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).

I found this hidden gem over in ships and modules:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2530257#post2530257



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."

A new and exciting gripe about Miners.

I like how the complaint isnt that they are ungankable but rather that they cant be ganked in a throwaway destroyer alt.
That you actually have to put time and effort into killing the ship.
Almost like you gankers grew fat on the glut of your success and have now been cast forth from your high killboards and made to crawl back up in bigger, better ships.

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.

Why do the goons spend inordinate amounts of time crying about miners in highsec?

NPC alts know all about nullsec carebear playground and how safe it is because CONCORD prot- oh wait, nevermind.

Ooh wait what of all my warships that are tanked in the mids and fitted for gank in the highs and lows does this violate your beleifs?

It does not matter where the words come from, only that they are true and shed a light as bright as a million suns on the goon cockroaches as they scurry back to the safest place in all of Eve, Alliance held null sec.

They sacrifice utility. They cannot web/warp interdict/ewar sufficiently. Of course you could go the generalist route but like I said in the op that will make you average at everything and possibly subpar in other areas. There is a trade-off whether you see it or not.

As you so carefully excised my point that you can not kill ships with in the concord time limit you should upgrade your ship.

The problem is that, with no effort whatsoever by the miner, they are unprofitable to gank (and thus unlikely to be ganked).

The changes to exhumers were rather poorly thought out. I don't agree that miners now "have their cake and eat it too" since exhumers still get suicide ganked more than any combat ship in the game. Yes, exhumers still get ganked. Just not by the ISK/hr maximisers operating out of Brapelille (g'day Bob H).

CCP has also stated (as part of the the design) that suicide ganks was never intended to be directly profitable.

Always possible, often profitable in terms of industrial interdiction or other secondary gains, but not profitable in it self.

CCP Greyscale and CCP Soundwave are in conflict then. Soundwave stated that ganking is not intended to be profitable and Greyscale stated that there should be trade offs. So if they wanted to follow both of those view points they wouldn't have buffed mining barge EHP. As an idea they could have made it so only the owner could loot their own wreck when CONCORD intervenes as well as making it so CONCORD destroys wrecks of the criminals.

It does not matter where the words come from, only that they are true and shed a light as bright as a million suns on the goon cockroaches as they scurry back to the safest place in all of Eve, Alliance held null sec.

I take it you are in favour of Barges & Exhumers gaining decent fitting slots & PG/CPU in order to make said trade offs then?
As currently a barge gets.... 1 Medium on a Covetor/Retriever & 3 on a Procurer. And a massive 2/3/2 lows.
Exhumers I believe get 1 additional medium.
So a lot of their tank HAS to be be in the base stats, because they don't have the fittings in order to get any real tank.

To change this so they 'have to fit a tank' you have to give them enough fittings & slots to actually fit one.

I take it you are in favour of Barges & Exhumers gaining decent fitting slots & PG/CPU in order to make said trade offs then?
As currently a barge gets.... 1 Medium on a Covetor/Retriever & 3 on a Procurer. And a massive 2/3/2 lows.
Exhumers I believe get 1 additional medium.
So a lot of their tank HAS to be be in the base stats, because they don't have the fittings in order to get any real tank.

To change this so they 'have to fit a tank' you have to give them enough fittings & slots to actually fit one.

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.

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.

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.

Barge in on me

Changing the mining frigates to have combat roles made us realize that we need something to replace them. Which lead us to realize how outdated mining barges are. ThatGÇÖs something we want to tackle over the course of the summer as well.

Our goal is simple: each and every single mining barge (and their tech 2 variant) should have an appealing role, and not just be a stepping stone on the way to something better. Players should'nt only aim for the Hulk without considering anything else when doing some hard rock and roll mining. That means playing with the following variables:

Mining output: first and most visible balancing factor, plan is to increase all barge mining output to be within an acceptable margin of the Hulk, not miles behind as it is currently.
Autonomy: mining barges should have proper cargo holds so they not always have to rely on jet cans (without turning them into industrials however). That means giving them large, specialized ore bays where all the ore will automatically go into when mining.
Resilience: another point is to give some of them proper EHP not to be one-shot by anything that even remotely sneezes on them.

