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) |
Hannibal Ord
Fer-De-Lance
85
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 22:32:00 -
[181] - Quote
But nor is there any reason why suiciding a Mack should be profitable at all, since it carries no expensive PVP mods, cargo or any other such thing.
If you have it so miners can fit more faction type loot to their barges like super strip miners etc ( a bit like mission runners since this is basically the industrial mission running activity) then voila, it's profitable because of the rare goods they carry.
Just like basically it's not particularly profitable, if at all, to gank a mission drake or raven, but it might be if you do it to a Golem or a nightmare. And even then only if they carry neat gear.
Anything on top of that and it's done for the giggles. |
baltec1
Bat Country
5179
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 22:38:00 -
[182] - Quote
Hannibal Ord wrote:But nor is there any reason why suiciding a Mack should be profitable at all, since it carries no expensive PVP mods, cargo or any other such thing.
If you have it so miners can fit more faction type loot to their barges like super strip miners etc ( a bit like mission runners since this is basically the industrial mission running activity) then voila, it's profitable because of the rare goods they carry.
Just like basically it's not particularly profitable, if at all, to gank a mission drake or raven, but it might be if you do it to a Golem or a nightmare. And even then only if they carry neat gear.
Anything on top of that and it's done for the giggles.
In order for the skiff to be viable the macks tank must be nerfed. |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
749
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 00:43:00 -
[183] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Hannibal Ord wrote:But nor is there any reason why suiciding a Mack should be profitable at all, since it carries no expensive PVP mods, cargo or any other such thing.
If you have it so miners can fit more faction type loot to their barges like super strip miners etc ( a bit like mission runners since this is basically the industrial mission running activity) then voila, it's profitable because of the rare goods they carry.
Just like basically it's not particularly profitable, if at all, to gank a mission drake or raven, but it might be if you do it to a Golem or a nightmare. And even then only if they carry neat gear.
Anything on top of that and it's done for the giggles. In order for the skiff to be viable the macks tank must be nerfed.
I'd like to add to this that the yield of both skiff and mack should be toned down more as well to make the hulk more viable. I rarely see hulks anymore.
This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
3813
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 00:48:00 -
[184] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:baltec1 wrote:Hannibal Ord wrote:But nor is there any reason why suiciding a Mack should be profitable at all, since it carries no expensive PVP mods, cargo or any other such thing.
If you have it so miners can fit more faction type loot to their barges like super strip miners etc ( a bit like mission runners since this is basically the industrial mission running activity) then voila, it's profitable because of the rare goods they carry.
Just like basically it's not particularly profitable, if at all, to gank a mission drake or raven, but it might be if you do it to a Golem or a nightmare. And even then only if they carry neat gear.
Anything on top of that and it's done for the giggles. In order for the skiff to be viable the macks tank must be nerfed. I'd like to add to this that the yield of both skiff and mack should be toned down more as well to make the hulk more viable. I rarely see hulks anymore.
How many are self hating enough to use the ship with the least crystals room (in hi sec roids are tiny, crystals need more frequent replacement), has T1 grade tank and the lowest hold? Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
749
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 00:53:00 -
[185] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:How many are self hating enough to use the ship with the least crystals room (in hi sec roids are tiny, crystals need more frequent replacement), has T1 grade tank and the lowest hold?
If their going to put forth the effort to do so they should be properly rewarded and right now with the yield of the mack/skiff being so close they aren't being properly rewarded. The more and more I look over mining ships the more screwed up they appear. Its as if they completely ignored EVE design philosophy when "rebalancing" them. This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2672
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 00:55:00 -
[186] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:baltec1 wrote:Hannibal Ord wrote:But nor is there any reason why suiciding a Mack should be profitable at all, since it carries no expensive PVP mods, cargo or any other such thing.
If you have it so miners can fit more faction type loot to their barges like super strip miners etc ( a bit like mission runners since this is basically the industrial mission running activity) then voila, it's profitable because of the rare goods they carry.
Just like basically it's not particularly profitable, if at all, to gank a mission drake or raven, but it might be if you do it to a Golem or a nightmare. And even then only if they carry neat gear.
Anything on top of that and it's done for the giggles. In order for the skiff to be viable the macks tank must be nerfed. I'd like to add to this that the yield of both skiff and mack should be toned down more as well to make the hulk more viable. I rarely see hulks anymore.
