|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
Frostys Virpio
Lame Corp Name
307
   |
Posted - 2013.02.11 01:03:00 -
[1] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:I found this hidden gem over in ships and modules: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2530257#post2530257CCP Greyscale wrote:tl;dr yes, this has been removed, because we felt that for a number of reasons it wasn't a function we wanted on active hardeners This bonus came to the top of our work due to a defect, which prompted us to discuss whether we even wanted this feature in the first place. After fairly extensive discussion, we decided we would prefer to just remove it outright, for the following reasons:
- We're not, in general and with exceptions, fans of multi-function modules. EVE fitting is about trade-offs, not about having your cake and eating it. In this particular case, it was making the decision to take an active hardener over a passive one easier than it otherwise would be, which isn't a particularly good thing.
- The UX of this feature as implemented is pretty bad - there's two sets of resist attributes on the hardeners with very little explanation, the skill descriptions need to be unusually complicated to explain exactly what's going on, and it's not at all obvious from the modules that this feature even exists (see Liang's comment above).
First to state this thread is not about the hardener change, I couldn't care less about that and you shouldn't either. The bolded portion is one of the core concepts behind EVE. The idea is that your ship can specialize, that you must make trade offs to excel in a specific area. For example if you want to be an amazingly tough tank your damage will suffer and if you want to be a speed demon your tank will suffer. Perhaps you prefer to be a generalist in which you can do many things but you are also average, you don't do a lot of damage and you cannot absorb a lot of damage. This philosophy is followed fairly well through all ship types except for one, the mining ships. Why is that the case? With the recent EHP changes to mining barges they no longer follow this philosophy. Miners are no longer required to fit a tank at the expense of other factors in order to ensure their safety. Miner's literally have the "having your cake and eating," something directly against a core concept of EVE, trade-offs. Miners do not have to choose between tank and yield anymore. Yet everyone else is expected to make these choices and should someone ask why they can't "have their cake and eat it too" they are shot down with as many HTFU variants as possible. Why are mining ships exempt from trade-offs? To head off some dumb arguments before they arise(more to be added as the thread goes): 1. Miners have to fit tanks or they will be ganked. Directly from the CSM minutes from December 2012 (http://community.eveonline.com/council/transcripts/2012/CSM_CCP_Meetings_December_2012.pdf) "For reasons that are left as an exercise to the reader, Exhumers are now blowing up at historically low rates."
The problem si we don't know what CCP intend as being the base stats. Maybe they are actaully not meant to be killed by a destroyer. For all we know, CCP could say it's not broken even if it took a glass cannon fit talos to gank one in a 0.7 system. From that point, getting even more tank would cost a little bit of yield.
The trade off is there. The real question is where is the baseline intended to be.
Where the baseline SHOULD be is a totally different question. |
Frostys Virpio
Lame Corp Name
308
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 03:41:00 -
[2] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:
The problem si we don't know what CCP intend as being the base stats. Maybe they are actaully not meant to be killed by a destroyer. For all we know, CCP could say it's not broken even if it took a glass cannon fit talos to gank one in a 0.7 system. From that point, getting even more tank would cost a little bit of yield.
The trade off is there. The real question is where is the baseline intended to be.
Where the baseline SHOULD be is a totally different question.
I think the baseline is the problem at this point. It basically makes it so miners do not have to make their trade-off choices, they can fit for max yield while still having adequate tank. The CSM quote affirms this because ganking is at "historic lows." Also with the ore bay change they completely removed one trade-off which is cargo space. So mining ships are currently ignoring one of the core concepts of EVE.
It's only too high if it's intended to be hard to do with a catalyst. If the goal is to require at a minimum a cruiser to gank them, then it's not really at a bad point. The whole debate is entirely irrevelent until we know whats the goal of EHP of a barge/exhumer. Both side can cry rivers worth of tears and write bible worth of rambling about how it's broken for nothing because the goal was never said. We can't really say it's too much or too little until we know if they are supposed to be as hard as a cruiser to kill or a abttle ship or a titan.