I for the most part agree with your post aside from this part. How is the CCP Xahangen and the rest of the CSM noting that ganking is at historic lows not an acknowledgement that miners are getting a "free" tank due to the EHP changes?

They don't have to choose between cargo/tank/yield anymore. Cargo was completely eliminated due to the ore bays. Tank is a non-issue because of the EHP buffs so now everyone goes full yield. There are literally no trade-offs to be made now.

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?

If exhumers are not "too tanky" then please answer why ganking of exhumers is at a historic low instead of average?

First you need to appreciate that ganking of exhumers was at an historic high before the EHP buff.

To understand the cure, you must first understand the disease.

Anyhow, this is not a discussion about gank profitability.

CCP has also stated (as part of the the design) that suicide ganks was never intended to be directly profitable.

Always possible, often profitable in terms of industrial interdiction or other secondary gains, but not profitable in it self.

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.

The level of ganking going on when it was possible to make more ISK from the gank than it cost to perform the gank was far too high. I attribute the profitability of ganking ice harvesting ships down to the market value of Ice Harvester IIs, along with the value of salvage from an exhumer, along with the requirement for ships harvesting ice to be sat in space for tens of minutes at a time doing absolutely nothing.

I agree with CCP though: it should not be possible to make a living by ganking ships that are adequately set up for the task they are designed to do. Why is a T2 ice harvester worth 6M ISK? What other medium-sized weapon module is worth that much? Officer turrets maybe? What do we call people who fly officer-fitted battlecruisers into missions? Loot pi+¦atas. Is a T2 fitted combat ship economically viable to suicide gank? Nope.

So let's look at what opinion we share and don't share:

We don't agree on the appropriate level of "tankiness" for barges and exhumers. I wanted all the exhumers to have a little more tank than they used to have (10PG for the Hulk? Is that too much to ask?), you want the easy money from ganking endlessly.

Given the option to fit for tank or yield, many miners will opt for yield. That's where you the gankers come in: your role in the ecosystem was to find the lame, the sick, the slow, and be the visible hand of the evolutionary process.

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.

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+¦ata knowingly or not.

Anyhow, this is not a discussion about gank profitability.

Anyhow, this is not a discussion about gank profitability.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It really does feel like it's personal by now

The problem is that, with no effort whatsoever by the miner, they are unprofitable to gank (and thus unlikely to be ganked). Unlike any other fitted T2 ship (fit with guns, damage mods, no tank, just like the average Mack).

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.

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.

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.

CCP did the wrong thing by buffing the base hull. They need to give players enough rope to hang themselves: give the barges and exhumers the fittings comparable to similar sized ships, then let the players make the mistakes. The Hulk would be able to field an awesome tank with just double what it currently has. There are other options for addressing the profitability of ganking mining barges: you wouldn't need to fit much tank if the strip miners and ice harvesters used about 1/3 to 1/2 of the current material requirements.

Bringing the exhumers fittings in line with other ships of the same size would be a good start though. Given their nature as sedentary devices (i.e.: they do their job by standing still), I'd like somewhere between cruiser and battle-cruiser tankability. But by no means should the Mackinaw have second best yield, second best tank and a vast ore bay. It has to lose something in the trade.

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?

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?

So why aren't active tanked tengus dying as much as exhumers?

stuff

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?

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?

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.

Those are the points I don't agree with. The profitability of ganking was tied to the market just the same as the profitability of mining. Granted you shouldn't be making a profit off of ganking completely unfitted hulls, the income amount of that activity should be tied to RNG. In that situation sometimes you will win and sometimes you will lose. The ganking of people that chose to go for yield at expense of tank should be profitable though. The person decided to risk it all for the maximum reward part of maximizing the risk should be that you can be profitably ganked if you are not playing smart. How profitable is arbitrary and I'm not going to argue numbers.

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. They have virtually no tank without activating his hardeners so if caught unaware they're going to die. They both maxed their reward but also maximized their risk.

We can extend your idea to suicide gankers. The dude who dedicates all the fitting for max DPS and puts 1 round of ammo into each gun....
His maximized his reward but also maximized his risk.

