potential T2 salvage drops, which is why I asked. I'm not sure of really any hulls how possible salvage values compares to base EHP. 2. Doesn't address the fact that in the example that basic T2 mods on the mining ship make it a target while in the example of the missions ship it would take deadspace/faction mods of reasonable value to make it target worthy for suicide ganking. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
609
|
Posted - 2012.08.29 22:54:00 -
[410] - Quote
Zanarkand wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Zanarkand wrote:La Nariz wrote:
Exactly EVE is a niche game and it should remain a niche game. Everyone who wants a mainstream MMO can go sign up for one.
James Amril-Kesh wrote: CCP is not and should not be in the business of pleasing everybody. That's what mainstream MMOs are for. This is not a mainstream MMO. Many of the things that make this game special are also things that some people will absolutely hate about it. So we'll have less players, but that's the price of having a special game where you can do pretty much anything you want.
Why isn't either of you whining about nullsec risk nerfs? Because there aren't any? Really? Do you really believe what you just said? D-scan nerf, that didn't make it safer to farm in 0.0? Moving farming from belts to anoms/deadspace, didn't that make it safer to farm in 0.0? Nerfing nanogangs didn't make it much harder to roam deep 0.0 space? Standings in local, didn't help 0.0 bears at all? Putting Jump Bridges on deathstar poses was obviously a great idea, that didn't make 0.0 easier to live in at all???? JF/Capital Hauling... I could go on and on, throughout the years there have been many more little things that have made 0.0 safer. Now, many of those changes improved the game by diversifying content, reducing lag and tedious content - but most of them could have been done differently, without as much handholding by CCP. Highsec really isn't the only place that is turning into hello kitty online. You definitely bring up some good points about how null has gotten so soft that even Hello kitty might be a bit dangerous in comparison for Null bears these days. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
|
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
117
|
Posted - 2012.08.29 23:07:00 -
[411] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:La Nariz wrote:^: other dude who made an actual thought out post, I'm on anterrible phone right now so I can't get you a source bu it was basically that CCP thought cost would balance and prevent supercap dominance/proliferation.they were terribly wrong and admitted it in a CSM minutes, thread or devblog. Tyberius Franklin wrote:La Nariz wrote:Agreh Tensenn wrote: Think about every other mission ship for example. They rarely fit to counter suicide ganking, but they fit for the task at hand. If they fit standard modules like t2 or cheap deadspace/faction they will (with exceptions) not be worth suicide ganking, but if they fit expensive modules like high-grade deadspace modules for several billions, they will be. That is a clear offset.
That is a good example of consequences for fitting your ship poorly. For some reason though that is not to apply to miners. I'm curious as to the number of ships whose base HP would allow them to be ganked for profit before even counting module drops. In the example above the mission ship has to add something to their ship to make it worth the gank, the exhumers on the other hand were stated as being profitable based on potential salvage alone with no tank before the changes. Edit: Even the tankiest of them prebuff needed to devote all of it's slots to EHP increasing mods to be considered a decent tank while mission ships for the most part have no need to do anything near that to be undesirable for suicide ganking. It was the salvage and the modules that dropped which paid out. Any Unfitted hull would be gank for profit immune. 2 things: 1. That ignores potential T2 salvage drops, which is why I asked. I'm not sure of really any hulls how possible salvage values compares to base EHP. That said most T2 ships above the frigate class can fit tanks equivalent or better than an exhumer pre-buff without total fitting dedication to tank. 2. Doesn't address the fact that in the example that basic T2 mods on the mining ship make it a target while in the example of the missions ship it would take deadspace/faction mods of reasonable value to make it target worthy for suicide ganking.
It most certainly does not ignore potential T2 salvag drops. Combat ships require more EhP to be used in combat. Asteroids don't shoot back when you shoot them maybe asteroids should be buffed. Basically the hulk is a specialized mining ship it's a noncombat ship so it is much less durable than a combat ship. Industrial ship=!combat ship. Exhumers also did not require total dedication to tank for gank prevention, all but 1 mid, a low slot, two rigs for a reall good tank. Goonwaffe is now recruiting feel free to message me in game for information about joining! |
Agreh Tensenn
Tensenn Holding
1
|
Posted - 2012.08.29 23:20:00 -
[412] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:^: other dude who made an actual thought out post, I'm on anterrible phone right now so I can't get you a source bu it was basically that CCP thought cost would balance and prevent supercap dominance/proliferation.they were terribly wrong and admitted it in a CSM minutes, thread or devblog..
That is an interesting part of EVE History from before my time I'm afraid, I haven't been around too long. Not long enough to really have that many opinions maybe. I still don't think that matter really relates to suicide ganking. I would agree it would relate or apply to general ship balancing though. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
281
|
Posted - 2012.08.29 23:21:00 -
[413] - Quote
La Nariz wrote: It most certainly does not ignore potential T2 salvag drops. Combat ships require more EhP to be used in combat. Asteroids don't shoot back when you shoot them maybe asteroids should be buffed. Basically the hulk is a specialized mining ship it's a noncombat ship so it is much less durable than a combat ship. Industrial ship=!combat ship. Exhumers also did not require total dedication to tank for gank prevention, all but 1 mid, a low slot, two rigs for a reall good tank.
