|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
278
   |
Posted - 2011.11.06 06:23:00 -
[1] - Quote
Krios Ahzek wrote:The real tears will be from the miners when they find out that gankers actually do not give a crap about insurance.
Yes, this change will be more of a boon to the bigger haulers like Orcas, Freighters and Jump Freighters. It really won't affect (much) the ganking of mining barges and exhumers.
(The only real solution there is to give the barges/exhumers more CPU/PG so that they truly have the option to fit a tanky setup, rather then the choice right now of "one piece of tin foil" or "two pieces of tin foil" on the Mackinaw. You can fit a better tank on a T1 industrial then you can get onto the more expensive T2 exhumers.) |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
280
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 12:50:00 -
[2] - Quote
Andski wrote:Scrapyard Bob wrote:(The only real solution there is to give the barges/exhumers more CPU/PG so that they truly have the option to fit a tanky setup, rather then the choice right now of "one piece of tin foil" or "two pieces of tin foil" on the Mackinaw. You can fit a better tank on a T1 industrial then you can get onto the more expensive T2 exhumers.) Bombers are more fragile than, say, Punishers. Nobody complains about that.
Bombers don't (last time I checked) cost more then 20-30M ISK and come with a Covops cloak, have a small sig radius, a decent velocity, the ability to align quickly, and are combat ships.
Exhumers & Barges are ships designed to sit in a single place for an hour at a time (or at a minimum, slowly move around while a 2-3 minute cycle runs). The only offense they can carry are either 5 small or 5 medium drones. That presents a very different target profile and makes them basically sitting ducks.
A zero-tank Mackinaw has about 6290 EHP (37.5% EMP resist, 50% THE are the weak points). At best (without using faction or T2 rigs), you can boost that to 12-13k EHP. A mammoth with a similar focus on tank over design function would end up at 23k EHP and an Iteron V would have 24k EHP.
(Personally, I applaud coordinated groups who use destroyers to gank vessels in hi-sec. It takes a degree of organization and teamwork to pull off. On the flip side, I think the ability of a solo ship to alpha-gank easy targets is being over abused at the moment and will not be surprised to see CCP change things even further)
|
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
281
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 21:15:00 -
[3] - Quote
Richard Hammond II wrote:Phantom Slave wrote:Richard Hammond II wrote:Phantom Slave wrote:I'm in favor of this, but only for 1 thing. ISK Faucet is getting turned off. Now it might not be a huge amount, since its generally cheap ships being used, but it's just that much less ISK being created out of thin air.
I do feel bad for the suicide gankers who will have to work harder to find good targets of opportunity though. Best of luck to you all. You wanna turn off the isk faucet? Get rid of missions, incirsuions, Ice and minerals oh and PVP Ice and minerals aren't ISK faucets, as they don't create isk out of thin air. they dont? How you figure? Then Incursions and missions arent either.
ISK faucet - any activity which results in a transfer of ISK from a NPC wallet to yours
ISK sink - any activity which results in a transfer of ISK out of your wallet and into a NPC's
Ice / Minerals do neither of the above. Nor do mission drops. Bounties paid out when you kill a NPC rat do result in ISK being transfered from the NPC's wallet to yours (therefore they are a faucet).
|
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
281
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 01:57:00 -
[4] - Quote
One issue with Cata was "we want to make the upper end harder" - then they made the previous 80 levels so badly unbalanced that you could just zerg-rush entire dungeons and never stop. Get to 80, step into your first Cata dungeon, and get face-planted repeatedly because the older dungeons never taught you how to work as a team. Ooops...
(Combine that with the absolute cess-pool that was cross-server random dungeon groups and the constant money grabs in the form of trading card items or RMT items. No surprise that there are a lot of very ticked off long-time subscribers who said "enough is enough".)
Between the removal of insurance for ganks and the introduction of the glass cannon BCs, it will probably end up as a wash for the freighters, orcas and jump freighters of EVE in terms of "ganking for profit". The question will be "is Red Frog going to change their max collateral level?".
But it will do nothing for the T1 industrials or the mining barges and exhumers. Those are still easy prey for cheap destroyers, which cost so little that insurance isn't part of the "gank or do not gank" decision process.
And of course, the "for the lulz" gankers won't stop just because things got a bit more expensive. They're not in it for profit, they just want to watch the world burn. |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
307
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 00:50:00 -
[5] - Quote
Vordel wrote:Scan though thread quikly. Not sure if someone mentioned this.
The suicide ganking standard of isk to ehp ratio I have heard is 6000 isk per ehp. This is based on a Insured Tempest BS gank ship.
With the insurance removed, new ratio should be 7500 isk per ehp. Based on uninsured Naga.
If they keep insurance in, it will be 2400 isk per ehp. Based on Insured Naga.
Using a Fenrir with 174,000 ehp
6000 isk/ehp = 1 billion isk cargo
7500 isk/ehp = 1.3 billion isk cargo
2400 isk/ehp = 418 million isk cargo
With these numbers, I think leaving insurance in would break game more than removing it.
The old guideline was 5000 ISK/EHP (freighters basically have 200k EHP) - which is why Red Frog sets a 1B ISK as the max collateral. Except that with the advent of the tier3 BCs, damage per million ISK spent was going to go up drastically. Removal of insurance will probably even that out a bit.
So, basically a wash - and the 1B ISK number will probably still stay as the tipping point for freighter ganks. |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
311
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 12:48:00 -
[6] - Quote
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Perhaps the real issue here is the relative frailty of mining barges and T1 haulers? You know, if you guys were campaigning for a power grid boost so that you could have the possibility of fitting plates/extenders on your industrial boats, I doubt you'd see even a tenth of the outcry you see now.
Maybe because every time we complain about having less PG on a mining barge/exhumers then what you have on a destroyer, the trolls come out in droves saying that we don't need all that PG? (Barges/Exhumers have 43.75MW of PG at max skills, the T1 strip miners are 10MW each and the T2 strips are 12MW each.)
On a more serious note - the barges/exhumers are badly in need of a powergrid boost. Destroyers have about 60MW, cruisers are in the 300-450MW range. So taking retrievers up to about 150MW, covetors up to 200MW and giving the T2 exhumers 300MW (Mack) and 400MW (Hulk) would not be unreasonable.
At which point the "you should have tanked it" complaint would have a lot more validity. |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
327
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 21:39:00 -
[7] - Quote
Cearain wrote:
Anybody know why they did this? It seems everytime someone suggested this on the forums they received an overwhelmingly negative response.
The removal of insurance for ships lost to CONCORD?
The simplest explanation lies at the feet of those new glass cannon, tier 3, battlecruisers that are being introduced. Which will be able to alpha like a battleship, while costing a good bit less. It probably would have resulted in freighters getting ganked for carrying as little as 500-700M ISK worth of goods (instead of the customary 1B ISK number).
Remove of insurance paid out to CONCORD losses restores that balance (mostly... everyone will have to run math once the stats get finalized). |
|
|
| |
|