Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 .. 14 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2718
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 20:26:00 -
[301] - Quote
Kate stark wrote:RubyPorto wrote:That's the job of the Skiff. except the mackinaw does the job well enough that the skiff barely sees any practical use in high sec.
... which is the problem that I want to see fixed.
And the Skiff's only use outside of HS is as bait. A mining barge, once tackled outside of HS, is generally dead unless it's bait. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
Kate stark
146
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 20:29:00 -
[302] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Kate stark wrote:RubyPorto wrote:That's the job of the Skiff. except the mackinaw does the job well enough that the skiff barely sees any practical use in high sec. ... which is the problem that I want to see fixed. And the Skiff's only use outside of HS is as bait. A mining barge, once tackled outside of HS, is generally dead unless it's bait.
completely agree. the skiff is designed for a niche that simply doesn't exist.
looking at the recent devblog, the only use the skiff sees is mercoxit mining as it retains fittings from a previous incarnation of the game which illustrates nothing more than "swapping ship and losing a little bit of yield for 1 asteroid per grav site is less inconvenient than refitting the ship i actually want to mine in" |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
3824
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 20:35:00 -
[303] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote: The only people whose resists changed were people flying Exhumers with Mining Barge 4.
... which don't seem to be so few.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
3824
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 20:36:00 -
[304] - Quote
Anyway all boils to WHY did CCP nerf mining ships suicide ganking?
In the "old times" you had the same amount of miners going around with no tank and others going around with a tank.
Mining ships were gankable by the guy who could field a cruiser and later 2 destroyers.
All were more or less happy, the random ganker killed the random miner.
Once a year there'd be Hulkageddon and more miners would die and CCP (and not only them) would highlight it as a Good Thing and be done with it.
Then something happened. Organized, long lasting, large scale ganking. From casual ganker killing the occasional 2-3 miners a day and having to deal with sec status dropping we went to:
- professional and efficient ganking, basically scorched earth approach. Competent Concord corraling away, efficient timers usage. An industry.
- sponsored refund for the ship losses.
- big wallets ganking corps fielding Orcas and quick replacement ships in order to circumvent -10 penalties and the reship logistics and related downtimes that affected the casual gankers.
- never ending duration for the Hulkageddon, which means no change to the scorched earth for the foreseable future.
- sponsored by richest null sec alliances which means never ending funds. Plus it meant a positive feedback mechanism, where the more the kills the more the demand for the materials exactly produced by those alliances.
- concurrent ideological campaigns to single out and blame miners portrayed basically as dimwits only good for gassing (I still recall this unlucky mention, as my relatives were put in such camps).
- mined materials prices rising by 400% in 2 months as a consequence, with immediate consequences on the game economy.
ANY software company seeing this behavior in a game would quickly terminate it, and this is what CCP has done.
This is not an EvE specific event, many PvP games had mass players farming nerfed once it surges to heavy duty industry status.
How to nerf it? Not easy at all. Keeping suicide ganking profitable is a typical case of "price does not justify super powers" listed by Tippia so many times.
In fact, as long as it's profitable, raising the bar only helps taking out casual gankers. Industry gankers can potentially field endless concurrent ships so in the end they'd just bring double, triple the numbers in order to still make a profit.
By making it not profitable, even an endless amount of firepower is not going to help so it's useless to field it.
And thus the unprofitability has been put in place. To keep too overpowering huge alliances from perma farming people.
This is also related to boomerang and freighters ganking. As long as it's under control, nothing will be done and I sincerely hope CCP won't buff anything. But as seen for boomerang, those practicing it could not control themselves, they brought it to scorched earth industry status and got it neutered.
I suggest those killing freighters to control themselves else if once again they make scorched earth they WILL be nerfed.
I know there are many ways to defend from things blah blah but CCP looks at statistics. If too many die per moving averaged unit of time they engage the nerf hammer.
Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Kate stark
146
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 20:37:00 -
[305] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:RubyPorto wrote: The only people whose resists changed were people flying Exhumers with Mining Barge 4.
... which don't seem to be so few.
considering mining barge 5 is a prereq for sitting in an exhumer.... |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2719
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 20:39:00 -
[306] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:RubyPorto wrote: The only people whose resists changed were people flying Exhumers with Mining Barge 4.
... which don't seem to be so few.
Why should you get the bonus from a Skill which you no longer have trained? This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
3824
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 20:42:00 -
[307] - Quote
Kate stark wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:RubyPorto wrote: The only people whose resists changed were people flying Exhumers with Mining Barge 4.