My point of view of the mack being a little too hard is only that, an opinion based on my own set of idea and so is the generic "all exhumer are too tanky" view. The same can be said of the old "exhumer are too easy to gank" point of view.
The only solid point we can take as most likely to be a fact is that they were too easy to gank because thier EHP went up. The rest is pure opinion. The key is to get the point of view of the devs so we can then discuss what ships pay what exactly to get more tank/yield. |
Frostys Virpio
Lame Corp Name
309
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 03:55:00 -
[3] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:It's only too high if it's intended to be hard to do with a catalyst. If the goal is to require at a minimum a cruiser to gank them, then it's not really at a bad point. The whole debate is entirely irrevelent until we know whats the goal of EHP of a barge/exhumer. Both side can cry rivers worth of tears and write bible worth of rambling about how it's broken for nothing because the goal was never said. We can't really say it's too much or too little until we know if they are supposed to be as hard as a cruiser to kill or a abttle ship or a titan.
My point of view of the mack being a little too hard is only that, an opinion based on my own set of idea and so is the generic "all exhumer are too tanky" view. The same can be said of the old "exhumer are too easy to gank" point of view.
The only solid point we can take as most likely to be a fact is that they were too easy to gank because thier EHP went up. The rest is pure opinion. The key is to get the point of view of the devs so we can then discuss what ships pay what exactly to get more tank/yield. I can agree that solo destroyers being able to gank barges was silly, but CCP gave us that tool when they buffed destroyers & I think they over-buffed them to be honest. Destroyer DPS is comparable to & often much better than cruiser DPS & we'd have been silly to continue using cruisers to gank when destroyers were a fraction of the cost for the same damage output.
What ships usually are profitable to be ganked anyway? Lets say with a T2 fit since most exhumer probably fit T2 too for whatever they have fitted. Any point where we can start comparing? |
Frostys Virpio
Lame Corp Name
309
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 04:10:00 -
[4] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:
There is no goal or gold standard, haranguing about that is pointless and CCP follows the forums so voicing our opinions persuasively is the goal. The bolded portion of that devblog is hyperbole and possibly only applied while the "boomerang" was possible. If exhumers are not "too tanky" then please answer why ganking of exhumers is at a historic low instead of average?
They are supposed to have cruiser sized EHP which is fine because without a tank cruisers can be ganked by a catalyst. Yet the mackinaw untanked cannot be ganked by a catalyst. Hence why I say there is a problem mining ships no longer have to make trade-offs they are intrinsically cargo expanded and tanked.
All of the above is completely ignoring the conflict between what CCP Greyscale most recently stated and what CCP Soundwave stated.
Assuming your point of exhumer being supposed to equivalent to a cruiser tank, then thier naked all skill at 5 tank would be up to 3k EHP above T2 cruiser except recon ship (up to 6k). If cruiser is indeed the target level of tank, then now an argument could be made. |
Frostys Virpio
Lame Corp Name
310
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 04:17:00 -
[5] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:It's only too high if it's intended to be hard to do with a catalyst. If the goal is to require at a minimum a cruiser to gank them, then it's not really at a bad point. The whole debate is entirely irrevelent until we know whats the goal of EHP of a barge/exhumer. Both side can cry rivers worth of tears and write bible worth of rambling about how it's broken for nothing because the goal was never said. We can't really say it's too much or too little until we know if they are supposed to be as hard as a cruiser to kill or a abttle ship or a titan.
My point of view of the mack being a little too hard is only that, an opinion based on my own set of idea and so is the generic "all exhumer are too tanky" view. The same can be said of the old "exhumer are too easy to gank" point of view.