EWAR/tank/whatever? NOPE

Do they profitable to gank? Not sure.

Result: your idea can't be applied to every situation.

We can extend your idea to suicide gankers. The dude who dedicates all the fitting for max DPS and puts 1 round of ammo into each gun....
His maximized his reward but also maximized his risk.

EWAR/tank/whatever? NOPE

Do they profitable to gank? Not sure.

Result: your idea can't be applied to every situation.

Suicide ganking a Tier 3 BC is profitable.

We can extend your idea to suicide gankers. The dude who dedicates all the fitting for max DPS and puts 1 round of ammo into each gun....
His maximized his reward but also maximized his risk.

EWAR/tank/whatever? NOPE

Do they profitable to gank? Not sure.

Result: your idea can't be applied to every situation.

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.

Because what they do allows them to pad their kb with all their leet pvp.
Otherwise the complaint would have to deal with actual combat not ganks.

Ooh hey my industrials are tanked to survive 10k alpha while having full load.
Does this make me ignoring core concepts as I can now survive a gank.
Also I salute you brave random Jita shooter for being willing to shoot at me and my 1 billion cargo.
Even if you may have done a spit take and ruined your keyboard.

Ooh wait what of all my warships that are tanked in the mids and fitted for gank in the highs and lows does this violate your beleifs?
My bs are immune to your ganks even untanked and with all racks empty.

Really you just arent using the right tool for the job is the issue.
If you want to kill the miner go grab a brutix and use that instead of your elcheapo dessie.
Or just spin up alts and bring several dessies and gank that way.

Suicide ganking a Tier 3 BC is profitable.

So why aren't autopiloting T3 BCs ganked in Uedama? What about the T2 & faction gank-fit Oracle that I regularly autopilot through Uedama with a hold full of faction crystals? Why isn't that ganked?

Why aren't mining ships continually moving? Could it be that setting up bookmarks and navigating between them is simply so much effort that the actively playing pilot is going to be better rewarded running missions, incursions or even hauling contracts rather than staring at rocks?

Perhaps it's simply the case that Goonswarm isn't posting a 10M bounty on every Oracle killed?

The problem is that, with no effort whatsoever by the miner, they are unprofitable to gank (and thus unlikely to be ganked). Unlike any other fitted T2 ship (fit with guns, damage mods, no tank, just like the average Mack).

Before the silly EHP buff, miners could actually put time and effort into keeping themselves safe, or put neither in and roll the dice.

10. Warnings and bans are not to be discussed on the forum.
Such matters shall remain private between the CCP and the user. Questions or comments concerning warnings and bans will be conveyed through e-mail or private messaging. Likewise, discussions regarding moderator actions are not permitted on the forum. If you have questions regarding a post or thread, please file a petition.

Incorrect statement, as usual.

Untanked Mack has 11625 hit points.
Before the buff they were usually attacked by 2-3 catalysts and it was profitable.

Now how many catalysts are needed say in 0.7 to kill it? What about 0.5 sec? Still unprofitable?

EWAR would have worked great to disrupt gankers. So would a 650mm Nado (takes 2 volleys just like 800s, but better tracking and higher ROF).

The Suicide Ganker maximised his risk by fitting no ECCM or Tank. Everybody knew that they fit no ECCM or Tank, and the GCC mechanics mean that the defender (with ECM or DPS) doesn't need to worry about losing their ship.

ECM Drones would commonly keep an awake Hulk pilot from being blown up.

In addition, the Suicide Ganker has a guaranteed loss of his ship, meaning that a bad loot drop can easily make a gank unprofitable even if everything else went perfectly.

it's all OK but you didn't answer to my question.

Miner: fits for max REWARD, min TANK. Should be profitable to suicide gank? You say: YES.
Suicide ganker: fits for max REWARD (DPS), no TANK. Should it be be profitable to suicide gank?

You right, ganker loses his ship anyway. But this is outside of question about Eve Online fitting ideology "trade off". Either we use this ideology or not.
You accuse miners for ignoring it. But we have suicide gankers who does not have such "trade offs".