... which don't seem to be so few. considering mining barge 5 is a prereq for sitting in an exhumer....
So how does him say "people flying Exhumers with Mining Barge 4? Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Kate stark
146
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 20:44:00 -
[308] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Kate stark wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:RubyPorto wrote: The only people whose resists changed were people flying Exhumers with Mining Barge 4.
... which don't seem to be so few. considering mining barge 5 is a prereq for sitting in an exhumer.... So how does him say "people flying Exhumers with Mining Barge 4?
no idea, because i just opened the show info window on my mack, and mining barge V is there as a ship requirement. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
3824
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 20:45:00 -
[309] - Quote
Kate stark wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Kate stark wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:RubyPorto wrote: The only people whose resists changed were people flying Exhumers with Mining Barge 4.
... which don't seem to be so few. considering mining barge 5 is a prereq for sitting in an exhumer.... So how does him say "people flying Exhumers with Mining Barge 4? no idea, because i just opened the show info window on my mack, and mining barge V is there as a ship requirement.
See, trust Rubyporto's sentences for a second... Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Kate stark
146
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 20:50:00 -
[310] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:See, trust Rubyporto's sentences for a second...
rubyporto is like meth. not even once. |
|
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2719
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 20:57:00 -
[311] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Anyway all boils to WHY did CCP nerf mining ships suicide ganking?
In the "old times" you had the same amount of miners going around with no tank and others going around with a tank.
Mining ships were gankable by the guy who could field a cruiser and later 2 destroyers.
All were more or less happy, the random ganker killed the random miner.
Once a year there'd be Hulkageddon and more miners would die and CCP (and not only them) would highlight it as a Good Thing and be done with it.
Then something happened. Organized, long lasting, large scale ganking. From casual ganker killing the occasional 2-3 miners a day and having to deal with sec status dropping we went to:
- professional and efficient ganking, basically scorched earth approach. Competent Concord corraling away, efficient timers usage. An industry.
- sponsored refund for the ship losses.
- big wallets ganking corps fielding Orcas and quick replacement ships in order to circumvent -10 penalties and the reship logistics and related downtimes that affected the casual gankers.
- never ending duration for the Hulkageddon, which means no change to the scorched earth for the foreseable future.
- sponsored by richest null sec alliances which means never ending funds. Plus it meant a positive feedback mechanism, where the more the kills the more the demand for the materials exactly produced by those alliances.
- concurrent ideological campaigns to single out and blame miners portrayed basically as dimwits only good for gassing (I still recall this unlucky mention, as my relatives were put in such camps and it REALLY offended me).
- mined materials prices rising by 400% in 2 months as a consequence, with immediate consequences on the game economy.
ANY software company seeing this behavior in a game would quickly terminate it, and this is what CCP has done.
This is not an EvE specific event, many PvP games had mass players farming nerfed once it surges to heavy duty industry status.
How to nerf it? Not easy at all. Keeping suicide ganking profitable is a typical case of "price does not justify super powers" listed by Tippia so many times.
In fact, as long as it's profitable, raising the bar only helps taking out casual gankers. Industry gankers can potentially field endless concurrent ships so in the end they'd just bring double, triple the numbers in order to still make a profit.
By making it not profitable, even an endless amount of firepower is not going to help so it's useless to field it.
And thus the unprofitability has been put in place. To keep too overpowering huge alliances from perma farming people.
This is also related to boomerang and freighters ganking. As long as it's under control, nothing will be done and I sincerely hope CCP won't buff anything. But as seen for boomerang, those practicing it could not control themselves, they brought it to scorched earth industry status and got it neutered.
I suggest those killing freighters to control themselves else if once again they make scorched earth they WILL be nerfed.
I know there are many ways to defend from things blah blah but CCP looks at statistics. If too many die per moving averaged unit of time they engage the nerf hammer.
tl;dr VV thinks nerfing success is appropriate.
Good game balance is not about statistics. Good game balance is about every tactic having a counter. The boomerang didn't have a significant counter (at least not that I can think of), so nerfing it was almost certainly appropriate (the timing of the nerf was caused by the removal of the previous optimal solution, insurance, and the introduction of a ship almost perfectly designed use the tactic, which cobined to uncover the broken tactic)(when it happened, I looked more at the recent trend of ganking nerfs and got annoyed rather than looking for a counter). Ganking for profit has several easy and obvious counters.
