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 [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .. 18 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Kei Nagasai X-COM Navy Fidelas Constans 19	Posted - 2016.08.15 07:47:12 - [1] - Quote We were shown the new Barges, which I must say, look awesome. However, it is clear that they are going to be reworked in a big way, number of strip miners, which probably means the bonus's are going to change, along with other things. Where is the info on this?
Shae Tadaruwa Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 740	Posted - 2016.08.15 07:53:07 - [2] - Quote When the information is released, there will be a thread here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=topics&f=7291
Darth Terona Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo 261	Posted - 2016.08.15 08:01:04 - [3] - Quote 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.
Darth Terona Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo 261	Posted - 2016.08.15 09:06:50 - [4] - Quote I should also point out ive no dog in this fight really. I don't go out of my way to kill miners, nor do I have any problem with what the new order is doing.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2165	Posted - 2016.08.15 09:21:46 - [5] - Quote I noted the second strip miner on the Skiff and Procurer which is a good thing, I hope they do not go with the whining by the gankers on the tanks of the Skiff and Produrer but adjust the tanks of the other ships to be more in line with the Skiff and Procurer. I currently only mine at the moment because I can sit in a ship that is hard to kill and only the most dedicated scum bag with freinds has a chance to kill me. The calculation has to be Kusion + 3 dual boxers at least which is where a useful Skiffs is now. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Max Fubarticus K Diamond Holding LTD. Bullets Bombs and Blondes 154	Posted - 2016.08.15 10:54:14 - [6] - Quote The proof is in the pudding. o7 show was just a teaser. The "long & detailed" screenshots were meant to start a crap storm on the forums and reddit ( is reddit still around? ). Devblogs and Sisi will show the true intentions of CCP. I hate to be cynical when it comes to the Indy ships. But... history paints a bleak future. Max Civil discourse is uniquely human. After all, when is the last time a pride of lions and a herd of water buffalo negotiated SOV over a watering hole? Never. Someone either gets their ass kicked or eaten. At the end of the day someone holds SOV.
Moac Tor Cyber Core Stain Confederation 641	Posted - 2016.08.15 11:34:33 - [7] - Quote I don't see why the barges need to be changed at all given they were tiericided successfully only recently. Maybe the Covetor / Retriever class barges could do with a little increase in EHP so they can't be ganked by a lone catalyst, but other than that the fundamental concept that was laid out in the original tiericide is fine. Modulated ECM Effects An Alternative to Skill Trading
Brigadine Ferathine The Valiant Vanguard The Volition Cult 105	Posted - 2016.08.15 16:22:24 - [8] - Quote Moac Tor wrote: I don't see why the barges need to be changed at all given they were tiericided successfully only recently. Maybe the Covetor / Retriever class barges could do with a little increase in EHP so they can't be ganked by a lone catalyst, but other than that the fundamental concept that was laid out in the original tiericide is fine. The retriever was the real issue for me. It cant even handle basic rats. It has no slots for a tank and has no base HP so it dies if anything sneezes on it.
Lugues Slive Diamond Light Industries 39	Posted - 2016.08.15 16:26:37 - [9] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: I noted the second strip miner on the Skiff and Procurer which is a good thing, I hope they do not go with the whining by the gankers on the tanks of the Skiff and Produrer but adjust the tanks of the other ships to be more in line with the Skiff and Procurer. I currently only mine at the moment because I can sit in a ship that is hard to kill and only the most dedicated scum bag with freinds has a chance to kill me. The calculation has to be Kusion + 3 dual boxers at least which is where a useful Skiffs is now. But did you also see the 2 lasers on the hulk?
DaReaper Net 7 Cannon.Fodder 2889	Posted - 2016.08.15 16:51:59 - [10] - Quote there should be a dev blog soon(tm) (roumer has it this week we should get a mess of blogs) OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining! Yes i am optimistic about eve.. i'm giving it till dec 31st 2016 before i doom n gloom
ShahFluffers Ice Fire Warriors Escalating Entropy 10452	Posted - 2016.08.15 17:50:48 - [11] - Quote I do not expect the barges yields and tanks to change all that much. The role bonuses may be tossed out and the barge skill levels reworked to result in largely the same ships we have now. How did you Veterans start? The Mustache and Beard Thread
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17865	Posted - 2016.08.15 20:08:24 - [12] - Quote Darth Terona wrote: Its not the damn ships that need overhauling. Its mining itself. Barges are very much a problem, for example the Covetor gets 3 high slots, one mid, two low and 3 rigs. You can't do anything with that.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17865	Posted - 2016.08.15 20:13:21 - [13] - Quote Moac Tor wrote: I don't see why the barges need to be changed at all given they were tiericided successfully only recently. Maybe the Covetor / Retriever class barges could do with a little increase in EHP so they can't be ganked by a lone catalyst, but other than that the fundamental concept that was laid out in the original tiericide is fine. The teircide was a disaster. The skiff walked away with a battleship level tank with nothing fitted, you can't alter the ore holds, the covetor has no slots let alone fitting room, the skiff mines close to what a hulk can pull which means flying anything other than a skiff is pointless. These ships are pre fitted, poorly balanced against eachother and offer near no options.
Viktor Amarr 37	Posted - 2016.08.15 20:36:55 - [14] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Moac Tor wrote: I don't see why the barges need to be changed at all given they were tiericided successfully only recently. Maybe the Covetor / Retriever class barges could do with a little increase in EHP so they can't be ganked by a lone catalyst, but other than that the fundamental concept that was laid out in the original tiericide is fine. The teircide was a disaster. The skiff walked away with a battleship level tank with nothing fitted, you can't alter the ore holds, the covetor has no slots let alone fitting room, the skiff mines close to what a hulk can pull which means flying anything other than a skiff is pointless. These ships are pre fitted, poorly balanced against eachother and offer near no options. That's because giving miners options results in shitfitting that gets them killed after which they start whining resulting in more hand holding so they don't have to engage the few braincells that they have. Before miners had to choose to fit tank but didn't and thus CCP made it so obvious, so easy "choose this one to not blow up" and STILL miners can't get it right. Giving them more options won't help in any sort of way.
Brigadine Ferathine The Valiant Vanguard The Volition Cult 108	Posted - 2016.08.15 20:43:43 - [15] - Quote Viktor Amarr wrote: baltec1 wrote: Moac Tor wrote: I don't see why the barges need to be changed at all given they were tiericided successfully only recently. Maybe the Covetor / Retriever class barges could do with a little increase in EHP so they can't be ganked by a lone catalyst, but other than that the fundamental concept that was laid out in the original tiericide is fine. The teircide was a disaster. The skiff walked away with a battleship level tank with nothing fitted, you can't alter the ore holds, the covetor has no slots let alone fitting room, the skiff mines close to what a hulk can pull which means flying anything other than a skiff is pointless. These ships are pre fitted, poorly balanced against eachother and offer near no options. That's because giving miners options results in shitfitting that gets them killed after which they start whining resulting in more hand holding so they don't have to engage the few braincells that they have. Before miners had to choose to fit tank but didn't and thus CCP made it so obvious, so easy "choose this one to not blow up" and STILL miners can't get it right. Giving them more options won't help in any sort of way. I mean... isn't it possible that the options are crap or crap crap > crap
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17867	Posted - 2016.08.15 20:51:07 - [16] - Quote Brigadine Ferathine wrote: I mean... isn't it possible that the options are crap or crap crap > crap Not if CCP did a good job in the first place. Base tank on the hulk used to be the same as the zealot (it still is roughly), at the time everyones favourate small gang/fleet ship. All that needed to be done was give the hulk the slots and powergrid/cpu to actually fit things. Same went for the other barges but nope, CCP went the way they did to stop miners from hurting themselves.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 3517	Posted - 2016.08.15 21:44:55 - [17] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Not if CCP did a good job in the first place. Base tank on the hulk used to be the same as the zealot (it still is roughly), at the time everyones favourate small gang/fleet ship. All that needed to be done was give the hulk the slots and powergrid/cpu to actually fit things. Same went for the other barges but nope, CCP went the way they did to stop miners from hurting themselves. It's because CCP insists on keeping 3 mining barges, rather than turning the other two hulls into other ORE ships, like the ORE Drone combat cruiser and the ORE hauler (Which can have some ability to fit mining equipment also but no bonuses to it so they can do something while on grid waiting). And then like you said, you give them slot/pg/cpu to fit things (My level would be the same as the zealot adjusted for the strip miner needs vs medium turret needs, or just make sure strip miners take equivalent PG & CPU). Hard cap strip miner number means you can give them utility slots even without instantly cramming another strip miner in, and we know it can be done because of command ships. Enough cargo hold that cargo extenders give meaningful space, but at the cost of not fitting other things in the lows. And hey presto, we now have 1 barge that can be fitted to do the job of any of the current three. And 2 other hulls suitable for use for other purposes. Fitting choices now replace hard baked hulls.