My ideal world has: The Hulk and Mack at very similar tank (such that you're better off using the Skiff then trying to make them unprofitable to gank*). The Hulk and Skiff at similar Cargo spaces (closer to the current Hulk than current Skiff, or the Mack becomes deprecated) The Mackinaw and Skiff at Similar yields (probably around the Skiff's current yield)
That way each excels at one of the 3 stats that matter to a mining ship, there's a reason to use each of them, and none of them allow you to safely be AFK for 45 minutes.
Right now, the Mackinaw has the 2nd best tank, the 2nd best yield, and the best Cargo. And the tank is such that ganking does not represent a significant risk to them, so the Skiff is useless, and since miners tend to prefer cargo over yield (see the HAG killboards for the cargo Hulks), the Hulk's rarely used.
*Because otherwise the Skiff will never, ever have a useful mining 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 |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
749
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 00:58:00 -
[187] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:
My ideal world has: The Hulk and Mack at very similar tank (such that you're better off using the Skiff then trying to make them unprofitable to gank*). The Hulk and Skiff at similar Cargo spaces (closer to the current Hulk than current Skiff, or the Mack becomes deprecated) The Mackinaw and Skiff at Similar yields (probably around the Skiff's current yield)
That way each excels at one of the 3 stats that matter to a mining ship, there's a reason to use each of them, and none of them allow you to safely be AFK for 45 minutes.
Right now, the Mackinaw has the 2nd best tank, the 2nd best yield, and the best Cargo. And the tank is such that ganking does not represent a significant risk to them, so the Skiff is useless, and since miners tend to prefer cargo over yield (see the HAG killboards for the cargo Hulks), the Hulk's rarely used.
*Because otherwise the Skiff will never, ever have a useful mining role.
Make sure they have acceptable fitting resources and this is exactly what I was envisioning. The miner can choose to specialize via the three ships and further choose to specialize based on fitting. Why CCP decided massive EHP buff and everyone's yield should be basically the same is beyond me. This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
3813
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 01:13:00 -
[188] - Quote
La Nariz wrote: Make sure they have acceptable fitting resources and this is exactly what I was envisioning. The miner can choose to specialize via the three ships and further choose to specialize based on fitting. Why CCP decided massive EHP buff and everyone's yield should be basically the same is beyond me.
The yield being made so similar is due to the tiericide concept they are also applying to the other ships. I don't see as much teeth gnashing about T1 frigs having been buffed alike faction and T1-T2 differences being gradually removed. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
baltec1
Bat Country
5192
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 01:14:00 -
[189] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:La Nariz wrote: Make sure they have acceptable fitting resources and this is exactly what I was envisioning. The miner can choose to specialize via the three ships and further choose to specialize based on fitting. Why CCP decided massive EHP buff and everyone's yield should be basically the same is beyond me.
The yield being made so similar is due to the tiericide concept they are also applying to the other ships. I don't see as much teeth gnashing about T1 frigs having been buffed alike faction and T1-T2 differences being gradually removed.
Thats because the frigates have been balanced well. |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
749
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 01:17:00 -
[190] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: The yield being made so similar is due to the tiericide concept they are also applying to the other ships. I don't see as much teeth gnashing about T1 frigs having been buffed alike faction and T1-T2 differences being gradually removed.
If all yield is the same you lose trade-offs, once again completely ignoring EVE design philosophy. Its fine for the T1-T2 to be similar within reason but for all T1-T2 to be the same is the exact same as the EHP buff. It's completely unwarranted and completely against EVE design philosophy. This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. |
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
3814
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 01:30:00 -
[191] - Quote
La Nariz wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: The yield being made so similar is due to the tiericide concept they are also applying to the other ships. I don't see as much teeth gnashing about T1 frigs having been buffed alike faction and T1-T2 differences being gradually removed.
If all yield is the same you lose trade-offs, once again completely ignoring EVE design philosophy. Its fine for the T1-T2 to be similar within reason but for all T1-T2 to be the same is the exact same as the EHP buff. It's completely unwarranted and completely against EVE design philosophy.
In case you did not notice, CCP spent the last months totally changing and going against their design philosophy.
There's indeed odd stuff going for the mining ships (see my previous posts) but you can't have CCP undo tiericide on a subset of ships just because you don't like it.