At the end i don't think we should point fingers to miners for ignoring "fitting trade offs" unless whole suicide ganking works outside of this ideology (which is THE MAIN fitting ideology of Eve Online)

Let's apply it to this situation. Assume a T2 fit catalyst, it has:
...
3,848 EHP and 600~ dps. This is my fit I used for ganking so your mileage may vary.

It's fit for all gank and no tank, you could probably alpha it with a rupture if you wanted to.

Remember the suicide ganker's risk is not "will the ship survive" it's "what will drop." Should you gank the above you most certainly could profit off of it.

So why aren't autopiloting T3 BCs ganked in Uedama? What about the T2 & faction gank-fit Oracle that I regularly autopilot through Uedama with a hold full of faction crystals? Why isn't that ganked?

Why aren't mining ships continually moving? Could it be that setting up bookmarks and navigating between them is simply so much effort that the actively playing pilot is going to be better rewarded running missions, incursions or even hauling contracts rather than staring at rocks?

Perhaps it's simply the case that Goonswarm isn't posting a 10M bounty on every Oracle killed?

Anyway, if more folk are mining as it is now safer, surely we all gain as the resulting fall in mineral prices will mean cheaper ships for pvp?

Perhaps Exhumer gankers are still upset that they cannot just use a Destroyer to earn a good profit and they have moved onto something else to make 'easy' isk.

CCP Soundwave made a howler of a statement, that he (quite rightly) never defended when he was called on it.

Because, according to a simple reading of his statement, Freighters should gain more EHP the more ISK they fit into their cargo hold.

Incorrect again. A simple reading of his statement would tell freighters should not be profitable to gank "per se" (that is the bare hull). Exactly what *often* happens for exhumers.

Yes.

The mack is the problem ship as the hulk, coveter and retriever are all profitable to gank if they are untanked. The mack is not profitable even without a tank and when coupled with the largest ore bay we see the reason why it is the most popular barge on the market and why ganking of exhumers is at an all time low. Changes do need to happen because right now the barge lineup is broken and the goals of teircide have not been met.

And as has been pointed out countless time the bare hull was never profitable to gank alone.

The dev said they should have cruiser EHP. I think they should have cruiser EHP because of that.

So you, as specialist of the "trade", are admitting that in order to be in line with CCP's official "should not profitably ganked" Hulk, Covetor and Retriever should be buffed?

I hope not! I make money when those ships pop!

But hey if we want to enforce consistency with CCP design...

So what's his issue that he has to mention freighters to begin with?

I have zero issues at all and did not mention them outside quoting him. He seem to have way too many sore spots.

Before tiericide a Mack miner could choose to have no tank or have wet paper tank enticing a gank because the T2 tank mods actually attracted gankers in search of ISK.

I found this hidden gem over in ships and modules:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2530257#post2530257



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."

Ah now thats not true either. A mack could easily fit a 16k buffer tank while also being able to fit a MLU. That put it far out of profitability to gank.

The mack needs to be brought in line. In order to turn a profit barges must be fitted with T2 mods and no tank. The mack is an exception in that it has enough tank to make it unprofitable without fitting any tanking mods at all. Not only that but it also invalidates the skiff which is ment to be the tankier option.

YOU say Retrievers are still profitable (few really cares to tank them anyway).

if fitted with T2 gear. Most of them are not fitted with T2 gear.

if fitted with T2 gear. Most of them are not fitted with T2 gear.

So just what ship do you consider the proper ship to gank with?
Because you keep saying ganking ship but never define it.
I mean a blastos can effect around 28k damage befor concord in a .5
A 1400mm nado can alpha @ 12k damage

A covetor has maybe 10k ehp
A retriever has 15 k ehp
and a procurer easily passes 40k ehp (yeesh I could make this a mission ship)

Exhumers will add around 5k ehp base if max skilled with the skiff tapping 80k (wow if drones werent such flying skeet I could retire my drake)

So really it just sounds like you want to be able to kill them in a gankalyst and are whining you cant.
Much like the kid at the carnival who cant ride all the rides for being to short.

I have to say I'm still baffled by the fact that some people feel entitled to profitable ganking.

Multi-billion freighters and shuttles with x99 PLEX, sure.

But mining ships?

That's not the reason why CCP has kept suicide ganking alive in hi-sec.