Hal Morsh Hmmzor. Muffins of Mayhem 541	Posted - 2016.08.15 22:47:15 - [18] - Quote If you mine in anywhere besides highsec, mining is a minigame. The minigame is watching local and d-scan, hoping you aren't scrammed within the 4 seconds it takes to align after a Russian and his alt enter system. Omar Alharazaad > Pretty much any time you blow something up in space it's bound to annoy someone or something.
Serene Repose 2684	Posted - 2016.08.15 22:50:58 - [19] - Quote Viktor Amarr wrote: baltec1 wrote: Moac Tor wrote: I don't see why the barges need to be changed at all given they were tiericided successfully only recently. Maybe the Covetor / Retriever class barges could do with a little increase in EHP so they can't be ganked by a lone catalyst, but other than that the fundamental concept that was laid out in the original tiericide is fine. The teircide was a disaster. The skiff walked away with a battleship level tank with nothing fitted, you can't alter the ore holds, the covetor has no slots let alone fitting room, the skiff mines close to what a hulk can pull which means flying anything other than a skiff is pointless. These ships are pre fitted, poorly balanced against eachother and offer near no options. That's because giving miners options results in shitfitting that gets them killed after which they start whining resulting in more hand holding so they don't have to engage the few braincells that they have. Before miners had to choose to fit tank but didn't and thus CCP made it so obvious, so easy "choose this one to not blow up" and STILL miners can't get it right. Giving them more options won't help in any sort of way. Generalize much....to make yourself look really, really cool and them to look like ditzy fools? Huh? We must accommodate the idiocracy.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17878	Posted - 2016.08.15 23:00:53 - [20] - Quote Serene Repose wrote: Generalize much....to make yourself look really, really cool and them to look like ditzy fools? Huh? Back when we ran a corp level ice interdiction in 2012 we killed over 600 exhumers, the ones that fitted a tank could be counted on your fingers so you tell me.
Moac Tor Cyber Core Stain Confederation 650	Posted - 2016.08.15 23:44:46 - [21] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Moac Tor wrote: I don't see why the barges need to be changed at all given they were tiericided successfully only recently. Maybe the Covetor / Retriever class barges could do with a little increase in EHP so they can't be ganked by a lone catalyst, but other than that the fundamental concept that was laid out in the original tiericide is fine. The teircide was a disaster. The skiff walked away with a battleship level tank with nothing fitted, you can't alter the ore holds, the covetor has no slots let alone fitting room, the skiff mines close to what a hulk can pull which means flying anything other than a skiff is pointless. These ships are pre fitted, poorly balanced against eachother and offer near no options. The fundamental concept is fine. Procurer hull = defence / Retriever hull = capacity / Covetor hull = yield. What you are talking about is a complete rework of the concept. I wouldn't complain if they did, although I don't agree that is necessary and is a waste of development resources which could be better spent elsewhere. It is obvious the procurer hull offers great advantage for minimal drawback, although this can be tweaked by buffing the other two. I remember the very first barge rework and CCP incorrectly claimed that all players would favour yield and capacity over anything else, this assumption is where the mistake lies, and is why the procurer is more popular as the value of it's strength was vastly underestimated by CCP. Modulated ECM Effects An Alternative to Skill Trading
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17885	Posted - 2016.08.16 00:00:32 - [22] - Quote Moac Tor wrote: The fundamental concept is fine. Procurer hull = defence / Retriever hull = capacity / Covetor hull = yield. What you are talking about is a complete rework of the concept. I wouldn't complain if they did, although I don't agree that is necessary and is a waste of development resources which could be better spent elsewhere. It is obvious the procurer hull offers great advantage for minimal drawback, although this can be tweaked by buffing the other two. I remember the very first barge rework and CCP incorrectly claimed that all players would favour yield and capacity over anything else, this assumption is where the mistake lies, and is why the procurer is more popular as the value of it's strength was vastly underestimated by CCP. You are making the same mistake as made twice before. You don't buff the other barges to match the skiff, you bring the skiff back down to the level of the other barges. You then give the barges the ability to actually fit things, for example; Hulk 3 high slots 1 mid slot 7 low slots Cargo expanders now impact ore holds (ore hold is altered to take this into effect). Reason for changing the barges into armour tankers rather than shield is so you have to make hard choices just like any other ships. Ship EHP would be around the same as a zealot if you fit a tank like you would any other ship or you can just go full yeild and cargo. Its up to the pilot to decide. The 1 mid is to force you to choose between mobility or utility. This is all meaningless however as CCP have decided to give all barges 2 mining lasers so we can assume at the very least all six barges have 2 high slots with the hulk and covetor getting a bonus to mining laser amount. We can also assume the skiff is losing its 150% bonus to mining laser amount.
Caco De'mon New Order Logistics CODE. 38	Posted - 2016.08.16 00:06:40 - [23] - Quote baltec1 wrote: You don't buff the other barges to match the skiff, you bring the skiff back down to the level of the other barges. You then give the barges the ability to actually fit things, for example; That. *"See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand."
Moac Tor Cyber Core Stain Confederation 651	Posted - 2016.08.16 00:35:32 - [24] - Quote Caco De'mon wrote: baltec1 wrote: You don't buff the other barges to match the skiff, you bring the skiff back down to the level of the other barges. You then give the barges the ability to actually fit things, for example; That. Except the skiff and procurer are the only ones that perform as they should. You can't even put the other two in a belt in null sec because the rats will kill them. This is another reason why passive armour tanked miners would be a really bad idea. IMO give the others greater tank, equivalent drone bonuses, and then increase yield and ore bay respectively.That's enough to see all of them getting use. Modulated ECM Effects An Alternative to Skill Trading
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 833	Posted - 2016.08.16 00:44:06 - [25] - Quote I would propose that if rats are a problem you kill them with something else first then come back. The respawn timers on them are like an hour or some such.
Caco De'mon New Order Logistics CODE. 38	Posted - 2016.08.16 00:51:25 - [26] - Quote Moac Tor wrote: [quote=Caco De'mon]You can't even put the other two in a belt in null sec because the rats will kill them. This is another reason why passive armour tanked miners would be a really bad idea. hint kill the rats first *"See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand."
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 3518	Posted - 2016.08.16 01:39:32 - [27] - Quote baltec1 wrote: This is all meaningless however as CCP have decided to give all barges 2 mining lasers so we can assume at the very least all six barges have 2 high slots with the hulk and covetor getting a bonus to mining laser amount. We can also assume the skiff is losing its 150% bonus to mining laser amount. Or you get them to put a hard cap on strip miners per ship ala links, and then they can have additional high slots also. There is a lot that can be done using existing proven tech CCP already have introduced. You don't even have to work out how to have cargo extenders affect the ore hold (Which is a wider reaching thing than just barges). You just make sure the base cargo is large enough that cargo extenders make a difference to it. (Becomes much easier if cargo extenders had a stacking penalty like everything else that adds a percentage modifier does also, but that one is a larger change)
Solecist Project 32131	Posted - 2016.08.16 09:55:41 - [28] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Darth Terona wrote: Its not the damn ships that need overhauling. Its mining itself. Barges are very much a problem, for example the Covetor gets 3 high slots, one mid, two low and 3 rigs. You can't do anything with that. what do you mean, you can-¦t do anything with that? could you please elaborate? nevermind. scroll first, sol. "That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breaths of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly pulverised by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia
Eternus8lux8lucis Primus Inc. LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM 894	Posted - 2016.08.16 11:12:39 - [29] - Quote Covvie needs maxed out skill wise 2 cycles of ore in the ore hold. Ret and Covvie need 3 mids with enough CPU/PG to fit Em ward amp, invul and MSE. Hulk needs more CPU/PG to fit a tank without it being super expensive. Other T2 miners are great. Proc can have a buff to ore hold to skiff 15K m3 but this isnt a huge deal to me tbh. Mining lasers go to turret slots like Miner I and IIs and proc and ret/skiff and mack get one utility high. Ammo holds for ALL barges and exhumers with increased amounts up to 1K m3 for crystals. Cargo stays the same and nothing else hold wise needs changes but the proc. Regarding the tank fitting, then change the tank base EHP to align with that basic tank module layout. Give each barge an onboard 10km survey scanner with covvie and hulks getting a range bonus equal to the range bonus of the laser range bonus. Everything else stays at 10kms as if your in fleet with boosts you already get a range bonus but if your solo your range is base 10kms anyway for ice and 15km for ore so it means youd have a trade off there at least. Add the survey scanner to the mining frigates as well. You could give a slight buff to drone damage of the other barges too but its not horrible imo. Too much and its a bit bland. Its more a solo issue as as soon as you have 2 or 3 barges your good to go and more is overkill for even null spawns. If you buff the tanks of the T1s enough to what I said previously the dps isnt as much an issue except for some of the bigger lower true sec spawns even solo. And thats just off the top of my head. Have you heard anything I've said? You said it's all circling the drain, the whole universe. Right? That's right. Had to end sometime.