The only solid point we can take as most likely to be a fact is that they were too easy to gank because thier EHP went up. The rest is pure opinion. The key is to get the point of view of the devs so we can then discuss what ships pay what exactly to get more tank/yield. I can agree that solo destroyers being able to gank barges was silly, but CCP gave us that tool when they buffed destroyers & I think they over-buffed them to be honest. Destroyer DPS is comparable to & often much better than cruiser DPS & we'd have been silly to continue using cruisers to gank when destroyers were a fraction of the cost for the same damage output. What ships usually are profitable to be ganked anyway? Lets say with a T2 fit since most exhumer probably fit T2 too for whatever they have fitted. Any point where we can start comparing? In line with what CCP Soundwave said awhile back, I personally do not believe that ships should be profitable to gank, at the base level. Being able to kill a Hulk with a destroyer & make 30mil from it was pretty silly. However if a person starts putting faction/DS stuff on their ship, why should it not be profitable to gank? That person has made a choice to turn their ship in to a loot pi+Ķata knowingly or not. Anyhow, this is not a discussion about gank profitability.
The miner cannot take any other risk than being more or less profitable to gank. If it's supposed to be profitable and the current abse tank make it impossible outside of stupid pimpfit, then the EHP would eb too high. If there is no risk to be taken because the base EHP of the sip is too high, then the system is obviously broken. But if it was enver really supposed to be profitable to gank a T2 ship fitted with T2 module, then there is no point in arguing about exhumer being too ahrd to gank because they were obviously the not fitting in the rules.
We can't magicly assume an exhumer was emant to be ganked profitably if no other ship can be in a similar situation. |
Frostys Virpio
Lame Corp Name
310
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 04:23:00 -
[6] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:
Assuming your point of exhumer being supposed to equivalent to a cruiser tank, then thier naked all skill at 5 tank would be up to 3k EHP above T2 cruiser except recon ship (up to 6k). If cruiser is indeed the target level of tank, then now an argument could be made.
http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=73098 wrote:
Tanking
All the barges are getting their tanks adjusted to favor shields rather than structure hit points. Skiff and Procurer (original version of the blog incorrectly listed Retriever here instead of Procurer) are getting hit points comparable to a battleship, while the others are closer to cruiser level hit points.
Directly from the devblog, mackniaws/hulks should be cruiser level EHP and procuror/skiff should be battleship level EHP.
Then they did IMO mess up on thier intended goal and did give the mackinaw too much EHP. The hulk at ~10k would be on target. There is no other point to make. |
Frostys Virpio
Lame Corp Name
310
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 04:29:00 -
[7] - Quote
Piugattuk wrote:Geesus H, jimmany crickets, why are so many concerned with f'ing miners and their barges, the only 2 with excellent tanks are the procurer and skiff, the mid size if not tanked die real easily, and the top die if you fart on them. Seems to me that these...f...FFF..folks just want to fly around in the cheapest ship possible to gank paper thin ships so they can get lol's for nothing and have a segment of the eve universe pay for "their" good time. I flew 2 industrial ships right into goon space "boom" just like that bet it was the best time those gate campers had all day. I did it so you could have fun filled my Mexican pinatas with candy for you....nothing ever will satisfy boredom of this game except taking a break...just take a break. 
The dev said they should have cruiser EHP. I think they should have cruiser EHP because of that. |
Frostys Virpio
Lame Corp Name
310
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 04:35:00 -
[8] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:La Nariz wrote:We can extend this idea to mission runners/ratters/T2 fit combat ships. The dude who active tanks their faction or officer mission running/ratting tengu is in the same boat as the max yield miner. Not even close. If the max yield miner was fitting officer modules, sure. The profit for ganking a T2 fit ship should not be enough to cover the cost of ganking it. Well, unless you wanted to encourage people to engage in more PvP, at which point I'm all for it. But make that happen across the board. Until it's profitable to gank the T2 fit Abaddon, why should it be profitable to gank the T2 fit exhumer? You gankers want to have your cake and eat it too.
The abaddon is a battle ship. You argument is only valid for ganking a skiff. You should look up heavy interdictor/heavy assault ship for T2 version of the intended cruiser EHP target for mack/hulk. Can you profitably gank those if fit in T2 for full gank to compare with full yield?