You realise that just about every single subcap ship is profitable to gank if they fit T2 mods and no tank right?

What we found amazing is that miners refused to fit a tank even after 8 months of ganking.

So the complaint isnt that they cant be ganked as I showed, but rather not profitably.
Which really is quite a different set of terms.

Also what happened to the freighter ganking?
Is it the new suspect changes made it entirely unsafe or something?

That's really not an answer. Again, why should ships with a standard fit for their purpose be profitable to gank in hi-sec?

What are the chance of 5 ECM drones to jam a ganker?

Because the pilot of said ship decided to fit no tank.

I think you missed the 'standard fit for their purpose' part.

I think you missed the 'standard fit for their purpose' part.

There aren't a myriad of profitable T2 fitted ships out there. And those that are, aren't required to sit in a stationary belt that anyone can warp to, to do their thing.

And it's still not an answer. Key word being profitable here.

Again, why should ships with a standard fit for their purpose be profitable to gank in hi-sec?

Seeing the amount of whining in local in Abudban and Hek about untanked retrievers getting killed by destroyers on some days, I don't think op has a point.

Mining barges still die to ganking by people in destroyers.

Stop your whining, it doesn't make any sense.

Thats not the barge thats broken.

Which barge is then?

Only the mack.

So the Ops problem is he can't use his 10M destroyer against a 170M Tech 2 ship.

I see no problem with that, try something bigger or more smaller things and it'll work.

I can't gank freighters either with a single tornado, doesn't mean freighters are imbalanced.

Only the mack.

So the Ops problem is he can't use his 10M destroyer against a 170M Tech 2 ship.

I see no problem with that, try something bigger or more smaller things and it'll work.

I can't gank freighters either with a single tornado, doesn't mean freighters are imbalanced.

No, its is now impossible to kill an untanked mack for profit. This has the knock on effect of invalidating the skiff and the hulk doesnt mine enough to make it worth sacrificing the tank and ore hold. Its an unbalanced ship.

Also giving ships a tank based upon isk cost would mean the guadian vexors would have a tank around the same as a nyx.

No, its is now impossible to kill an untanked mack for profit. This has the knock on effect of invalidating the skiff and the hulk doesnt mine enough to make it worth sacrificing the tank and ore hold. Its an unbalanced ship.

Well seeing as they currently sport a station tank this could only be a massive nerf.
Ok now that I know where you are coming from I have a bit more agreement.
The mack is overtanked, but I dont think arguing profit factor is really worth a thing when you then complain that cost should not equal tank.

No, its is now impossible to kill an untanked mack for profit. This has the knock on effect of invalidating the skiff and the hulk doesnt mine enough to make it worth sacrificing the tank and ore hold. Its an unbalanced ship.

Also giving ships a tank based upon isk cost would mean the guadian vexors would have a tank around the same as a nyx.

Goons complaining they cant suicide gank easily anymore

BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

Wow, 6 pages of poorly camouflaged ganker tears.

It's also not possible to make a profit ganking unfitted abaddons or Rokhs or empty freighters. For most ships it just doesn't work that way.

All frigates, destroyers, cruisers, BC, T3 cruisers, recons, heavy assault ships, interdictors, haulers and even some of the battleships can be ganked for profit if they fit T2 mods with no tank.

Seeing the amount of whining in local in Abudban and Hek about untanked retrievers getting killed by destroyers on some days, I don't think op has a point.

Mining barges still die to ganking by people in destroyers.

Stop your whining, it doesn't make any sense.

All frigates, destroyers, cruisers, BC, T3 cruisers, recons, heavy assault ships, interdictors, haulers and even some of the battleships can be ganked for profit if they fit T2 mods with no tank.

Devil's advocate - could T2 defensive modules be a lure for potential profit, especially if they were attached to a "weak" exhumer or mining barge? Whereas it may appear as a deterrent, wouldn't a ganker consider a lone Hulk in a 0.5 or 0.6 system, even if "tricked out" for defense on the off-chance any T2 module may survive?

It never was profitable to gank a WELL FIT Hulk, that traded some measure of "efficiency" for tank. A pre-change T2 fit brick Hulk still mined more than any other ship in the game, and was never profitable to gank.