This thread reminds me the "Hide your ISK, Team Security is out of control", in the sense that CCP officially decided to do their actions but you stomp your feet because you don't like their decision. Had you made a constructive thread about i.e. replacing the "heavens given tank" with a number of empty slots that the individual could choose to fill or not, then it'd serve you much better than just spamming the same nerf posts for months. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2673
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 01:42:00 -
[192] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:La Nariz wrote:If all yield is the same you lose trade-offs, once again completely ignoring EVE design philosophy. Its fine for the T1-T2 to be similar within reason but for all T1-T2 to be the same is the exact same as the EHP buff. It's completely unwarranted and completely against EVE design philosophy. In case you did not notice, CCP spent the last months totally changing and going against their design philosophy. There's indeed odd stuff going for the mining ships (see my previous posts) but you can't have CCP undo tiericide on a subset of ships just because you don't like it.
Where has anyone suggested that?
I said that Hulks tank was well balanced pre-Buff and did not require a buff, and that Mackinaws are overpowered after the buff and should be nerfed because of that. Nowhere in there hides a request to undo tiericide (whose goal, incidentally, was to make all 3 Exhumers viable instead of one. A goal at which it has failed badly.).
I also haven't seen that request hidden in any of La Nariz's posts.
Setting up a weak argument that nobody is actually making in order to beat it down is the definition of a Straw man. 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
3814
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 02:01:00 -
[193] - Quote
Too bad Hulk tank was not balanced in any way, only in your sweet dreams.
It was the least sucky ship in a parade of fail and to claim such title it needed to fill CPU / PG / bulkheads / whatever all sorts of stuff bringing its very high cost, more turrets to fit etc. down almost to a lower ship tier worth.
Also, you once again completely disregard the now 4 posts asking you how to deal with the totally obvious fact that nerfing Mack would *immediately* make Retriever the next king. They are just 70% of the whole mining ships now, you want it to become 90%? Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2674
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 02:06:00 -
[194] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Too bad Hulk tank was not balanced in any way, only in your sweet dreams.
It was the least sucky ship in a parade of fail and to claim such title it needed to fill CPU / PG / bulkheads / whatever all sorts of stuff bringing its very high cost, more turrets to fit etc. down almost to a lower ship tier worth.
Also, you once again completely disregard the now 4 posts asking you how to deal with the totally obvious fact that nerfing Mack would *immediately* make Retriever the next king. They are just 70% of the whole mining ships now, you want it to become 90%? You can't nerf a Retriever tank either, in the sense that nobody cares if a disposable ship becomes a bit more disposable.
Reduce the cargohold on the Retriever. Or the yield.
Or don't do anything. I don't see a problem with people shipping down to minimize their losses. 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
3814
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 02:09:00 -
[195] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Too bad Hulk tank was not balanced in any way, only in your sweet dreams.
It was the least sucky ship in a parade of fail and to claim such title it needed to fill CPU / PG / bulkheads / whatever all sorts of stuff bringing its very high cost, more turrets to fit etc. down almost to a lower ship tier worth.
Also, you once again completely disregard the now 4 posts asking you how to deal with the totally obvious fact that nerfing Mack would *immediately* make Retriever the next king. They are just 70% of the whole mining ships now, you want it to become 90%? You can't nerf a Retriever tank either, in the sense that nobody cares if a disposable ship becomes a bit more disposable. Reduce the cargohold on the Retriever. Or the yield.
And we are back to pre-tiericide. Something tells me it's not going to happen.
Also - to utter displeasure of your (and even my) plans - CCP care a lot about their huge victory they scored against botting. The only way to defeat botting is to make it useless.
This could have been achieved by making the mining mechanics suck less (they don't seem to have gone this way ), by implementing "legit, game maker provided" botting (some companies have done this) or by making botting pointless, because the ships require so little management that spending RL money and risking your neck for a script hitting 1 button every hour is just stupid. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2675
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 02:11:00 -
[196] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: Reduce the cargohold on the Retriever. Or the yield.
And we are back to pre-tiericide. Something tells me it's not going to happen.[/quote]
Ah, I didn't realize that tiericide was an all or nothing buff, and that reducing the yield or cargohold of an overbuffed ship was the same as calling for undoing tiericide.
Cripes.
Pre-Tiericide, the Retriever's Cargohold was, what 4k m3, and yield ~2/3 of a Covetor? Now it's 22k m3 and a yield of maybe ~90% of a Covetor?
Are you saying that there is no room for something in between? 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
3814
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 02:15:00 -
[197] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: And we are back to pre-tiericide. Something tells me it's not going to happen.