You may want to review the idea of a decent tank with those holding that position. In many of the threads on this topic kills of hulks fitting partial tanks have been posted (2 mids, 1 low, 2 rigs) and decried as being poor attempts and utterly insufficient.
Those things aside, the idea of a craft that needs no protective ability due to not being a combat vessel seems to contradict the idea of fitting a tank being a viable course of action. If combat situations shouldn't be figured into ship design then considering it in the fitting process is equally unneeded. It also ignores the reality of the game. Industrial ships don't live in a bubble that makes the somehow harder to aggress in a suicide gank than any other ship. Given that all space is inherently hostile and these ships operate in that space why would there be no idea of protection worked into hull options? |
Charles Baker
Estrale Frontiers Project Wildfire
252
|
Posted - 2012.08.29 23:38:00 -
[414] - Quote
Saw tears in the first paragraph didn't read. |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
261
|
Posted - 2012.08.30 00:13:00 -
[415] - Quote
More brilliant propaganda by the disgraced ex-CSM leader. The guy is a sociopathic narcissist, but far from stupid.
You want to create yet another propaganda tool that is more insidious than bombarding the Eve forums with lies? Well then, just build your own website and fill it with articles from your stooges that CCP has zero control over. Sort of your own "fair and balanced" Fox network.
goons and the other null sec zealots are trying to create an agenda that is not even there. They are trying to define the conversation about an issue that is not even in any conversation. But it is standard politics. Create outrageous talking points about some non-existent issue, begin attacking your opposition (the disgraced ex-CSM leader seems to believe that CCP is his opposition) about said non-issue, but by doing so put your opposition on the defensive.
What this political tactic does is to try to gain some leverage to try pre-empt CCP from altering whatever other game mechanic that is meaningful to the nullsec zealots. What that mechanic is, I don't know, but I am sure there are many.
Keep in mind this: goons always laugh at people who complained about the ridiculous costs to war dec goons now, and stated that goons don't live in high sec so cost to dec them is irrelevant. So if goons don't live in high sec, why do they care so much about a purely high sec mechanic? |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1253
|
Posted - 2012.08.30 00:53:00 -
[416] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:You are an idiot that is buttmad over losing that station timer, go whine about us being dishonorable blobbers and evil space bushido violators in CAOD. He listed sound facts and you lose your **** over it and bring up a station timer. Pretty sure the buttmad person is you.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Eternal Error
Exitus Acta Probant
129
|
Posted - 2012.08.30 00:57:00 -
[417] - Quote
The general idea of the article is correct, and you need look no further than the proposed crimewatch changes and Greyscale's ideas in general.
I think CCP vastly underestimates how many people will rage if this trend continues/those changes are implemented, regardless of whether it affects those people directly (i.e. even if those players don't set foot in highsec). |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
117
|
Posted - 2012.08.30 01:25:00 -
[418] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:La Nariz wrote:You are an idiot that is buttmad over losing that station timer, go whine about us being dishonorable blobbers and evil space bushido violators in CAOD. He listed sound facts and you lose your **** over it and bring up a station timer. Pretty sure the buttmad person is you. lol ncdot trying Goonwaffe is now recruiting feel free to message me in game for information about joining! |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
581
|
Posted - 2012.08.30 03:04:00 -
[419] - Quote
Zanarkand wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Zanarkand wrote:La Nariz wrote:
Exactly EVE is a niche game and it should remain a niche game. Everyone who wants a mainstream MMO can go sign up for one.
James Amril-Kesh wrote: CCP is not and should not be in the business of pleasing everybody. That's what mainstream MMOs are for. This is not a mainstream MMO. Many of the things that make this game special are also things that some people will absolutely hate about it. So we'll have less players, but that's the price of having a special game where you can do pretty much anything you want.
Why isn't either of you whining about nullsec risk nerfs? Because there aren't any? Really? Do you really believe what you just said? D-scan nerf, that didn't make it safer to farm in 0.0? Moving farming from belts to anoms/deadspace, didn't that make it safer to farm in 0.0? Nerfing nanogangs didn't make it much harder to roam deep 0.0 space? Standings in local, didn't help 0.0 bears at all? Putting Jump Bridges on deathstar poses was obviously a great idea, that didn't make 0.0 easier to live in at all???? JF/Capital Hauling... I could go on and on, throughout the years there have been many more little things that have made 0.0 safer. Now, many of those changes improved the game by diversifying content, reducing lag and tedious content - but most of them could have been done differently, without as much handholding by CCP. Highsec really isn't the only place that is turning into hello kitty online. All of this took place after I started playing the game. I assumed you were talking about recently. http://themittani.com/features/local-problem A simple fix to the local intel problem |
Schalac
Apocalypse Reign
81
|
Posted - 2012.08.30 04:27:00 -
[420] - Quote
It's just more goons crying.
"Wah, we have noone to shoot because we chased them away or made them blue, and now CCP is stopping my 'emergent gameplay' because I pissed all over everything and everyone. Fix it now CCP because I am a little spoiled **** whose sole purpose is to grief people and ruin your game."
Honestly. The goons need to just stop posting and go back to being the ******** little basement dwellers that the are in silence. It's boring to read and has so little meaning at all. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 .. 18 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |