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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

The only real AFK mining that goes on is ice mining. Highsec roids don't support anything beyond a couple minutes of being AFK (hope your drones rock).

Now behind the sea of blue with no threats other then the occasional rat I could see a decent amount of AFK mining possibility in null..

Basically this argument comes down to people wanting free easy gankable targets so they can make an easy buck. They don't want to harden up and do what is needed to properly suicide gank a tanked exhumer. Well sorry but your days of ganking exhumers with a couple day old throw away alt is over.

EDIT ; Wow ruby wants to turn the mackinaw into a more expensive retriever lol..

They don't want to harden up and do what is needed to properly suicide gank a tanked exhumer.

Reread the op.

See there's the problem. Why should an untanked exhumer also not be profitable to gank?
And If a Mackinaw is safe enough that mountains of them can sit AFK at an ice belt for 45 minutes at a time, what is the point of the Skiff?

Re-read and it's still a post by a carebear crying about how it's too hard to gank exhumers with throw away alts.

(snipped...)

CCP Soundwave's statement is directly at odds with reality (suicide ganking has always been profitable and suicide ganking fit, untanked T2 ships is still quite profitable except for Exhumers), CCP Greyscale's vision of how ships should be balanced (see the OP) ...

Because CCP has stated many times that ganking them wasn't intended to be a profitable venture?

I don't see a problem with low ice prices. The skiff was always a terrible concept anyway. Nerfing the other exhumers isn't going to suddenly make it's ridiculous tank any better.

For highsec mining the skiff is about worthless because of it's one strip miner.


EDIT: Seriously what kind of fail are you involved in if you cannot gank an untanked exhumer in .5 while making a little profit?

Read it again, you are clearly not comprehending it.

CCP said the hull alone shouldnt be profitable to gank. And it never has been.

The entire point of the skiff is to provide the tanky ship to avoid gankers. A job that the mack can do with better yeild and ore hold space. You are literally defending a broken line of ships and against balance.

Slight correction - CCP Greyscale was talking about a specific module that for years has had both an active and a passive resist included. Then out of the blue, he decided it needed to be changed, did not mention it until others noted the change, and then acted all nonchalant with a "whatever" attitude towards those criticizing the change.

Perhaps you can related that module design = ship design, but I see them as two different design philosophies.

Please carry on though. Thanks.

Prior to the changes a tank on anything other then a hulk meant very little when being ganked.

Hulks fared decently if you maximized the tank but even then it was still profitable to gank.

Now people can fit a tank to the mids and have a good chance of surviving an el cheapo gank.

So once again we're back to a carebear upset that he can't use throw away alts

and might have to deal with kill rights and losing isk when ganking a miner in an exhumer.

I know reading is hard for npc alts so I'm going to leave this here.



Now to explain it in simple terms, the case I'm making is that the warped mining ship design completely ignores trade-offs which is against EVE design philosophy. If you read the underlined portion of the OP you would understand what the thread is about and how it has nothing to do with the hardener change.

Prior to the changes a tank on anything other then a hulk meant very little when being ganked. Hulks fared decently if you maximized the tank but even then it was still profitable to gank. Now people can fit a tank to the mids and have a good chance of surviving an el cheapo gank.

So once again we're back to a carebear upset that he can't use throw away alts and might have to deal with kill rights and losing isk when ganking a miner in an exhumer.

You can still gank miners even if they run a full tank. You're just mad because it would require you to use a real character and not a throw away alt that took less then a week to train.

There's still a tradeoff involved. If you maximise yield you decrease the costs of ganking you greatly. If you run a full tank then you increase the costs greatly while decreasing your yield.

We are in agreement, the T1 ships needed a lot of work and they got it. We are also in agreement a tanked hulk was not profitable to gank. The rest of your post is nonsense, please reread the thread as you've clearly missed quite a few things.

Wow you contradicted yourself in your own post and you're too blinded by your hate that you cannot even see it.

So you say the mack wasn't fine before the buff because tanking it was irrelevant which you imply was bad. Then you turn around and say that the skiff is the one that's supposed to be immune to el cheapo ganks. So if the tank on the skiff is the one that's supposed to survive el cheapo ganks while the mack isn't then tell me how that isn't the same as where the mack was before the changes?

The skiff is a terrible design for highsec and I'm convinced they don't even want it used there. The single strip miner is capable of devastating the largest roids in one cycle in highsec. Even if the mack and hulk were given paper thin tanks it still wouldn't be worth using a skiff because the skiff wastes way too much time on empty roids.


I also like how you're like "WRONG!!!" and then when I'm like "wrong!" you're like "PROOF!!!!". So we're supposed to take what you type as the word of an eve god while the plebeian has no such right. You're hilarious ;0

I also like how you're like "WRONG!!!" and then when I'm like "wrong!" you're like "PROOF"

Wow you contradicted yourself in your own post and you're too blinded by your hate that you cannot even see it.

The Procurer and Skiff are made for protection against suicide gank, or NPCs, by giving a large enough buffer to react to incoming attacks, while paying for that with a lower mining yield.

Thats the point, the skiff tanks well but you sacrifice yeild, Its called tradeoffs. And no, the mack needed a little more powergrid and CPU when it was upgraded not an EHP buff.

Yet instead of calling him out on specific contradictions you decide to howl in impotent rage.

Pot, there's a kettle here calling you black:


Directly from the devblog about the skiff:


Yes the skiff is intended for tank, yes the mackinaw is intended for cargo hold, and yes the hulk is intended for yield. That is what CCP intended with the ship specializations. Your opinions on the suitability of the ships for highsec is against what CCP's choices for the ships specializations.

Thats the point, the skiff tanks well but you sacrifice yeild, Its called tradeoffs. And no, the mack needed a little more powergrid and CPU when it was upgraded not an EHP buff.

You would have a point here if there was a need to tank a mackinaw. Currently with the unwarranted EHP buff there is not a need to tank a mackinaw it is intrinsically tanked.

When you max tank a mackinaw you lose yield too. So there's your trade off. You tank up you hurt your yield which is working as intended.

Except that's not true as you can fairly easily gank an untanked mackinaw. Once again you're just mad because you can no longer gank a mackinaw with a one week old alt in a catalyst.

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."

Except that's not true as you can fairly easily gank an untanked mackinaw. Once again you're just mad because you can no longer gank a mackinaw with a one week old alt in a catalyst.