You're literally claiming that Crucible, which made ganking Exhumers more expensive, lead to the balance between ganker and miner being broken... in the ganker's favor.
Player fads and actions do not create balance problems. Game mechanics do. Ganking for profit was trivially counterable. Miners simply refused to do it. Why should they not have to give up anything to counter a profitable gank of a FIT and UNTANKED ship?
If I put a 1b bounty on all Damnation suicide ganks, would you conclude that the Damnation's tank is too thin? If I issued a promise of a 200m ISK payment to any Exhumer loss to ganks, would you conclude that Exhumer's were too cheap to lose? Now that the bounty (upon which you base, in part, your rationale for the across-the-board EHP buff) is gone, shouldn't you be calling for a compensating EHP nerf? The Player-issued bounty cannot be taken into account when making game mechanics changes.
I've always been supportive of the Tiericide idea for mining barges(that is to say, making them all useful in different ways). I'm just disappointed that it worked out to be an unwarrented, across the board, EHP buff where nothing of the sort was needed. Because EHP is the Skiff's entire role. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2719
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 20:59:00 -
[312] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Kate stark wrote:
no idea, because i just opened the show info window on my mack, and mining barge V is there as a ship requirement.
See, trust Rubyporto's sentences for a second...
Oh hey, I thought Barge was a nested pre-req. Learn something new every day.
Still, Exhumers never had T2 resists. The bonus was just changed from being included in the base stats to being applied properly as a bonus. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
616
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 21:21:00 -
[313] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Kate stark wrote:
no idea, because i just opened the show info window on my mack, and mining barge V is there as a ship requirement.
See, trust Rubyporto's sentences for a second... Oh hey, I thought Barge was a nested pre-req. Learn something new every day. Still, Exhumers never had T2 resists. The bonus was just changed from being included in the base stats to being applied properly as a bonus. Are the stats in Evelopedia not the old stats?
Looking at the hulk there shows the following shield resists as well as the 7.5% resist bonus. Feel free to correct me if wrong.
Shield Em Damage Resistance 37.5 % Shield Explosive Damage Resistance 65 % Shield Kinetic Damage Resistance 62.5 % Shield Thermal Damage Resistance 50 % |
Kate stark
146
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 21:23:00 -
[314] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Kate stark wrote:
no idea, because i just opened the show info window on my mack, and mining barge V is there as a ship requirement.
See, trust Rubyporto's sentences for a second... Oh hey, I thought Barge was a nested pre-req. Learn something new every day. Still, Exhumers never had T2 resists. The bonus was just changed from being included in the base stats to being applied properly as a bonus.
no it's one of those secondary requirements, it requires mining barges V AND exhumers at whatever level.. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2720
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 21:25:00 -
[315] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Kate stark wrote:
no idea, because i just opened the show info window on my mack, and mining barge V is there as a ship requirement.
See, trust Rubyporto's sentences for a second... Oh hey, I thought Barge was a nested pre-req. Learn something new every day. Still, Exhumers never had T2 resists. The bonus was just changed from being included in the base stats to being applied properly as a bonus. Are the stats in Evelopedia not the old stats? Looking at the hulk there shows the following shield resists as well as the 7.5% resist bonus. Feel free to correct me if wrong. Shield Em Damage Resistance 37.5 % Shield Explosive Damage Resistance 65 % Shield Kinetic Damage Resistance 62.5 % Shield Thermal Damage Resistance 50 %
Except that if you sat in one, the EM resist would remain 37.5%, because the Resist bonus had been folded into the base stats instead of only being applied when piloted. This is EVE - Everybody Versus Everybody.
"the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built and we want to keep that (infact, this is much more representative of the consensus opinion within CCP)." -CCP Solomon |
LHA Tarawa
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
300
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 21:26:00 -
[316] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote: ... which is the problem that I want to see fixed.
Working as designed.
Carebears are a source of great revenue to CCP, and therefore, must be kept happy. They are not to be easy targets of opportunity for people that suck so badly at PVP that they have to get EPEEEN from attacking miners instead of fighting other players that are ready and looking for a fight. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
3824
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 21:26:00 -
[317] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:
tl;dr VV thinks nerfing success is appropriate.
Me describing what a software house does has absolutely no relation with how I think about it.
In fact not only I don't think like that but I even *earned* more when such "success" was running.
Other software houses take a "diminishing returns" approach which is more appropriate because it lets "casual gankers" and "professionals" both stand a chance. I can understand how doing it in EvE would be hard if not impossible.