Damage Control II
Micro Auxiliary Power Core I

Medium F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction
Invulnerability Field II
Invulnerability Field II
'Anointed' I EM Ward Reinforcement

Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II
Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II
Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II

Medium Ancillary Current Router I
Medium Core Defence Field Extender I

this is approx the deterent pre-change hulk tank.

If a combat ship needed two power mods to fit a tank, plus had no remaining slots for any utilities? It would be regarded as a failfit. If as the OP posits that there is a general theme of compromise in Eve, this is not - it is a complete sacrifice.

oh and prove a point:

Covetor
Medium Overlock rig x 2

Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II
Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II
Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II

empty mid

Mining Laser Upgrade x 2

this outmined a pre-change tanked hulk. fully insured hull and a third of the price.

Incorrect again. A simple reading of his statement would tell freighters should not be profitable to gank "per se" (that is the bare hull). Exactly what *often* happens for exhumers.

If a combat ship needed two power mods to fit a tank, plus had no remaining slots for any utilities? It would be regarded as a failfit. If as the OP posits that there is a general theme of compromise in Eve, this is not - it is a complete sacrifice.

If a combat ship needed two power mods to fit a tank, plus had no remaining slots for any utilities? It would be regarded as a failfit. If as the OP posits that there is a general theme of compromise in Eve, this is not - it is a complete sacrifice.

So your justification for not fitting a tank was that the extra cargo & yield was worth the risk of losing a 200mil ship? In that case, you wilfully chose that path. The person fitting the tank decided it wasn't worth the risk & ultimately did better than those who were too greedy to fit a tank.

So then having a choice but needing that choice to be tank in every slot in order to be a deterrent represents a ship with proper fittings?

All frigates, destroyers, cruisers, BC, T3 cruisers, recons, heavy assault ships, interdictors, haulers and even some of the battleships can be ganked for profit if they fit T2 mods with no tank.

Wrong.

A brick tanked Hulk was unprofitable to gank in every reasonable situation (everything's profitable to gank in enough Civvy gun ibises but that's idiotic).

A 1 MLU Hulk was unprofitable to gank in most situations. (And on the bubble in most others, depending on market conditions.)

A 2 MLU Hulk could be unprofitable to gank in many situations.

All are far less profitable than a 2 MLU, No Tank, Cargo Optimized Hulk with a survey scanner and, as such, were ganked less often because it was invariably more profitable to gank the No tank Hulk next to it.

Why are you even blathering about profit.

There was never intended to be a profit in ganking. It's not a profession, it's a consequence. If someone annoys you for whatever reason, you gank them.

Mr Epeen

So now you're proposing an ISK-based tank for Freighters?

Could you please repeat that in English?

Because, as usual with you, your responses often have nothing whatsoever to do with what you quote.

Mr Epeen

My response was just fine

No. It was nonsensical.

If ganking is not meant to be profitable, shouldn't you get more tank on your Freighter the more ISK value you pack into it?

If you shouldn't get more tank for filling it with more ISK (thus making it profitable to gank them when their owners are stupid), why should miners who fill their ships with ISK (T2 miners and MLUs without fitting any tanking modules) not be profitable to gank (again, only profitable when the owners are stupid)?

T_T wwaaaaaahhhhh!!!


Goon tears, best tears.

LOL!

Didn't read the thread.

Just wondering if you managed to find an excuse yet to post your 'don't carry 10B in the hold ' mantra yet. Sure, it has nothing to do with barges but that never stops you in every other thread.

Mr Epeen

I will when a hulk is daft enough to do it.

you won't.
because when 8.5k m3 of veldspar is worth 10bn isk, you can be damn sure your gank destroyer will be a hell of a lot more.

Then by your reading, Exhumers were fine before the buff.

This may shock you, but people have been known to use these things for hauling implants and plex about.

Wrong.

A brick tanked Hulk was unprofitable to gank in every reasonable situation (everything's profitable to gank in enough Civvy gun ibises but that's idiotic).

A 1 MLU Hulk was unprofitable to gank in most situations. (And on the bubble in most others, depending on market conditions.)