Solecist Project 32131	Posted - 2016.08.16 11:23:20 - [30] - Quote they should turn them all into proper combat ships... "That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breaths of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly pulverised by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17893	Posted - 2016.08.16 11:39:28 - [31] - Quote Moac Tor wrote: Except the skiff and procurer are the only ones that perform as they should. Bother are overpowered in terms of tank and yield. Moac Tor wrote: You can't even put the other two in a belt in null sec because the rats will kill them. This is another reason why passive armour tanked miners would be a really bad idea. Active tank them. I did say give the hulk 7 lows and the cpu and powergrid to actually fit things. Moac Tor wrote: IMO give the others greater tank, equivalent drone bonuses, and then increase yield and ore bay respectively.That's enough to see all of them getting use. No that just results in more imbalance. You don't fix an overpowered ship by buffing everything else to match it.
Arianne Kass Garoun Long-Term Capital Management 1	Posted - 2016.08.16 11:59:12 - [32] - Quote Moac Tor wrote: Except the skiff and procurer are the only ones that perform as they should. You can't even put the other two in a belt in null sec because the rats will kill them. This is another reason why passive armour tanked miners would be a really bad idea. IMO give the others greater tank, equivalent drone bonuses, and then increase yield and ore bay respectively.That's enough to see all of them getting use. Probably these barges were not balanced around solo play. In my experience in nullsec you need about 3 flights of medium drones to take down a two battleship spawn reasonably quick, but if the miner getting aggro is in a max-yield Mackinaw he will likely have to warp out. So with four Mackinaws it is already possible to continue mining when rats show up (with maybe one miner warping out briefly). In addition I can ask for assistance on teamspeak if there are corpmates ratting, or I can swap to a DPS ship in the POS ship hangar. And in the near future there will likely be a boosting ship in the belt as well, capable of providing remote shield transfer (of course we still need the fitting details of the new mining command ship). Less whining, more (wo)manning up.
Chopper Rollins Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 1492	Posted - 2016.08.16 13:22:40 - [33] - Quote Arianne Kass wrote: In my experience in nullsec you need about 3 flights of medium drones to take down a two battleship spawn reasonably quick, Yeah max yield ships should always have trouble tanking, even just rats. Orbiting the ore/ice close and fast can cut incoming dps. Last Procurer i nearly lost was to a Pilgrim that decloaked when the rest of the fleet docked, rats spawned and saved me. Solo Procurer is tough and cheap, pretty good for solo miner. Still, the Proc/Tank, Ret/Cargo, Cov/ Yield should be the template, power creep would be stupid. Goggles. Making me look good. Making you look good.
Yarosara Ruil 510	Posted - 2016.08.16 13:32:05 - [34] - Quote Caleb Seremshur wrote: I would propose that if rats are a problem you kill them with something else first then come back. The respawn timers on them are like an hour or some such. An hour? In Nullsec? That's crazy talk. In Catch I couldn't finish mining the full 5.000m3 ore hold capacity of a Venture without having to get my Gila out to clean the rats. And it gets old real fast when the minerals you get from reprocessing the modules you get from clearing rats are more valuable than the ore you get from mining between each clean up. Once I graduated to a Procurer, I was finding myself killing Battleship rats with it.
Geronimo McVain McVain's Minning and Exploration Inc 172	Posted - 2016.08.16 13:44:32 - [35] - Quote baltec1 wrote: [quote=Moac Tor] You don't buff the other barges to match the skiff, you bring the skiff back down to the level of the other barges. You then give the barges the ability to actually fit things, for example; Hulk 3 high slots 1 mid slot 7 low slots Cargo expanders now impact ore holds (ore hold is altered to take this into effect). Reason for changing the barges into armour tankers rather than shield is so you have to make hard choices just like any other ships. Ship EHP would be around the same as a zealot if you fit a tank like you would any other ship or you can just go full yeild and cargo. Its up to the pilot to decide. The 1 mid is to force you to choose between mobility or utility. This is all meaningless however as CCP have decided to give all barges 2 mining lasers so we can assume at the very least all six barges have 2 high slots with the hulk and covetor getting a bonus to mining laser amount. We can also assume the skiff is losing its 150% bonus to mining laser amount. why only 1 mid Slot? Make them fighting ships with the additional ability to mine. Why does a ratting ship (aka money making tool) have the ability to fight while the mining barges haven't? If you are tackeld you are dead.
Sammy Fischer Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 5	Posted - 2016.08.16 14:20:03 - [36] - Quote Am I the only one that sees the irony that people are complaining that "stupid miners" never sacrifice yield for tank and that the procurer/skiff is OP at the same time?
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17899	Posted - 2016.08.16 15:34:30 - [37] - Quote Geronimo McVain wrote: why only 1 mid Slot? Make them fighting ships with the additional ability to mine. Why does a ratting ship (aka money making tool) have the ability to fight while the mining barges haven't? If you are tackeld you are dead. On the likes of the hulk and mach the only thing you are likely to fit are a prop mod and a survey scanner. This would mean having to choose between the two. The skiff and proc I would give a few mids, the drone damage bonus and the ability to tackle targets makes them perfect mining escorts.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2203	Posted - 2016.08.16 15:36:50 - [38] - Quote Sammy Fischer wrote: Am I the only one that sees the irony that people are complaining that "stupid miners" never sacrifice yield for tank and that the procurer/skiff is OP at the same time? Nope I see it too and I keep finding it very funny. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17899	Posted - 2016.08.16 15:44:36 - [39] - Quote Sammy Fischer wrote: Am I the only one that sees the irony that people are complaining that "stupid miners" never sacrifice yield for tank and that the procurer/skiff is OP at the same time? Problem with the skiff is that its get a tank on par with a scorpion battleship with no tank fitted and mines only 6.1 units/sec less than the hulk (20 vs 26) plus gets actual fitting room unlike the other barges.
Chopper Rollins Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 1492	Posted - 2016.08.16 16:03:51 - [40] - Quote Sammy Fischer wrote: Am I the only one that sees the irony that people are complaining that "stupid miners" never sacrifice yield for tank and that the procurer/skiff is OP at the same time? No irony there at all, since irony is for talking to servants. The Proc/Skiff tank is incredible, along with the drone bonus a bait or battle skiff can do some epic things, but usually only kills ignorant attackers. I have seen Procurers die to neuting Pilgrims because their tank is dependent on cap. The Procurer/Skiff tank can be softened if it gets more combat ability, the other hulls can be toughened and have some dps delivery added. Maybe hulls could be ranged from fighty/tanky/high yield. The only real problem with that i can see is the weird maniacs that sit slurping up hisec crumbs will become unkillable, which is to their detriment. Gee i hope i didn't respond to a sock-puppet. The smug "Oh it's hilarious..." tone is straight out cancer. Goggles. Making me look good. Making you look good.
Pandora Carrollon Kingsman Tailors 568	Posted - 2016.08.16 16:29:14 - [41] - Quote I'm with Solecist here. First off, the Retriver is fine. I have one and in .8 or higher a lone Catalyst could not gank it before Concord got there. If it had help to either pull Concord away or multiples, then yes, it could be ganked. However, it mines so fast that it pays for itself in HiSec in just a few hours. Ganks aren't that common folks. Second off, Barges aren't allowed weapons. You cannot get a Hulk with offensive weapons on it for proper defense. These are large Cruisers, they should have the capacitor and high power slots to mount weapons. In the same way they separated turrets from missile launcher hardpoints, strip mining hardpoints should be a thing too. Thus a Hulk should have at least 5 high power slots, 3 rated for Strip Mining hardware, 2 rated for turrets and missiles. Yes, you could have that ship with one Strip miner and 2 turrets and 2 missles. It takes forever to skill into a Hulk, it should be a nasty ship. Yes, it should take a proper fleet to take on a mining fleet. Having said that, mining itself needs to be interactive as I've said in other threads. AFK mining should produce very reduced yields. Thus, Asteroids and Ice should generate lower yields as they are mined. Start at 100% volume of the Mining Tool with a fresh target, then make the mining cycle go longer and longer OR reduce the yield of each cycle as the target deteriorates. Thus you have to keep scanning and moving around the field to get optimal yield. Also, the rats need to be more numerous in HiSec. Don't send a couple of frigates, send a small Rat fleet: 3 Frigates, 2 Destroyers, 1 Cruiser. Make the miners fight at least NPC's. Mix it up, have a 3 Cruiser squadron visit. Make the fleets even larger if the players in the system leave the combat sites laying around. Make the miners deal with combat sites or face large ratting fleets. Until then, it's somewhat balanced now, not optimal, but balanced. I flew a Retriever for quite a while, many times traversing Uedama. It's not as bad as it's made out to be... on either side of this debate. Be Positive GÇó Change yourself first, New Eden will come later GÇó EVE is Awesome GÇó CCP isn't the enemy GÇó Players are people too GÇó Where're the clothing blueprints GÇó Yeah, I'm still learning this game -- Pandora's Rules to EVE by
Lugues Slive Diamond Light Industries 40	Posted - 2016.08.16 21:00:11 - [42] - Quote Since the new art shows 2 turrets per hull, I think you will see an even more dumbed down ship bonus system. Each hull will get the same base stats, fittings, and skill bonuses while the 3 types of ships will get role bonuses specific to that eole. For example, skiff will get drone and hp role bonus, mack will get hold bonus, and hulk will get yield bonus. That means skiff and mack have same yield, skiff and hulk have same hold, mack and hulk have same tank.