I can understand why CCP nerfs what kills their economy and subscriptions. Understand <> "agree" or "think". Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
616
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 21:39:00 -
[318] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:RubyPorto wrote:
Still, Exhumers never had T2 resists. The bonus was just changed from being included in the base stats to being applied properly as a bonus.
Are the stats in Evelopedia not the old stats? Looking at the hulk there shows the following shield resists as well as the 7.5% resist bonus. Feel free to correct me if wrong. Shield Em Damage Resistance 37.5 % Shield Explosive Damage Resistance 65 % Shield Kinetic Damage Resistance 62.5 % Shield Thermal Damage Resistance 50 % Except that if you sat in one, the EM resist would remain 37.5%, because the Resist bonus had been folded into the base stats instead of only being applied when piloted. Interesting. I was unaware of that. |
EI Digin
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
483
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 21:53:00 -
[319] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: Once a year there'd be Hulkageddon and more miners would die and CCP (and not only them) would highlight it as a Good Thing and be done with it.
Then something happened. Organized, long lasting, large scale ganking. From casual ganker killing the occasional 2-3 miners a day and having to deal with sec status dropping we went to:
- professional and efficient ganking, basically scorched earth approach. Competent Concord corraling away, efficient timers usage. An industry.
- sponsored refund for the ship losses.
- big wallets ganking corps fielding Orcas and quick replacement ships in order to circumvent -10 penalties and the reship logistics and related downtimes that affected the casual gankers.
- never ending duration for the Hulkageddon, which means no change to the scorched earth for the foreseable future.
- sponsored by richest null sec alliances which means never ending funds. Plus it meant a positive feedback mechanism, where the more the kills the more the demand for the materials exactly produced by those alliances.
- mined materials prices rising by 400% in 2 months as a consequence, with immediate consequences on the game economy.
ANY software company seeing this behavior in a game would quickly terminate it, and this is what CCP has done.
This is not an EvE specific event, many PvP games had mass players farming nerfed once it surges to heavy duty industry status.
I know there are many ways to defend from things blah blah but CCP looks at statistics. If too many die per moving averaged unit of time they engage the nerf hammer.
http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/63999/1/Mined_Volume_2.png
Looks like temporary emergent gameplay event to me. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
3824
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 23:24:00 -
[320] - Quote
EI Digin wrote:Looks like temporary emergent gameplay event to me.
It became temporary, after a while even if it was flagged as "never ending", people lost interest, before the tiericide.
That's why I was against making HG permanent, because when done as event it's fun, when it becomes routine, people get bored. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
|
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
758
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 02:16:00 -
[321] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: Well I am specific, I looked up a pair of cruisers and their speed is much better than a Mack and their tank is like or below an old Mack. If you mention a cruiser then I assume you mean a cruiser.
So you're deliberately ignoring the "CCP knows better when it comes to specific numbers so I'm going to remain absract." Currently the mackinaw sits at, assuming all 5s, ~11k EHP if it were set at cruiser EHP it would be ~9k EHP. Speed, agility and such aren't a part of the argument or consideration so I'm not sure why you are bringing it up. This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3416
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 03:59:00 -
[322] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: Well I am specific, I looked up a pair of cruisers and their speed is much better than a Mack and their tank is like or below an old Mack. If you mention a cruiser then I assume you mean a cruiser.
So you're deliberately ignoring the "CCP knows better when it comes to specific numbers so I'm going to remain absract." Currently the mackinaw sits at, assuming all 5s, ~11k EHP if it were set at cruiser EHP it would be ~9k EHP. Speed, agility and such aren't a part of the argument or consideration so I'm not sure why you are bringing it up. Clearly they are orbiting the asteroid to make it harder to be ganked. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Calapine
Xeno Tech Corp
168
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 08:25:00 -
[323] - Quote
What is this thread about again?
Mackinaws are regulary ganked by destroyer-only gangs. Judging from the killmails it seems the gankers like to focus on all-yield macks (3x MLU/IHU + paper tank in the mid) so the high yield <> high risk tradeoff seems to work just fine.
Considering a 200m ship (+fit) can easily be killed by a bunch of -10 sec status throwaway alts in 1m a pop catalysts, what's the issue? Pain is short, and joy is eternal. |
Kate stark
154
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 09:21:00 -
[324] - Quote
Calapine wrote:What is this thread about again?
the fact that the mining barge rebalance completely failed. |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
760
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 13:43:00 -
[325] - Quote
Calapine wrote:What is this thread about again?