Ah, I didn't realize that tiericide was an all or nothing buff, and that reducing the yield or cargohold of an overbuffed ship was the same as calling for undoing tiericide. Cripes.
You are not going anywhere. Even if they'd nerf both mack and retriever (and it will NOT happen for the latter) then everybody would just use skiffs. Go gank those. And those HAVE huge tank as main characteristic.
You still don't see that you are boned. Before tiericide the mining ships were poor excuses, there was no way to "escape" into a survivable hull. Now there are and your nerf is going to make hi sec ganking downright impossible because once all reship to Skiffs it's game over. Totally. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
749
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 02:17:00 -
[198] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:In case you did not notice, CCP spent the last months totally changing and going against their design philosophy. There's indeed odd stuff going for the mining ships (see my previous posts) but you can't have CCP undo tiericide on a subset of ships just because you don't like it. This thread reminds me the " Hide your ISK, Team Security is out of control", in the sense that CCP officially decided to do their actions but you stomp your feet because you don't like their decision. Had you made a constructive thread about i.e. replacing the "heavens given tank" with a number of empty slots that the individual could choose to fill or not, then it'd serve you much better than just spamming the same nerf posts for months.
In case you did not read the thread or any of my posts in it, I have not suggested that tiericide be undone. CCP Greyscale made that quote within ~7 days, I think that's far more recent than anything else CCP has done. I've posted already about PG/CPU/slots you can go reread those posts or go on one of your hilarious meltdown-rants about lobbies, either works for me.
It is possible for them to make each ship have a unique role, cargo/tank/yield and also allow each ship to specialize for each area. That would leave us with 9 different specializations you could have and leave plenty of trade-offs to be made when selecting tools for mining. It would follow directly with EVE design philosophy as stated recently by CCP Greyscale. This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2675
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 02:21:00 -
[199] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:RubyPorto wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: And we are back to pre-tiericide. Something tells me it's not going to happen.
Ah, I didn't realize that tiericide was an all or nothing buff, and that reducing the yield or cargohold of an overbuffed ship was the same as calling for undoing tiericide. Cripes. You are not going anywhere. Even if they'd nerf both mack and retriever (and it will NOT happen for the latter) then everybody would just use skiffs. Go gank those. And those HAVE huge tank as main characteristic. You still don't see that you are boned. Before tiericide the mining ships were poor excuses, there was no way to "escape" into a survivable hull. Now there are and your nerf is going to make hi sec ganking downright impossible because once all reship to Skiffs it's game over. Totally.
If people all use Skiffs then I say GREAT! They have given up something in order to be safe (cargohold and yield). Just like people who use Retrievers do. Some miners will choose instead to a) risk it or b) stay active in order to stay safe in flimsier barges.
Right now, a Mackinaw gives up nothing to be safe and has the best of the most valuable stat for miners (Cargo).
Again, you're entirely forgetting the Tanked Hulk, which was perfectly survivable (show me a profitable or attempted profitable gank of a brick Hulk) which provided what the Skiff is meant to provide. Safety without effort. 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 |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
749
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 02:22:00 -
[200] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote: You are not going anywhere. Even if they'd nerf both mack and retriever (and it will NOT happen for the latter) then everybody would just use skiffs. Go gank those. And those HAVE huge tank as main characteristic.
You still don't see that you are boned. Before tiericide the mining ships were poor excuses, there was no way to "escape" into a survivable hull. Now there are and your nerf is going to make hi sec ganking downright impossible because once all reship to Skiffs it's game over. Totally.
If they did as I have suggested and that lead to everyone flying skiffs then gankers would not have a leg to stand on when arguing against mining ship tank/EHP. The miners chose safety when they picked the skiff and are compromising their yield as well as cargo for it. That is literally EVE working as intended.
Ganking will evolve from what it is and the game will go on, if one thing is certain it's that gankers can and will adapt. They've had to in order to cope with the highsec aggression nerfs. Don't believe me? Go look up Herr Wilikus big list of highsec aggression nerfs. This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. |
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
3814
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 02:50:00 -
[201] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote: If people all use Skiffs then I say GREAT! They have given up something in order to be safe (cargohold and yield).
No, after 1-2 months of killing ZERO dot ZERO you'll come to the forums again and call a nerf on those as well.
RubyPorto wrote: Again, you're entirely forgetting the Tanked Hulk, which was perfectly survivable (show me a profitable gank killmail of a brick Hulk) which provided what the Skiff is meant to provide. Safety without active effort. That was the "escape into a survivable hull" pre-exhumer buff.