Solecist Project 32180	Posted - 2016.08.16 21:21:53 - [43] - Quote Reddit has the sisi stats ... ... no, i refuse to link it. :P "That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breaths of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly pulverised by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia
Moac Tor Cyber Core Stain Confederation 653	Posted - 2016.08.16 21:22:54 - [44] - Quote Caco De'mon wrote: hint kill the rats first Caleb Seremshur wrote: I would propose that if rats are a problem you kill them with something else first then come back. The respawn timers on them are like an hour or some such. I am guessing a lot of the people who are commenting have probably never tried fitting and mining in a barge, let alone mined in low or null sec. ... Rats respawn around every 15 minutes or so and that isn't taking into account systems with a large number of belts where there are a lot already spawned initially. They don't just disappear and leave you alone for an hour after you've killed them. baltec1 wrote: No that just results in more imbalance. You don't fix an overpowered ship by buffing everything else to match it Except the Skiff and Procurer are not overpowered and are in fact the ones in the right place. It is the covetor and retriever hulls which are poor because CCP incorrectly assumed people favoured yield and capacity. Pandora Carrollon wrote: Also, the rats need to be more numerous in HiSec. Don't send a couple of frigates, send a small Rat fleet: 3 Frigates, 2 Destroyers, 1 Cruiser. Make the miners fight at least NPC's. Mix it up, have a 3 Cruiser squadron visit. Make the fleets even larger if the players in the system leave the combat sites laying around. Make the miners deal with combat sites or face large ratting fleets. I agree with this. The rats should be harder so they offer more challenging gameplay, and then barges should be buffed respectively so they can meet the new challenge. I'd like to see mining more akin to running a mission, and a barge more akin to a mission running ship. Sure you could optimise your fit and still fit a completely passive tank and AFK it, although this should reduce your yield and ability due to sacrificing fitting for the extra shield modules. For a start, if I was balancing I would give all the T1 barges 25MB bandwidth with 10% bonus to drone HP, damage, and mining yield, and T2 barges 50MB bandwidth again with the 10% bonus to drone HP, damage, and mining yield. Drones should be an essential part of the barge's defence and contribute toward it's total yield. That way fitting would be a lot more interesting as to get max yield you'd need to make real sacrifices by maximising the amount of drone mods at the expense of EHP. The good drone bay is one of the reasons the procurer and skiff are so popular as people can kill the rats at the same time as mining earning them a little extra ISK and perhaps get a nice faction drop at the same time. The procurer / skiff is actually the only barge that is semi interesting to use in a belt. And so unless you want to relegate 66.6% of the barge lineup to purely fleet operations, then all the barges should work in a similar way to the procurer / skiff but with their own twist gearing them towards EHP, ore capacity, or yield. Modulated ECM Effects An Alternative to Skill Trading
Moac Tor Cyber Core Stain Confederation 653	Posted - 2016.08.16 21:31:45 - [45] - Quote Solecist Project wrote: Reddit has the sisi stats ... ... no, i refuse to link it. :P Well, not much of a rework after all if Sisi is anything to go by. I don't expect the procuer / skiff to lose it's crown over such changes. The covetor / hulk got a decent boost to it's yield though with the addition of the extra low slot. It is still going to be a fleet mining ship though. And the retriever is still going to be for the AFK easy gank target barge. They might come more into their own though with the release of the new mining command ships. Modulated ECM Effects An Alternative to Skill Trading
Solecist Project 32181	Posted - 2016.08.16 21:36:33 - [46] - Quote Oh boy, this will be a mining expansion and prices will never be the same again. SELL SELL SELL!! "That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breaths of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly pulverised by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17902	Posted - 2016.08.16 21:41:43 - [47] - Quote Moac Tor wrote: Except the Skiff and Procurer are not overpowered and are in fact the ones in the right place. It is the covetor and retriever hulls which are poor because CCP incorrectly assumed people favoured yield and capacity. They have battleship level tanks right out of the box and come close to matching the high yield ships. They are very out of whack.
Kueyen Mei-Ha's Light Fleet Coordination Coalition 156	Posted - 2016.08.16 21:58:37 - [48] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Moac Tor wrote: Except the Skiff and Procurer are not overpowered and are in fact the ones in the right place. It is the covetor and retriever hulls which are poor because CCP incorrectly assumed people favoured yield and capacity. They have battleship level tanks right out of the box and come close to matching the high yield ships. They are very out of whack. No longer. Procurer / Skiff mining capabilities will remain unchanged Retrievers / Mackinaws will get a 25% boost (to +36.25% / +25% over Procurer / Skiff) Covetors / Hulks will get a 7.65% boost (to +45.33% / +41.18% over Procurer / Skiff). (Presuming max-yield fit, since the Covetor and Hulk are getting 3rd low slots... so without any MLUs, the yield of those two will actually go down a bit) Until all are free...
Pandora Carrollon Kingsman Tailors 569	Posted - 2016.08.16 22:03:26 - [49] - Quote Looked at the stats and I'm not sure what CCP is thinking here. It seems to make a smaller choice window of ships (less specialized) but a little more granular choice in the actual build of the ship. Giving them all two high slots is really the clincher to the deal. An extra low? Either going to yield or to tank. Overall, meh. Doesn't address the issues with mining at all or make it more fun. It simplifies it to some extent but makes some ships basically irrelevant. If they were going to do this, I'd have dropped out the dual high slot class (retriever, mackinaw) and kept the Procurer/Skiff and Covetor/Hulk. Being in the middle of the extremes is milquetoast. Not much to see here folks... move along... Be Positive GÇó Change yourself first, New Eden will come later GÇó EVE is Awesome GÇó CCP isn't the enemy GÇó Players are people too GÇó Where're the clothing blueprints GÇó Yeah, I'm still learning this game -- Pandora's Rules to EVE by
Solecist Project 32182	Posted - 2016.08.16 22:07:25 - [50] - Quote Pandora Carrollon wrote: Looked at the stats and I'm not sure what CCP is thinking here. It seems to make a smaller choice window of ships (less specialized) but a little more granular choice in the actual build of the ship. Giving them all two high slots is really the clincher to the deal. An extra low? Either going to yield or to tank. Overall, meh. Doesn't address the issues with mining at all or make it more fun. It simplifies it to some extent but makes some ships basically irrelevant. If they were going to do this, I'd have dropped out the dual high slot class (retriever, mackinaw) and kept the Procurer/Skiff and Covetor/Hulk. Being in the middle of the extremes is milquetoast. Not much to see here folks... move along... Would you like mining to be more fun? "That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breaths of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly pulverised by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17902	Posted - 2016.08.16 22:24:33 - [51] - Quote I'm messing around with the hulk right now and it suffers from the same issues. Skiff also retains its silly high base EHP. It seems the mack is now the high yield ship while the hulk mines faster. The skiff still gets three times the base tank of the hulk, the covetor is still screwed with its one mid and three lows as is the retriver. Procurer is the only good choice in the barge lineup as it has a little over 4x the tank with nothing fitted and 4 mids and two lows to play with.
Brigadine Ferathine The Valiant Vanguard The Volition Cult 108	Posted - 2016.08.16 22:53:54 - [52] - Quote baltec1 wrote: I'm messing around with the hulk right now and it suffers from the same issues. Skiff also retains its silly high base EHP. It seems the mack is now the high yield ship while the hulk mines faster. The skiff still gets three times the base tank of the hulk, the covetor is still screwed with its one mid and three lows as is the retriver. Procurer is the only good choice in the barge lineup as it has a little over 4x the tank with nothing fitted and 4 mids and two lows to play with. I cant believe I am about to agree with you... but +1
Moac Tor Cyber Core Stain Confederation 653	Posted - 2016.08.16 23:01:32 - [53] - Quote baltec1 wrote: They have battleship level tanks right out of the box and come close to matching the high yield ships. They are very out of whack. baltec1 wrote: They have battleship level tanks That bit is fine... Their offensive capability is limited, they are as slow as heck, and yield and capacity are at the low end of the barge line up. Why should they not have decent EHP... If it is simply so they can be ganked in high sec, then sorry but ship balance shouldn't be determined by high sec gankers. Modulated ECM Effects An Alternative to Skill Trading
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17902	Posted - 2016.08.16 23:09:06 - [54] - Quote Ok having messed around with them all: Hulk and Mack can only work with a CPU mod but fitting one means the skiff is simply a better ship. The covetor and retriever have no fitting options at all, the procurer is the only option.
Moac Tor Cyber Core Stain Confederation 653	Posted - 2016.08.16 23:19:27 - [55] - Quote Kueyen wrote: baltec1 wrote: Moac Tor wrote: Except the Skiff and Procurer are not overpowered and are in fact the ones in the right place. It is the covetor and retriever hulls which are poor because CCP incorrectly assumed people favoured yield and capacity. They have battleship level tanks right out of the box and come close to matching the high yield ships. They are very out of whack. No longer. Procurer / Skiff mining capabilities will remain unchanged Retrievers / Mackinaws will get a 25% boost (to +36.25% / +25% over Procurer / Skiff) Covetors / Hulks will get a 7.65% boost (to +45.33% / +41.18% over Procurer / Skiff). (Presuming max-yield fit, since the Covetor and Hulk are getting 3rd low slots... so without any MLUs, the yield of those two will actually go down a bit) So it seems as though retriever is getting a big boost making it a tough choice between the procurer in areas in which a high level of defense isn't required. The covetor is still the fleet mining ship but pretty poor for smaller operations. The procurer seems to have stayed about the same. Yep so nothing much changed except the retriever / mack is slighly more desirable over the procurer / skiff now for smaller operations. In a 3 man group it may be worth swapping a procurer for dedicated defense and bringing two retrievers. I would need to crunch the numbers but at a glance it seems like CCP has just accentuated the pre-existing bonuses on the retriever, and covetor to a lesser degree. baltec1 wrote: Ok having messed around with them all: Hulk and Mack can only work with a CPU mod but fitting one means the skiff is simply a better ship. The covetor and retriever have no fitting options at all, the procurer is the only option. Is this including processor overclocking unit rigs? Modulated ECM Effects An Alternative to Skill Trading
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17902	Posted - 2016.08.16 23:20:43 - [56] - Quote Moac Tor wrote: baltec1 wrote: They have battleship level tanks right out of the box and come close to matching the high yield ships. They are very out of whack. baltec1 wrote: They have battleship level tanks That bit is fine... Their offensive capability is limited, they are as slow as heck, and yield and capacity are at the low end of the barge line up. Why should they not have decent EHP... If it is simply so they can be ganked in high sec, then sorry but ship balance shouldn't be determined by high sec gankers. The skiff and procurer on tranq are the T3C of the mining world. Too much of everything in one package. They should be around the same base hp as the other barges and have bonuses to combat. As I said, the barges need more fitting slots and CPU/PG so you can fit them like you fit every other ship out there.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17902	Posted - 2016.08.16 23:24:06 - [57] - Quote Moac Tor wrote: Is this including processor overclocking unit rigs? At least one rig or one low needs a CPU mod/rig in it to actually fit it.
Pandora Carrollon Kingsman Tailors 570	Posted - 2016.08.16 23:34:31 - [58] - Quote Solecist Project wrote: Would you like mining to be more fun? It should be as challenging as any other PvE style activity. Mining in HiSec should be at least as 'fun' as running an L3 mission. Lo-Null Sec, L4 missions, and WH L5 missions. Combat-wise, if it were this way, miners could actually have a shot at defending themselves in case other players jumped them, and if the attacking players screwed up, the miners could actually win. As it is now, if the miner is warp scrambled, it's a dead ship and only pure luck or a serious goof by the attacker will save the ship. So, yeah, more fun, more fight. However none of this is how I would've implemented mining had I been designing this from scratch in the EVE universe. Be Positive GÇó Change yourself first, New Eden will come later GÇó EVE is Awesome GÇó CCP isn't the enemy GÇó Players are people too GÇó Where're the clothing blueprints GÇó Yeah, I'm still learning this game -- Pandora's Rules to EVE by
Moac Tor Cyber Core Stain Confederation 653	Posted - 2016.08.16 23:36:02 - [59] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Moac Tor wrote: Is this including processor overclocking unit rigs? At least one rig or one low needs a CPU mod/rig in it to actually fit it. That's not too bad then because rigs slots aren't as valuable as lows, and a T2 POU rig is good value whilst still leaving room to be able to fit 2 core defence extenders with the remaining 100 calibration or a single T2 shield rig for the T2 barges. Modulated ECM Effects An Alternative to Skill Trading
Sargon Matrix Perkone Caldari State 11	Posted - 2016.08.16 23:52:36 - [60] - Quote Kueyen wrote: No longer. Procurer / Skiff mining capabilities will remain unchanged Retrievers / Mackinaws will get a 25% boost (to +36.25% / +25% over Procurer / Skiff) Covetors / Hulks will get a 7.65% boost (to +45.33% / +41.18% over Procurer / Skiff). (Presuming max-yield fit, since the Covetor and Hulk are getting 3rd low slots... so without any MLUs, the yield of those two will actually go down a bit) Does anybody have a link to these stats?
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17902	Posted - 2016.08.17 00:00:30 - [61] - Quote Sargon Matrix wrote: Does anybody have a link to these stats? On sisi right now. To point out, the skiff lost its 150% bonus but gained a second mining laser. The hulk has changed from the king of yield to fastest miner, the mack got the yield bonus (25% bonus to yeild plus a pair of 2% bonuses to duration. On the face of it the bonuses are not terrible. The issue is with the fitting limitations and the very high base hp of the skiff and procurer.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17902	Posted - 2016.08.17 00:07:30 - [62] - Quote Moac Tor wrote: baltec1 wrote: Moac Tor wrote: Is this including processor overclocking unit rigs? At least one rig or one low needs a CPU mod/rig in it to actually fit it. That's not too bad then because rigs slots aren't as valuable as lows, and a T2 POU rig is good value whilst still leaving room to be able to fit 2 core defence extenders with the remaining 100 calibration or a single T2 shield rig for the T2 barges. Its terrible. The fitting slots on the cov and ret are simply not there. On the hulk and mack you lose either yield or tank to actually use the slots given to you. Meanwhile the skiff isnt far behind in yield but is easily hitting 80K+ ehp plus gets harder hitting drones. Its a no brainer, the skiff and proc are hands down better ships than the other barges.
Arnold Ace Rimmsy University of Caille Gallente Federation 2	Posted - 2016.08.17 00:43:28 - [63] - Quote I believe that the upcoming updates will see mining barges granted the ability to fit doomsday weapons along with a fighter bay with space for 50 fighters.
Kueyen Mei-Ha's Light Fleet Coordination Coalition 157	Posted - 2016.08.17 07:17:13 - [64] - Quote Sargon Matrix wrote: Does anybody have a link to these stats? Links to screenshots of the new stats can be found in my post in another thread, as well as analyses of mining yield changes and ice harvesting cycle time changes. Until all are free...