Mackinaws are regulary ganked by destroyer-only gangs. Judging from the killmails it seems the gankers like to focus on all-yield macks (3x MLU/IHU + paper tank in the mid) so the high yield <> high risk tradeoff seems to work just fine.
Considering a 200m ship (+fit) can easily be killed by a bunch of -10 sec status throwaway alts in 1m a pop catalysts, what's the issue?
You really should read the OP before posting. I know its over 500 characters but I have confidence you can do it. This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
3825
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 14:05:00 -
[326] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: Well I am specific, I looked up a pair of cruisers and their speed is much better than a Mack and their tank is like or below an old Mack. If you mention a cruiser then I assume you mean a cruiser.
So you're deliberately ignoring the "CCP knows better when it comes to specific numbers so I'm going to remain absract." Currently the mackinaw sits at, assuming all 5s, ~11k EHP if it were set at cruiser EHP it would be ~9k EHP. Speed, agility and such aren't a part of the argument or consideration so I'm not sure why you are bringing it up.
I opened a random cruiser and with all 5 it's 6.7k. I opened another and with all 5 it's 6.9k.
It's just a 25% difference.
As for speed agility etc. etc. I take it, you don't seem to ever have tried actively dodging gankers coming to you or keeping some transversal to them. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
760
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 14:13:00 -
[327] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:La Nariz wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: Well I am specific, I looked up a pair of cruisers and their speed is much better than a Mack and their tank is like or below an old Mack. If you mention a cruiser then I assume you mean a cruiser.
So you're deliberately ignoring the "CCP knows better when it comes to specific numbers so I'm going to remain absract." Currently the mackinaw sits at, assuming all 5s, ~11k EHP if it were set at cruiser EHP it would be ~9k EHP. Speed, agility and such aren't a part of the argument or consideration so I'm not sure why you are bringing it up. I opened a random cruiser and with all 5 it's 6.7k. I opened another and with all 5 it's 6.9k. It's just a 25% difference. As for speed agility etc. etc. I take it, you don't seem to ever have tried actively dodging gankers coming to you or keeping some transversal to them.
I've literally been the ganker so I know how much orbiting done well can screw up a gank. This is another trade-off you ignore too if the miner refuses to fit an AB, MWD, or some other speed influencing mod why should they be able to speed tank a ganker well? Also you are not looking at a T2 cruiser when referencing the mack, T1 is ~6k. This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
3826
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 18:16:00 -
[328] - Quote
La Nariz wrote: I've literally been the ganker so I know how much orbiting done well can screw up a gank. This is another trade-off you ignore too if the miner refuses to fit an AB, MWD, or some other speed influencing mod why should they be able to speed tank a ganker well? Also you are not looking at a T2 cruiser when referencing the mack, T1 is ~6k.
Hmm please fill me in with the Mack fitting that includes a MWD please. Those damn miners totally refuse to use it. Spoiled brats!
Are you REALLY saying that you are cringing in terror if a mining ship could actually dodge-defend itself when the pilot is firmly attentive and at the keyboard? You only looking for auto-farm-easy-kills? Where's the stigma against botter if you don't want to reward those who chose to stay at the keyboard by giving them a chance?
Why do you want truck goofy performance mining ships but the resilience of a bicycle? Pick one and stick to it even if it does not suit your immediate interest.
Also, is it me or your OP did not mention T2 cruisers? Please don't try these crosswords with me. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Kate stark
164
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 19:38:00 -
[329] - Quote
it would be sensible to assume "cruiser" meant t2 cruiser by virtue of exhumers being t2 ships themselves, although not an obvious assumption. |
GetSirrus
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
19
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 19:56:00 -
[330] - Quote
So the two arguments are:
1. there is general balancing philosophy. which drawn from a thread about modules, can be extended to ships in Eve as a ubiquitous compromise to fitting. OP believes mining barges have side stepped this law.
Well if you really believed in design philosophy we'd expect to you posting your support for the battlecruiser rebalance? Not seeing it OP.
2. not profitable to gank macks in their current state.
So it currently possible to gank - that's not been denied. When ships get killed in Null or Low or WH is it because there is ISK to be made from the salvaging the wreck or looting the mods? Making isk is an after thought. It is not nor ever has been the point of killing another ship in Eve. Which meets the qualification of Soundwave's statement that "ganking is not meant to be profitable". But you want to argue some special case or exception should exists for barge killing in high-sec?
Now that your arguments are refuted, I look forward to next train of thought to derail. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 .. 14 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |