EVE Search - So, Barge Info?

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

So, Barge Info?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5106	Posted - 2016.08.17 18:08:51 - [1] - Quote Darth Terona wrote: lol. this is like the third time bardges have been reworked since I been here. but the reason the new order exists still hasn't been addressed. Its not the damn ships that need overhauling. Its mining itself. It needs to be made more interactive. So boters can be detected and addressed. pitiful waste of our money chasing this ship rework. When somebody comes up with an interesting and interactive method for mining you'll have a point. Until then you won't. I have argued that part of the positive view of the current method of mining is that it is low demand for the player. They can mine and do other things, either in game or even out if they have another screen. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5106	Posted - 2016.08.19 22:50:24 - [2] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Those other abilities are not desired It already has the drone damage bonus, it already has the dronebay. I'm asking to add a few more slots, more CPU and powergrid and for it to tank like a HAC. It will be the same ship for what you want it for only rather than have a huge base tank you have to fit one. Perhaps a silly question...will it still fit at least 1 strip miner or something? "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5106	Posted - 2016.08.19 23:02:56 - [3] - Quote Kueyen wrote: Batlec1, one issue I've not seen you address in your proposal is the problem that, if you give Barges and Exhumers more fitting options in return for lowered base stats, and if you allow (and I'm not sure you would) them to reach the same levels of tankiness the Procurer and Skiff do now through modules, these modules now become lootable. That would add to the profitability of suicide ganks and giving gankers even more incentive to go after vessels that through the very nature of their usage (having to sit still for hours on end) can never hope to enter fair combat against similarly-valued opponents. Unless, of course, that is your hidden agenda: get the primary gank-proof barge and exhumer nerfed, and increase ganker payouts... It's the same problem with faction mining modules: even if I were willing to risk several hundred million isk worth of modules to my exhumer, I would only be providing the next ganker a rich buffet in my wreck, attracting them like bears to honey. And thus those modules go entirely unused. While I'm out and about faction mining modules: why are ORE Ice Harvesters longer-ranged versions of T2 Ice Harvesters, but ORE Stripminers only longer-ranged versions of T1 Stripminers? He is only talking about lowering the base EHP on the procuror and skiff, which is pretty substantial, and also giving them more fitting slots so that they can be more versatile based on the situation. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5106	Posted - 2016.08.19 23:19:15 - [4] - Quote I get where baltec1 is going with this. To make mining interesting give them some real options in terms of fighting back. So: Covetor/Hulk are the dedicated mining ships. Some boosts to slots to allow for fitting more tank so they aren't just made of wet tissue paper. Retreiver/Mackinaw are geared towards logistics ships, but can still mine. Procuror/Skiff take on the primary combat roll, but again can still mine. The reason I say they still mine is otherwise the whole exercise is pointless because then I'd say we can have that already but with, Covetor/Hulk are the dedicated mining ships. Some boosts to slots to allow for fitting more tank so they aren't just made of wet tissue paper. Actual logistics ships. Actual combat ships. That is, we are now back to having a standing fleet sitting around doing nothing while the mining ships gobble up the rocks. We already know that is a non-starter. Nobody is going to want to log in to sit and hope for a gank attempt or a gang comes by (for HS/NS respectively). I further understand that baltec1 is suggesting that with more slots and PG and CPU these ships will all have more fitting options so that solo play is not completely nerfed out of existence. I'll say this, interesting idea. However, not sure how many HS miners would want this. Seems that the dominant view expressed by the champions of HS mining is simply: more tank so we can be gank proof in all the ships. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5107	Posted - 2016.08.22 21:09:47 - [5] - Quote Kenrailae wrote: baltec1 wrote: Problem with miners is that their ships have never promoted anything other than tank and yield. They have no options (the covetor has zero options other than yield and prey nothing turns up) and with the way the ships were set up it has effectivly ment CCP has been doing the fitting for them. If some highsec miners choose to not bother with anything other than yield then that would be up to them. But frankly, the poor adapability of some highsec players should not mean miners in null, lowsec and WH space along with smart highsec miners should be stuck with boring, pre fitted ships that you cant defend without concord. From that perspective, that's fine, sensible, reasonable, etc. But.... Stopped reading right there. People who complain about being given choices and then make bad choices, don't want to make choices etc. not really something I find that persuasive. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5107	Posted - 2016.08.22 21:49:09 - [6] - Quote Geronimo McVain wrote: baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: We are talking about mining and not incursion runners, the pace is completely different. It is disingenuous to do so. The average incursion marauder has around 80-90k EHP, the same as the skiff I have proposed. So yea, if their billion isk ships are able to protect themselves in fleets then so can miners. So the EHP of a marauder is not enough? Once again you show you have no understanding of balance. Hey it's news to me that Incursion runners sit for hours in one spot and that they are flying mostly alone. I really thought that a incursion fleet!!!! has some logis etc. to bump. And if I'm not totally wrong incursion runners make a little more Isk/hour then miners. Sorry but you are comparing ships that do totally different thing in a totally different way. An Incursion fleet will make short work with some would be gankers. So you should be as safe solo as others are in a group? "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5107	Posted - 2016.08.22 21:52:48 - [7] - Quote Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Ganking makes up the majority of losses in hisec, ... Where's the data for that conclusion? Ganking makes up the majority of mining ship losses in hisec and is the key factor in assessing game balance for CCP. Simple statement of truth! If it's mining ship losses, then that probably makes sense. At least that's more restricted than the original statement, which if true, would be good to see the data. You don't need to see the data Dracvlad has spoken the TruthGäó. And to be clear, it may be true, but there are other ways to die in HS. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5108	Posted - 2016.08.22 22:17:58 - [8] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dirty Forum Alt wrote: So just to be clear: Are you saying that only a tiny fraction of the ships CODE. kills are mining ships? Yes. The bulk of its kills are made up of destroyers and under. Infact they open fire on themselves to get on each others mails as much as they can after every gank. Dirty Forum Alt wrote: Or are you saying that the #1 most used ships in all of those 0.0 fleet battles are mining ships? One or the other must clearly be true...or is it both? I clearly said the bulk of barges are not killed by gankers. Where did you get "the #1 most used ships in all of those 0.0 fleet battles" from out of that? Not counting capsules, about 42.53% of the kills for CODE. are mining barges and exhumers. Destroyers comprise about 12.4% of the kills. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5108	Posted - 2016.08.23 17:57:20 - [9] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Gunrunner1775 wrote: and nurfing the skiff. will only result in me useing a Rokh to mine astroids ... are they gonna nurf the Rokh because it cant be ganked by 1-2 cats?? (and will just use the endurance for mining ice ) That is a really on the point statement, they cannot nerf the Skiff to facilitate easy ganking... Checkmate to baltec1 and all you entitled gankers. Seriously? baltec 1 has been saying that with his suggestion/plan a skiff could still get up to 80k EHP. 1-2 catalysts can not gank that. Stop posting like a tool. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5110	Posted - 2016.08.23 18:10:43 - [10] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Gates anyone? Using a MJD to be away from the warp in, NPC aggro... Mean squat. You can gank them as they jump through the gate like anything else. It is just as easy to gank a mission battleship and it is anything else in this game. So again I ask, how is it that the skiff will be useless with 80k EHP when the mission battleships that have 60-80k EHP are perfectly fine? Gankers have a boner for ganking miners above anyone else, so what... And the Skiff will be replaced by the Rokh if CCP nerf it like it was before. I am building two at the moment and I am training my other toon that mines into Caldari BS V which I already have on Dracvlad, so that covers my needs. CCP go make it easier for gankers, by nerfing the Skiff and watch as people change to Rokh's so much for your crap balancing... Feel free to show this fabled rokh fit that's better than a skiff. While your at it answer my question, How is 60-80k ehp fine for mission battleships while you think 80k ehp is not fine for the skiff. Better is a relative term mate and that is all one has to say.... Please tell us how 2 catalysts can take down any ship at all with 80,000 EHP. Here is my math: Making the heroic assumption that the catalyst can put out 600 DPS and that there are 2 of them it will take 66 and 23rds seconds to gank such a ship. What is the response time in a 0.5 system? Worst case/least upper bound is 20 seconds. To gank a skiff it would require at a minimum 7 catalysts under these parameters which are at the extreme. A more realistic scenario is probably 10. You are talking complete nonsense. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5110	Posted - 2016.08.23 18:29:49 - [11] - Quote Dirty Forum Alt wrote: baltec1 wrote: Nevyn Auscent wrote: Nice moving Goalposts Baltec. You got called on your example and you have singly failed to back it up. What do you think incursion gangs and pvp gangs do in highsec? Since Marauders can not receive RR in bastion mode - and non-marauders are better if not using bastion mode... I'm guessing they run local tanks. You also keep referencing mission ships... But the few missioners who actually do bring RR alts along on their missions get made fun of almost as much as miners who get ganked - because they are "doing it wrong"... As for what PvP gangs do in high-sec... I don't think you'll get any objections from the miners if you use those ships as the baseline... That would be, what.. Anywhere between 150k-500k ehp? Plus RR on top of that? Yeah, I think they'd be happy with that... Missioners with RR are doing it wrong with the current mechanics. Change those mechanics and then RR might be the "right way". We are talking mechanics here not what is right and wrong right now under the current mechanics. 