You can't have kill mails of something that only you and other 2 acolytes would accept to downgrade yourself into. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
3814
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 02:52:00 -
[202] - Quote
La Nariz wrote: If they did as I have suggested and that lead to everyone flying skiffs then gankers would not have a leg to stand on when arguing against mining ship tank/EHP. The miners chose safety when they picked the skiff and are compromising their yield as well as cargo for it. That is literally EVE working as intended.
No, EvE is intended to have ships BLOW not into having everyone flying an unbreakable fortress.
Assuming CCP won't do anything, I prefer seeing bad designed Macks that one can still gank with 3-4 dessies than 150 in local (like today) where you can't kill a single one because they all sport battleship tank.... and call it "fair". Fair my ass, ships HAVE TO BLOW, not to suck terribly but be unkillable for "fair game". Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2675
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 02:53:00 -
[203] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:No, after 1-2 months of killing ZERO dot ZERO you'll come to the forums again and call a nerf on those as well. VV Mind-Reader extraordinaire.
Quote:You can't have kill mails of something that only you and other 2 acolytes would accept to downgrade yourself into.
Your choice not to avail yourself of an option does not mean that option stops existing. You claimed that you could not escape to a ship that wasn't worth ganking pre-buff. I've showed you a pre-buff ship not worth ganking a number of times. 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
3814
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 02:56:00 -
[204] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:No, after 1-2 months of killing ZERO dot ZERO you'll come to the forums again and call a nerf on those as well. VV Mind-Reader extraordinaire.
Besides it's a bit my RL job, it does not take a lot of guessing to predict you'll come back complaining. I don't recall seeing you NOT complaining for more than 2-3 days.
Quote:Quote:You can't have kill mails of something that only you and other 2 acolytes would accept to downgrade yourself into. Your choice not to avail yourself of an option does not mean that option stops existing.
Your "find brick tanked hulks on killboard" was your argument, don't try steer off that with this excuse. You don't find brick tanked hulks because nobody used them, not because they were so impervious nobody killed them. It's a bit different. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
2675
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 03:15:00 -
[205] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Besides it's a bit my RL job, it does not take a lot of guessing to predict you'll come back complaining. I don't recall seeing you NOT complaining for more than 2-3 days.
My complaint has always been that the Tank of the current Mackinaw is such that it is unprofitable to gank (and thus safe from all significant HS threats), and that fact combined with the fact that it has the best cargohold (HAG evidence shows this is the most important stat for most miners) means that HS miners have gained safety from all significant threats at no cost.
If I were against miners being able to exert themselves to make themselves safe, why would I have spent most of HAG detailing methods by which miners could make themselves safe from suicide gankers?
Quote:Quote:Your choice not to avail yourself of an option does not mean that option stops existing. Your "find brick tanked hulks on killboard" was your argument, don't try steer off that with this excuse. You don't find brick tanked hulks because nobody used them, not because they were so impervious nobody killed them. It's a bit different.
And my point is that their choice not to use them does not mean that they were not an option. You claimed that "Before tiericide the mining ships were poor excuses, there was no way to "escape" into a survivable hull." Are you now claiming that the brick Hulk was not a "survivable hull?"
Since I happen to know some miners used brick Hulks during HAG (remember, I got started mining, and still have friends who mine), your claim that "nobody used them" is simply false. 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
3815
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 08:46:00 -
[206] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote: My complaint has always been that the Tank of the current Mackinaw is such that it is unprofitable to gank (and thus safe from all significant HS threats),
That's why I said this thread reminds me the "Hide your ISK". A CCP representative / developer explicitly states how they mean the mechanics to behave (in this case that empty ships should not be profitable to gank) and people proceed diligently ignoring what he states and demand the opposite.
RubyPorto wrote: and that fact combined with the fact that it has the best cargohold (HAG evidence shows this is the most important stat for most miners) means that HS miners have gained safety from all significant threats at no cost.
It's not the only ship that has a superior cargohold. Before you force everybody back into some pathetic Hulks they have so many fall back intermediate ships also sporting superior tank that you are going to achieve a fat nothing anyway.
RubyPorto wrote: If I were against miners being able to exert themselves to make themselves safe, why would I have spent most of HAG detailing methods by which miners could make themselves safe from suicide gankers?