A 2 MLU Hulk could be unprofitable to gank in many situations.

All are far less profitable than a 2 MLU, No Tank, Cargo Optimized Hulk with a survey scanner and, as such, were ganked less often because it was invariably more profitable to gank the No tank Hulk next to it.

Funfact:
Nearly every wh and 0.0 miner I met knows how to tank their barges and exhumers. A large oart of the High sec miners already tank their ships. I am pretty sure there are more failed gank attempts than successful ones because of this.

Baltec, we read the headline, but no matter how eloquently you word yourselves, this thread boils down to bitter tears that the days of effortless suicide ganking of mining ships are over (for now).
As you guys would say to the miners who complained in the past:

umad?
HTFU
L2P
Adapt or die
GB2WOW
no
HAHAHAHHHAH
Whiner
[insert tired wannabe Eve bad-ass meme]

Pick the response you prefer.

And please, please keep this thread going. It makes my day.

but, that really is a whole different situation to "warp to belt, gank random miner, harvest tears".

Yes lets just leave the barges in a state where the skiff is pointless and the hulk outclassed by the new king of miners the mack. Afterall the fact that teircide was ment to bring balance to the barge lineup and has failed miserably should be ignored because miners can now mine in near perfect safety without even needing to fit any tank or make any choice other than going for max yeild.

A precious little group of players give two sh*ts about the ship balance. I guess there's a very slim chance that you belong in that group.
The majority really just want to come home from work, sit down at their computers and blow up unarmed ships, fraps it and put it on youtube, so they can clutter up "My Eve" with their lack of imagination and their risk aversion.

EDIT: Spelling checked.

I do care about ship balance and ganking miners is much like running missions to me. I get my kicks out of getting megathrons to do things most would think impossible.

To be fair Baltec1,

You are still able to kill them by ganking them.

Only the Skiff and somewhat the procurer is almost immune by design.

The mack and the retriever are both easily killed.

The question of whether it is profitable or not I don't think should be a factor in the slightest. Just my opinion.

Before the redesign, Exhumers and Barges had fallen behind dramatically in their designs since their initial release, because the population of EVE and ease of destruction had increased ten fold.

The redesign did a few things:

1. It allowed a more flexible option for miners, so they weren't basically just flying 1 ship for their purposes. Now all exhumers and barges have uses for both ICE and Rocks.

2. It solved the retardedly tedious issue of Jetcan mining, which CCP admitted they never wished existed. It was completely ridiculous, especially as mining is a mostly solo activity despite massive increases in efficiency as done in a group. It is solo, because it's so massively boring and static. Using a workaround mechanic to increase efficiency without having to resort to an alt or an unfortunate corp mate wasn't a good design.

3. It allowed for more balanced tanking abilities of the ships. Actually, to be brutally honest it made two ships (procurer and Skiff) excellent, whilst the Coveter and Hulk are weak, the retriever is weak and the Mack only reasonable.

So honestly, I think CCP did a good job balancing them and bringing them up to date with current game mechanics and environment.

If it is only the Mack that you have a problem with in that it's just a little bit harder to blast to dust now with a throwaway destroyer, I don't think it is honestly a very solid argument. You can still kill it easily, it just requires a bit more than a catalyst.

And that's only if someone decides to tank it....

But that's just coming from the opinion that it doesn't matter if the gank is profitable or not, it's about can you or can you not gank it....which you can, pretty easily. It just isn't as stupidly easy as before.

To be honest, if it wasn't

Why does ganking which is essentially a LOLs activity need to be profitable?

Where are the days of popping a 200million isk ship with T1 stuff for the tears?

If you reduce the tank on the Mack any more and make it easy to gank and everyone goes ape **** on the miners like they have been, then everyone will use the skiff because that thing has a decent ORE bay and is basically gank immune....and then there will be no more lols.

Besides, I do not think CCP believe that killing a ship by suicide ganking, unless it is carrying something rare and expensive or a megaload of goods, should be profitable in any way.

But that's just opinion. I understand the argument to lower it's tank further, but I do not particularly agree with it on the basis of game design and how it fits into the EVE universe in regards to making it profitable to suicide ships into them.

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?

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.

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.