Faction fit should be profitable just like any idiot sporting that meta 4 Aoede Mining laser upgrade selling for 750 million in Jita. |
Frostys Virpio
Lame Corp Name
313
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 04:57:00 -
[9] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:La Nariz wrote:We can extend this idea to mission runners/ratters/T2 fit combat ships. The dude who active tanks their faction or officer mission running/ratting tengu is in the same boat as the max yield miner. Not even close. If the max yield miner was fitting officer modules, sure. The profit for ganking a T2 fit ship should not be enough to cover the cost of ganking it. Now if there were officer strip miners to go with those extremely rare high-meta MLUs, I'm sure you'd see some fools try to use them. I have no complaints about gankers making a profit from the foolishness of others. Of course making a T2 fit ship a profitable ganking prospect would encourage people to engage in more PvP, at which point I'm all for it. But make that happen across the board. Until it's profitable to gank a T2 fit HAC, why should it be profitable to gank the T2 fit exhumer? You gankers want to have your cake and eat it too. I gave the example of the faction/officer fit because it is the most memorable for me. You can profit off of ganking T2 fit active tanked tengus as well. If the HAC/HIC/Recon/Logi decides to select something other than tank and sit there unawares then yes it should be possible to profitably gank them.
The missiles ones don't really add-up tho. A cerberus with T2 BCU and heavy launcher for example has less isk fitted than a full T2 mack. I guess it's the same for the other T2 missile cruiser. Laser and hybrid seems to depend on which weapon you run but they can be higher by a good margin.
How many millions of isk need to be fitted to become profitable? |
Frostys Virpio
Lame Corp Name
313
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 05:13:00 -
[10] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:La Nariz wrote:I gave the example of the faction/officer fit because it is the most memorable for me. You can profit off of ganking T2 fit active tanked tengus as well. So why aren't active tanked tengus dying as much as exhumers? They tend to be at their keyboards and able to make life difficult for the gankers. Miners have similar options. They simply choose not to employ them.
I never used a DCU but unless it has a CD to prevent it from always running, a mack is cap stable running it even with an adaptive invulnerability field II.
There must be something wrong with that or everybody terrorized of gettign ganked would run that right? |
|
|
Frostys Virpio
Lame Corp Name
316
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 05:18:00 -
[11] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:I never used a DCU but unless it has a CD to prevent it from always running, a mack is cap stable running it even with an adaptive invulnerability field II.
There must be something wrong with that or everybody terrorized of gettign ganked would run that right? It's a low slot. They aren't prepared to lose yield to fit it.
COmmon. There must be something else. Like it can't keep on going right? Can't auto repeat? I mean it's so stupid.
And weren't the exhumer EHP based on structure before? |
Frostys Virpio
Lame Corp Name
316
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 05:25:00 -
[12] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:I never used a DCU but unless it has a CD to prevent it from always running, a mack is cap stable running it even with an adaptive invulnerability field II.
There must be something wrong with that or everybody terrorized of gettign ganked would run that right? It's a low slot. They aren't prepared to lose yield to fit it. COmmon. There must be something else. Like it can't keep on going right? Can't auto repeat? I mean it's so stupid. And weren't the exhumer EHP based on structure before? It costs very little cap and prevents the fitting of an MLU which reduces isk/hr. It can auto repeat and yes they did use to be structure based.
I WAS LIED TO!!!!
The average EvE player is not more intelligent than a WoW player!
GAWD!!!!!
All hulkageddon could of been stopped at the cost of 9% yield...
I'm ... |
Frostys Virpio
Lame Corp Name
317
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 05:49:00 -
[13] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:March rabbit wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:Suicide ganking a Tier 3 BC is profitable. you mean suicide ganker is in tier 3? OK. But mostg of gankers use T1 fitted Catalysts I mean exactly what I said. You can profitably gank a T2 fit Tier 3 BC. According to the logic of CCP, Tier 3 BC's need an EHP buff. Just like Hulk-Fit Zealots.
How many tears can a hulk fitted zealot harvest? |
Frostys Virpio
Lame Corp Name
317
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 09:18:00 -
[14] - Quote
What are the chance of 5 ECM drones to jam a ganker? |
|
|
| |
|