Then you'd vouch for a replacement of the preset too big tank with a set of empty slots so that who's diligent can re-create today's tank and who's not becomes fodder. Not for a downright nerf and good bye.
RubyPorto wrote: And my point is that their choice not to use them does not mean that they were not an option. You claimed that "Before tiericide the mining ships were poor excuses, there was no way to "escape" into a survivable hull." Are you now claiming that the brick Hulk was not a "survivable hull?"
Since I happen to know some miners used brick Hulks during HAG (remember, I got started mining, and still have friends who mine), your claim that "nobody used them" is simply false.
I said "you and your two acolytes", not just you.
Giving terrible choices that force you basically to fly the equivalent of a lower tier ship is like forcing someone buying a Vagabond that to stand a chance has to downfit till it becomes a Stabber. Sure, it still shoots .
What's totally DUMB is that exhumers are damn ships. Damn *T2* ships, including the cost. Why do most T1 and T2 ships come with ample ability to fit whatever the owner feels like to, while mining ships seem to be the "differently able" ships?
Imagine an old Osprey: it could shoot. It could mine (with bonus). It could shield rep (with bonus). It could gas mine. Was it imbalanced? Clearly not. Did it lose ANY freedom of fitting? No, the owner could put lots of shield or mining scanner or whatever the heck he wanted. Did it lack of slots? No. Did its PG and CPU royally SUCK? No. Could it be cargo expanded? Yes.
So why does a T2 mining ship have to suck? It specializes in mining, thus it loses the ability to shoot. It also won't fit any utility slot. That's it! Leave the rest like any other damn ship in the game. If I want to fill 5 mid slots with buffer then let me do it, like the same guy who spent a risible fraction for an Osprey! If I want to expand it or to put a scanner then let me do it. A guy doing this in an Osprey would not have to cut his balls because he wanted to replace one of 5 hardeners / buffer with 1 scanning mod. The freedom also makes it possible for a ganker to actually loot many more mods than when ganking a built in super tank current ship.
But no, mining ships in general and exhumers in particular seem dumbs made. And people like you call for linear nerfs on them with no in depth analysis of economy, consequences, alternatives. As Baltec says, "miners are my PvE".
At least, he's straight and makes his point clear and I wish I could help him in some way. In a way fair for everyone. Because the current status of the mining ships is better in some ways but grossly pathetic and I don't like "pathetic" said about anything regarding EvE. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
|
CCP Eterne
C C P C C P Alliance
2127
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 09:13:00 -
[207] - Quote
I have removed a trolling post from this thread. New Eden Community Representative GÇ+ New Eden Illuminati GÇ+ Fiction Adept
@CCP_Eterne GÇ+ @EVE_LiveEvents |
|
baltec1
Bat Country
5193
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 11:46:00 -
[208] - Quote
The simple fact here is that the barge lineup is broken and far from balanced. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
3815
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 12:20:00 -
[209] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:The simple fact here is that the barge lineup is broken and far from balanced.
I still don't see any functioning suggestion about how to change it while retaining the new tiericide philosophy. Mine, about removing tank and giving freedom to choose with as many slots as other ships, seems the only one that is not a simplicistic nerf call. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
750
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 15:33:00 -
[210] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:No, EvE is intended to have ships BLOW not into having everyone flying an unbreakable fortress.
Assuming CCP won't do anything, I prefer seeing bad designed Macks that one can still gank with 3-4 dessies than 150 in local (like today) where you can't kill a single one because they all sport battleship tank.... and call it "fair". Fair my ass, ships HAVE TO BLOW, not to suck terribly but be unkillable for "fair game".
We aren't arguing over ships blowing up being part of EVE as intended, ships will still be exploding after any changes CCP makes. I have no idea why you decide to always go off on tangents whenever you are losing an argument but I'm going to go back to the point of this thread.
If the miner decides to opt for safety by picking a skiff and fitting it for tank then EVE is working as intended. The miner picked the low cargo hold, low yield, and high safety ship. They minimized their risk and their reward. They made trade-offs of cargo hold and yield for increased tank. That is literally EVE working as intended and gankers have no leg to stand on when complaining about that. All of the above is assuming a rollback of the unwarranted EHP buffs to the hulk and mackinaw.
E: From the OP.
CCP Greyscale wrote:EVE fitting is about trade-offs, not about having your cake and eating it.
Right now how the mining ships are balanced completely removes the need for any fitting trade-offs. This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. |
|
|
|
|
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 |