Pandora Carrollon Kingsman Tailors 572	Posted - 2016.08.17 14:50:06 - [65] - Quote Baltec1 has the right of it. The changes are really not good for the ships. It's basically killed off the value of the previous Two Slot barges. They should have just eliminated them and given all of us with them refunds of ISK value if they are going to do this. It's also entirely the wrong direction to take mining. It doesn't need to be simpler, it needs to be more interactive and gun slinging. Stop treating mining like it's a break from a fight. Give the barges teeth, big ones, take away some shield and armor tank and boost structure tank. Give them more targets to be shot by and shoot at. Be Positive GÇó Change yourself first, New Eden will come later GÇó EVE is Awesome GÇó CCP isn't the enemy GÇó Players are people too GÇó Where're the clothing blueprints GÇó Yeah, I'm still learning this game -- Pandora's Rules to EVE by
Solecist Project 32191	Posted - 2016.08.17 14:54:32 - [66] - Quote Pandora Carrollon wrote: Baltec1 has the right of it. The changes are really not good for the ships. It's basically killed off the value of the previous Two Slot barges. They should have just eliminated them and given all of us with them refunds of ISK value if they are going to do this. It's also entirely the wrong direction to take mining. It doesn't need to be simpler, it needs to be more interactive and gun slinging. Stop treating mining like it's a break from a fight. Give the barges teeth, big ones, take away some shield and armor tank and boost structure tank. Give them more targets to be shot by and shoot at. They should introduce a seperate ore line for all those clowns who mine afk to get blown up. "That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breaths of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly pulverised by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia
Pandora Carrollon Kingsman Tailors 572	Posted - 2016.08.17 16:11:54 - [67] - Quote Solecist Project wrote: They should introduce a seperate ore line for all those clowns who mine afk to get blown up. I actually have nothing against the AFK mining play style. Their money to CCP helps pay for the game just as much as mine does, and before someone comments about ISK and Plex, buying the Plex with ISK earned in game creates the market for the Plex to be purchased out of game, so it still gets purchased... They have their place, much to the dismay of the James Worship crowd. I don't think they should get the same level of reward that an active miner should get and they should have higher risk from NPC's as well as from folks like the JW crowd. A different type of asteroid field that doesn't spawn NPC's and maybe has a single Concord frigate to cover a 'new' type of ore might work, so it's not a bad idea either. I'm still a fan of the diminishing return of yield to a given mining target. It would force you to be active to get maximum return which is kind of the point. Also, letting mining ships mount weapons would be another step in the right direction. Be Positive GÇó Change yourself first, New Eden will come later GÇó EVE is Awesome GÇó CCP isn't the enemy GÇó Players are people too GÇó Where're the clothing blueprints GÇó Yeah, I'm still learning this game -- Pandora's Rules to EVE by
Moac Tor Cyber Core Stain Confederation 653	Posted - 2016.08.17 17:07:52 - [68] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Moac Tor wrote: baltec1 wrote: Moac Tor wrote: Is this including processor overclocking unit rigs? At least one rig or one low needs a CPU mod/rig in it to actually fit it. That's not too bad then because rigs slots aren't as valuable as lows, and a T2 POU rig is good value whilst still leaving room to be able to fit 2 core defence extenders with the remaining 100 calibration or a single T2 shield rig for the T2 barges. Its terrible. The fitting slots on the cov and ret are simply not there. On the hulk and mack you lose either yield or tank to actually use the slots given to you. Meanwhile the skiff isnt far behind in yield but is easily hitting 80K+ ehp plus gets harder hitting drones. Its a no brainer, the skiff and proc are hands down better ships than the other barges. How exactly is it terrible. Your the one complaining that barge users should have to make choices when fitting their ship, and then on the other hand you complain about having to give up a single RIG slot to fit for max yield. Pandora Carrollon wrote: Baltec1 has the right of it. The changes are really not good for the ships. It's basically killed off the value of the previous Two Slot barges. They should have just eliminated them and given all of us with them refunds of ISK value if they are going to do this. Except that Baltec wouldn't buff any of the barges at all, but would nerf the Procurer closer to the level of the under performing retriever and covetor hulls. So it is actually completely the opposite of what you claim to want. Modulated ECM Effects An Alternative to Skill Trading
Elinarien Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 57	Posted - 2016.08.17 17:44:40 - [69] - Quote Pandora Carrollon wrote: Solecist Project wrote: They should introduce a seperate ore line for all those clowns who mine afk to get blown up. I actually have nothing against the AFK mining play style. Their money to CCP helps pay for the game just as much as mine does, and before someone comments about ISK and Plex, buying the Plex with ISK earned in game creates the market for the Plex to be purchased out of game, so it still gets purchased... They have their place, much to the dismay of the James Worship crowd. I don't think they should get the same level of reward that an active miner should get and they should have higher risk from NPC's as well as from folks like the JW crowd. A different type of asteroid field that doesn't spawn NPC's and maybe has a single Concord frigate to cover a 'new' type of ore might work, so it's not a bad idea either. I'm still a fan of the diminishing return of yield to a given mining target. It would force you to be active to get maximum return which is kind of the point. Also, letting mining ships mount weapons would be another step in the right direction. Perhaps if you played Eve and were involved in alliance industry & logistics you'd know that such ideas are rubbish. But thankfully CCP understands the game better than you and isn't focussed solely on the evils of high sec mining to the detriment of the wider game. Still, keep trying to suck up with to the Codies....
Solecist Project 32194	Posted - 2016.08.17 17:50:24 - [70] - Quote Pandora Carrollon wrote: Solecist Project wrote: They should introduce a seperate ore line for all those clowns who mine afk to get blown up. I actually have nothing against the AFK mining play style. Their money to CCP helps pay for the game just as much as mine does, and before someone comments about ISK and Plex, buying the Plex with ISK earned in game creates the market for the Plex to be purchased out of game, so it still gets purchased... They have their place, much to the dismay of the James Worship crowd. I don't think they should get the same level of reward that an active miner should get and they should have higher risk from NPC's as well as from folks like the JW crowd. A different type of asteroid field that doesn't spawn NPC's and maybe has a single Concord frigate to cover a 'new' type of ore might work, so it's not a bad idea either. I'm still a fan of the diminishing return of yield to a given mining target. It would force you to be active to get maximum return which is kind of the point. Also, letting mining ships mount weapons would be another step in the right direction. I don't care whqt they do, as long as it makes the game interesting. If they get blown up for being afk, then that makes the game more interesting. If they stop being blown up AND are afk then something is wrong! And no, playing afk is not a playstyle. It's literally not playing! And anyone who starts with afk cloakers now may be reminded that afk cloakers are the exception to the rule. They are afk and still manage to influence everyone around them. You mean well, at least... "That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breaths of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly pulverised by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17912	Posted - 2016.08.17 17:54:06 - [71] - Quote Moac Tor wrote: How exactly is it terrible. Your the one complaining that barge users should have to make choices when fitting their ship, and then on the other hand you complain about having to give up a single RIG slot to fit for max yield. There is a difference between making choices and getting a ship with one mid and three low slots to play with. Moac Tor wrote: Except that Baltec wouldn't buff any of the barges at all, but would nerf the Procurer closer to the level of the under performing retriever and covetor hulls. So it is actually completely the opposite of what you claim to want. Don't lie. I have clearly said several times in numerous threads that barges need more fitting slots, CPU and powergrid.
Solecist Project 32194	Posted - 2016.08.17 17:54:11 - [72] - Quote Elinarien wrote: Perhaps if you played Eve and were involved in alliance industry & logistics you'd know that such ideas are rubbish. But thankfully CCP understands the game better than you and isn't focussed solely on the evils of high sec mining to the detriment of the wider game. Still, keep trying to suck up with to the Codies.... npc forum alts have no voice worth recognizing. If you are involved in alliance industry then post with your main or stop pretending. And learn to read, because she gave neither positive or negative reactions about code. "That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breaths of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly pulverised by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5106	Posted - 2016.08.17 18:08:51 - [73] - 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
Moac Tor Cyber Core Stain Confederation 655	Posted - 2016.08.17 19:05:03 - [74] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Moac Tor wrote: How exactly is it terrible. Your the one complaining that barge users should have to make choices when fitting their ship, and then on the other hand you complain about having to give up a single RIG slot to fit for max yield. There is a difference between making choices and getting a ship with one mid and three low slots to play with. Moac Tor wrote: Except that Baltec wouldn't buff any of the barges at all, but would nerf the Procurer closer to the level of the under performing retriever and covetor hulls. So it is actually completely the opposite of what you claim to want. Don't lie. I have clearly said several times in numerous threads that barges need more fitting slots, CPU and powergrid. Ok, so from what I have read you think the procurer is overpowered and needs to be bought down to the level of the other two hull classes. Correct me if I mistaken but that makes my original statement a pretty accurate reflection of your view. If not then please elaborate on how you would buff the other two. And giving them more fitting options isn't a buff if it doesn't result in an increase in power. Modulated ECM Effects An Alternative to Skill Trading
Viktor Amarr 46	Posted - 2016.08.17 20:01:52 - [75] - Quote Moac Tor wrote: baltec1 wrote: Moac Tor wrote: How exactly is it terrible. Your the one complaining that barge users should have to make choices when fitting their ship, and then on the other hand you complain about having to give up a single RIG slot to fit for max yield. There is a difference between making choices and getting a ship with one mid and three low slots to play with. Moac Tor wrote: Except that Baltec wouldn't buff any of the barges at all, but would nerf the Procurer closer to the level of the under performing retriever and covetor hulls. So it is actually completely the opposite of what you claim to want. Don't lie. I have clearly said several times in numerous threads that barges need more fitting slots, CPU and powergrid. Ok, so from what I have read you think the procurer is overpowered and needs to be bought down to the level of the other two hull classes. Correct me if I mistaken but that makes my original statement a pretty accurate reflection of your view. If not then please elaborate on how you would buff the other two. And giving them more fitting options isn't a buff if it doesn't result in an increase in power. It doesn't need more "power". What EVE needs is ships and game mechanics that require common sense, understanding of the game mechanics involved and initiative. THAT is how you keep people playing this game. The Procurer, Skiff and Orehold in general are a direct result of CCP giving up on expecting miners to fit their ships intelligently and instead giving them ships that have tank and cargo right out of the box. They removed the choice to fail because over the years it became apparent that miners are incapable of making the right decisions based on understanding and initiative. As such we need to move away from shoehorned "pre-fit" ships, remove the base stats back to normal, lower the ore holds and then add extra fitting slots for miners to make their own choices (just as with almost every other ship) to give miners a CHOICE to fit as they want. That's how you "breed" capable players, this experiment with barges as is, orehold etc is yet another example of the handholding carebear style CCP had/has been advocating for so many years now. It's with so many aspects of this game atm and it has been an ongoing change over the years, even back in 2008 it was obvious what was going to happen and in my case I predicted Incarnage and the current situation we're in, simply because it's an obvious consequence of the choices CCP has been making. That is why we have these massive coalitions in 0.0, they're not fierce pvpers they are in fact carebears who are actually detrimental to the game. The problem isn't EVE being too harsh, it's CCP having been busy trying to cater to a more mainstream type of customer who, for obvious reasons, can't hack it in this EVE environment. HTFU.
Moac Tor Cyber Core Stain Confederation 655	Posted - 2016.08.17 20:24:49 - [76] - Quote Viktor Amarr wrote: Moac Tor wrote: baltec1 wrote: Moac Tor wrote: How exactly is it terrible. Your the one complaining that barge users should have to make choices when fitting their ship, and then on the other hand you complain about having to give up a single RIG slot to fit for max yield. There is a difference between making choices and getting a ship with one mid and three low slots to play with. Moac Tor wrote: Except that Baltec wouldn't buff any of the barges at all, but would nerf the Procurer closer to the level of the under performing retriever and covetor hulls. So it is actually completely the opposite of what you claim to want. Don't lie. I have clearly said several times in numerous threads that barges need more fitting slots, CPU and powergrid. Ok, so from what I have read you think the procurer is overpowered and needs to be bought down to the level of the other two hull classes. Correct me if I mistaken but that makes my original statement a pretty accurate reflection of your view. If not then please elaborate on how you would buff the other two. And giving them more fitting options isn't a buff if it doesn't result in an increase in power. It doesn't need more "power". What EVE needs is ships and game mechanics that require common sense, understanding of the game mechanics involved and initiative. THAT is how you keep people playing this game. The Procurer, Skiff and Orehold in general are a direct result of CCP giving up on expecting miners to fit their ships intelligently and instead giving them ships that have tank and cargo right out of the box. They removed the choice to fail because over the years it became apparent that miners are incapable of making the right decisions based on understanding and initiative. As such we need to move away from shoehorned "pre-fit" ships, remove the base stats back to normal, lower the ore holds and then add extra fitting slots for miners to make their own choices (just as with almost every other ship) to give miners a CHOICE to fit as they want. That's how you "breed" capable players, this experiment with barges as is, orehold etc is yet another example of the handholding carebear style CCP had/has been advocating for so many years now. It's with so many aspects of this game atm and it has been an ongoing change over the years, even back in 2008 it was obvious what was going to happen and in my case I predicted Incarnage and the current situation we're in, simply because it's an obvious consequence of the choices CCP has been making. That is why we have these massive coalitions in 0.0, they're not fierce pvpers they are in fact carebears who are actually detrimental to the game. The problem isn't EVE being too harsh, it's CCP having been busy trying to cater to a more mainstream type of customer who, for obvious reasons, can't hack it in this EVE environment. HTFU. I agree with flexible fitting options. I'd like to see drones play a much larger role in mining precisely so that we are given more interesting choices when fitting. The issue being discussed though is that we currently have 3 types of barge, and after tiericide each needs to have a place in the meta. Currently the Procurer/Skiff is the only decent one. So this is precisely why either the Procurer/Skiff needs less power and the Retriever/Covetor hulls need more power. Extra fitting options are a bonus but are irrelevant if the power of the hull is such that no one uses it. Modulated ECM Effects An Alternative to Skill Trading
Ralph King-Griffin Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance 17487	Posted - 2016.08.17 20:53:56 - [77] - Quote they're up on sisi for anyone who fancy's a look also the mallus and executioner got a face lift, dont think the stats changed at all though =]\|[=
Wanda Fayne 265	Posted - 2016.08.17 23:34:44 - [78] - Quote Please tell me that at least one of these ships got a utility highslot? your comments just confirms this whole idea is totally pathetic -Lan Wang-
Kueyen Mei-Ha's Light Fleet Coordination Coalition 157	Posted - 2016.08.18 00:01:18 - [79] - Quote Wanda Fayne wrote: Please tell me that at least one of these ships got a utility highslot? Since none of them can mount any turrets or launchers, I'm pleased to report that all of them have no less than two utility high slots! Of course, being mining vessels, one would usually put a pair of strip miners or ice harvesters in them... Until all are free...
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17914	Posted - 2016.08.18 05:06:09 - [80] - Quote Moac Tor wrote: Ok, so from what I have read you think the procurer is overpowered and needs to be bought down to the level of the other two hull classes. Correct me if I mistaken but that makes my original statement a pretty accurate reflection of your view. Lets delve into the procurer. As I don't have access to sisi I'll be using the current tranq stats. Right now the procurer gets 32,450 ehp at all V with nothing fitted while the covetor gets 8140 ehp. To put this into perspective the thorax gets 8020 ehp, the brutix gets 23,700 and the megathron 36,890. So its safe to say the procurer is getting a battleship level tank while the covetor is getting a cruiser level tank. This is why people say the procurer is over powered, the base tank is simply far too high for a cruiser sized ship. What I want to happen is for the procurer to drop down to cruiser level base stats like the other barges have and then we add more slots, cpu and powergrid to all the barges so they can be fitted like the thorax or any other cruiser can be. The selling point of the proc would go from having a HUGE base tank to having the ability to defend itself and other barges via the drone damage bonus. Moac Tor wrote: If not then please elaborate on how you would buff the other two. And giving them more fitting options isn't a buff if it doesn't result in an increase in power. It very much does give them more power, again let me demonstrate. Take the thorax and give it 1 mid and 3 low slots, now fit it for combat. Simple answer here is you can't. With just 1 mid and 3 lows you cant fit a tank worth mentioning and if you try you have poor firepower. Fit it for damage and it vaporizes to the first thing it goes up against. This is the situation the covetor and retriever are facing with this change. Adding slots, cpu and powergrid to the ships allows them to fit like every other ship can. You don't go mad and allow them to fit the very best of everything at the same time but you do let them fit like the thorax can, mixing tank, gank, speed and utility to their preference. It has always been mad that for a cruiser sized ship that barges cannot fit a large shield extender.
Mephiztopheleze Laphroaig Inc. 881	Posted - 2016.08.18 05:45:31 - [81] - Quote Kueyen wrote: Wanda Fayne wrote: Please tell me that at least one of these ships got a utility highslot? Since none of them can mount any turrets or launchers, I'm pleased to report that all of them have no less than two utility high slots! Of course, being mining vessels, one would usually put a pair of strip miners or ice harvesters in them... But, if I put strip miners or ice harvesters in the high slots, where will I put the Nos and Cyno? Occasional Resident Newbie Correspondent for TMC: http://themittani.com/search/site/mephiztopheleze This is my Forum Main. My Combat Alt is sambo Inkura
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2236	Posted - 2016.08.18 05:54:21 - [82] - Quote Mining ships, they don't have to be built for speed, they don't have to be built for the ability to handle weapons but they can be built at the base level to be tanky which is what CCP did with them, a cruiser is a combat ship which will be fitted for need, be it morre tank, more speed or more gank, two of those choices are not there at the base level of the Procurer and Skiff. So comparing the mining barges or the exhumers to cruisers on the basis of flexible fitting is just wrong. Even the various drone boats which have bonuses for drones have high slots that can take guns or launchers, mining ships can fit just mining equipment, so that blows your entire argument out of the water, there is no base flexibility for mining ships in terms of fitting weapons. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Viktor Amarr 47	Posted - 2016.08.18 06:09:26 - [83] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Mining ships, they don't have to be built for speed, they don't have to be built for the ability to handle weapons but they can be built at the base level to be tanky which is what CCP did with them, a cruiser is a combat ship which will be fitted for need, be it morre tank, more speed or more gank, two of those choices are not there at the base level of the Procurer and Skiff. So comparing the mining barges or the exhumers to cruisers on the basis of flexible fitting is just wrong. Even the various drone boats which have bonuses for drones have high slots that can take guns or launchers, mining ships can fit just mining equipment, so that blows your entire argument out of the water, there is no base flexibility for mining ships in terms of fitting weapons. That''s silly logic, "Mining ships can't really fit guns so they are less flexible". Normal ships can't fit strip miners either, your point?
Caco De'mon New Order Logistics CODE. 44	Posted - 2016.08.18 06:16:20 - [84] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Even the various drone boats which have bonuses for drones have high slots that can take guns or launchers, mining ships can fit just mining equipment, so that blows your entire argument out of the water, there is no base flexibility for mining ships in terms of fitting weapons. A Drone boat is still a combat ship through-and-through, it just has a specific flavor. It's core purpose is combat and there really is not secondary role. Yes, you could mine with a Tristan and still maintain its drone boat status but there is a reason you don't see many people doing that. A mining vessel is purpose built to mine and just like in the real world, trying to add weapons to a civilian application is normally met with lots of LOLz. Of course it can be done but where as the Tristan-miner might be seen as being creative, a Retriever with a Pew-gun on it just moronic. There should be no flexibility (in regards to weapons) on barges/exhume'ers because it's a very silly idea in the first place. If that role is needed, then make a new class of Combat-Miner ships. It's like WWII sure you could put a few 50 cals on a merchant ship and they might feel safer but in reality they were just are vulnerable as before. Then there are Attack-Transports that has multiple HMGs, 6" guns and 40mm Bofers....plus a crew actually trained for combat. Maybe this post is out of place or off the mark but trying to weaponize basic miner ships is a really bad idea. *"See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand."