500k EHP? Please tell us which ship is that? I'm sorry, having 80k EHP will not optimize any ship for ganking. Not at all. That is just a flat out nonsensical bit of rhetoric. If you have logistics as well you will be far, far harder to gank. If you have DPS ships then they can defend the logi ships with LE timers. Alternatively there could be modifications on LE timers as well. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5110	Posted - 2016.08.23 18:40:45 - [12] - Quote Dirty Forum Alt wrote: I get 1077 from the catalyst if you are willing to officer mag stab + polarized gun fit it... Also some ganker in another thread said he gets 24 seconds in a 0.5 system with concord pre-pulled... You still need 3.25 catalysts though for 80k ehp. Oh FFS, you are just being an ass now. You usually post much better than this. Yeah, people are going to gank fitting officer modules while ganking. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5111	Posted - 2016.08.23 18:48:34 - [13] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Gunrunner1775 wrote: and nurfing the skiff. will only result in me useing a Rokh to mine astroids ... are they gonna nurf the Rokh because it cant be ganked by 1-2 cats?? (and will just use the endurance for mining ice ) That is a really on the point statement, they cannot nerf the Skiff to facilitate easy ganking... Checkmate to baltec1 and all you entitled gankers. Seriously? baltec 1 has been saying that with his suggestion/plan a skiff could still get up to 80k EHP. 1-2 catalysts can not gank that. Stop posting like a tool. You are the complete tool, this is a single multi boxer level so not acceptable. Can you try again, and this time try to be a bit more coherent. 1-2 catalysts cannot gank a ship with 80k EHP in HS. Just cannot happen. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5111	Posted - 2016.08.23 18:49:50 - [14] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Please tell us how 2 catalysts can take down any ship at all with 80,000 EHP. Here is my math: Making the heroic assumption that the catalyst can put out 600 DPS and that there are 2 of them it will take 66 and 23rds seconds to gank such a ship. What is the response time in a 0.5 system? Worst case/least upper bound is 20 seconds. To gank a skiff it would require at a minimum 7 catalysts under these parameters which are at the extreme. A more realistic scenario is probably 10. You are talking complete nonsense. As per normal you talk complete rubbish, with CONCORD pulled away it is around 24 seconds. I said 7. Stop tripping over your own stupidity when making points. Okay, so we go with 24 you need 6 catalysts. You are the one posting stupidity here. But congratulations on completely derailing a thread. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5111	Posted - 2016.08.23 18:51:10 - [15] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: What the hell are you going on about, I never said 1-2 Catalysts could gank 80k, stop being a complete tool. You sure thought Gunrunner1775 had a good point about being able to gank a rokh with 1-2 catalysts. In fact, you used the term checkmate. But we all know you are a liar. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5112	Posted - 2016.08.23 19:03:56 - [16] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: Dracvlad wrote: What the hell are you going on about, I never said 1-2 Catalysts could gank 80k, stop being a complete tool. You sure thought Gunrunner1775 had a good point about being able to gank a rokh with 1-2 catalysts. In fact, you used the term checkmate. But we all know you are a liar. And you ar a tool, checkmate was referring to the fact that should CCP nerf the Skiff then people will switch to something that can tank better such as a Rokh. You never read what people write, just post on your own projection of what people have written. And you just can't think about baltec1's proposal and be honest about. Ganking an 80k ehp ship will likely take 6 catalysts minimum, 7 would be the most likely sweet spot. That is going to be considerably less sustainable than ganking a retriever or a covetor or even an un-tanked mackinaw. In these latter cases you an often get away with 1 catalyst, 2 to be sure. So you'd have to have a wallet that is at least 3x deeper to go around ganking skiffs if their EHP is reduced down to 80k. And this is assuming skiff pilots just sit there and do nothing. baltec1's idea is the first idea I have seen that could make mining interesting and still allow for solo mining in a skiff. Yes, there might be a higher level of occasional skiff ganks, but given that skiffs are ganked so infrequently already, going from 0 to 1 is not going to be a serious problem.* You have to be the biggest crybaby on the forums. Some body comes up with an idea that could make HS fleet mining interesting and you wet yourself about a minuscule increase in the likelihood of being ganked. *Yes, a while back I went an looked at skiffs that were killed in HS, I found one. It was ganked by a guy in a cynabal and he in turn did not show any loss mail, so my conclusion was he killed the skiff legally. "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek

Copyright © 2006-2025, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,08s, ref 20251007/1630
EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.