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17914	Posted - 2016.08.18 06:16:38 - [85] - Quote Viktor Amarr wrote: That''s silly logic, "Mining ships can't really fit guns so they are less flexible". Normal ships can't fit strip miners either, your point? He does nothing but demand that barges be better able to defend themselves but here he is arguing against giving them that very ability.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17914	Posted - 2016.08.18 06:24:50 - [86] - Quote Caco De'mon wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Even the various drone boats which have bonuses for drones have high slots that can take guns or launchers, mining ships can fit just mining equipment, so that blows your entire argument out of the water, there is no base flexibility for mining ships in terms of fitting weapons. A Drone boat is still a combat ship through-and-through, it just has a specific flavor. It's core purpose is combat and there really is not secondary role. Yes, you could mine with a Tristan and still maintain its drone boat status but there is a reason you don't see many people doing that. A mining vessel is purpose built to mine and just like in the real world, trying to add weapons to a civilian application is normally met with lots of LOLz. Of course it can be done but where as the Tristan-miner might be seen as being creative, a Retriever with a Pew-gun on it just moronic. There should be no flexibility (in regards to weapons) on barges/exhume'ers because it's a very silly idea in the first place. If that role is needed, then make a new class of Combat-Miner ships. It's like WWII sure you could put a few 50 cals on a merchant ship and they might feel safer but in reality they were just are vulnerable as before. Then there are Attack-Transports that has multiple HMGs, 6" guns and 40mm Bofers....plus a crew actually trained for combat. Maybe this post is out of place or off the mark but trying to weaponize basic miner ships is a really bad idea. Skiff and procurer have a done HP and damage bonus.
Viktor Amarr 49	Posted - 2016.08.18 06:45:10 - [87] - Quote What this really all is is people going "waah, I want to use the fastest/biggest orehold miner but I don't like how that means I have to lose capabilities elsewhere which will get my in trouble if I AFK mine". People just want to fly their hulk but don't want to put in the effort take make that a safe thing to do, because that just takes effort and we all know how miners are allergic to that. EVE doesn't need more powerful, easy to use highest yield ships or pre-fit mining ships, it needs to breed more active players. It's the same thing with the Venture, that thing is so overpowered that it really is THE best way to start out and make money as a true newbie. That is CCP telling new possible customers that "to make money in this game you need to do boring grinding, no pewpew no interesting space combat, GIT GRINDING and BE AFK!".
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2236	Posted - 2016.08.18 06:58:20 - [88] - Quote Viktor Amarr wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Mining ships, they don't have to be built for speed, they don't have to be built for the ability to handle weapons but they can be built at the base level to be tanky which is what CCP did with them, a cruiser is a combat ship which will be fitted for need, be it morre tank, more speed or more gank, two of those choices are not there at the base level of the Procurer and Skiff. So comparing the mining barges or the exhumers to cruisers on the basis of flexible fitting is just wrong. Even the various drone boats which have bonuses for drones have high slots that can take guns or launchers, mining ships can fit just mining equipment, so that blows your entire argument out of the water, there is no base flexibility for mining ships in terms of fitting weapons. That''s silly logic, "Mining ships can't really fit guns so they are less flexible". Normal ships can't fit strip miners either, your point? If you are going to call something silly then reply with a less then silly answer. A cruiser is a combat ship, a mining ship is not, a cruiser can be fitted various ways and has hardpoints for weapons which are very different to a hard point for a mining implement, logic would indicate taht the hardpoints for weapons systems would be a lot more sophisticated then that fitted for mining implements. The mining barges are optimised for mining, while the cruisers are optimised for their weapons systems and other aspects. To compare a mining barge to a cruiser is just wrong. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Solecist Project 32201	Posted - 2016.08.18 06:58:23 - [89] - Quote It's funny how a code member complains about mining ships being weaponized. Some would say it was predictable. You do not realize how that makes you look, cocoa demon, does it? You need to state reasons why it's a bad idea. So far you haven't. So what if they don't use it, it wouldn't matter, they got the chance to do it. It's a chance of shifting their minds... can it be you wouldn't want that? "That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breaths of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly pulverised by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2236	Posted - 2016.08.18 06:59:32 - [90] - Quote Caco De'mon wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Even the various drone boats which have bonuses for drones have high slots that can take guns or launchers, mining ships can fit just mining equipment, so that blows your entire argument out of the water, there is no base flexibility for mining ships in terms of fitting weapons. A Drone boat is still a combat ship through-and-through, it just has a specific flavor. It's core purpose is combat and there really is not secondary role. Yes, you could mine with a Tristan and still maintain its drone boat status but there is a reason you don't see many people doing that. A mining vessel is purpose built to mine and just like in the real world, trying to add weapons to a civilian application is normally met with lots of LOLz. Of course it can be done but where as the Tristan-miner might be seen as being creative, a Retriever with a Pew-gun on it just moronic. There should be no flexibility (in regards to weapons) on barges/exhume'ers because it's a very silly idea in the first place. If that role is needed, then make a new class of Combat-Miner ships. It's like WWII sure you could put a few 50 cals on a merchant ship and they might feel safer but in reality they were just are vulnerable as before. Then there are Attack-Transports that has multiple HMGs, 6" guns and 40mm Bofers....plus a crew actually trained for combat. Maybe this post is out of place or off the mark but trying to weaponize basic miner ships is a really bad idea. Which means you agree with me, I am pointing out that comparing a mining ship to a cruiser which is a flexible combat ship is just wrong. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Viktor Amarr 49	Posted - 2016.08.18 07:00:40 - [91] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: To compare a mining barge to a cruiser is just wrong. Which is what you did.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2236	Posted - 2016.08.18 07:00:47 - [92] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Viktor Amarr wrote: That''s silly logic, "Mining ships can't really fit guns so they are less flexible". Normal ships can't fit strip miners either, your point? He does nothing but demand that barges be better able to defend themselves but here he is arguing against giving them that very ability. Defend the attackers with drones, the only defence that matters is the tank. The drones take a bit of time to get to work... When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2236	Posted - 2016.08.18 07:01:32 - [93] - Quote Viktor Amarr wrote: Dracvlad wrote: To compare a mining barge to a cruiser is just wrong. Which is what you did. Nope I said that baltec1 was wrong to compare a mining ship to a cruiser. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Solecist Project 32201	Posted - 2016.08.18 07:03:39 - [94] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: baltec1 wrote: Viktor Amarr wrote: That''s silly logic, "Mining ships can't really fit guns so they are less flexible". Normal ships can't fit strip miners either, your point? He does nothing but demand that barges be better able to defend themselves but here he is arguing against giving them that very ability. Defend the attackers with drones, the only defence that matters is the tank. The drones take a bit of time to get to work... No. A tank is not a defense. To defend ones self means fighting back. Hiding behind a wall isn't. "That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breaths of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly pulverised by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2236	Posted - 2016.08.18 07:08:46 - [95] - Quote Solecist Project wrote: Dracvlad wrote: baltec1 wrote: Viktor Amarr wrote: That''s silly logic, "Mining ships can't really fit guns so they are less flexible". Normal ships can't fit strip miners either, your point? He does nothing but demand that barges be better able to defend themselves but here he is arguing against giving them that very ability. Defend the attackers with drones, the only defence that matters is the tank. The drones take a bit of time to get to work... No. A tank is not a defense. To defend ones self means fighting back. Hiding behind a wall isn't. A buffer tank or effective reps are both valid in PvP. The drones take a bit of time to work, so the tank is needed. You do know what a tank is don't you? I have a Domi fit just like the Skiff, massive tank and anaemic DPS... It has a specific role, which you would define as hiding behind a wall, I call it very heavy tackle. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2236	Posted - 2016.08.18 07:10:28 - [96] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Caco De'mon wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Even the various drone boats which have bonuses for drones have high slots that can take guns or launchers, mining ships can fit just mining equipment, so that blows your entire argument out of the water, there is no base flexibility for mining ships in terms of fitting weapons. A Drone boat is still a combat ship through-and-through, it just has a specific flavor. It's core purpose is combat and there really is not secondary role. Yes, you could mine with a Tristan and still maintain its drone boat status but there is a reason you don't see many people doing that. A mining vessel is purpose built to mine and just like in the real world, trying to add weapons to a civilian application is normally met with lots of LOLz. Of course it can be done but where as the Tristan-miner might be seen as being creative, a Retriever with a Pew-gun on it just moronic. There should be no flexibility (in regards to weapons) on barges/exhume'ers because it's a very silly idea in the first place. If that role is needed, then make a new class of Combat-Miner ships. It's like WWII sure you could put a few 50 cals on a merchant ship and they might feel safer but in reality they were just are vulnerable as before. Then there are Attack-Transports that has multiple HMGs, 6" guns and 40mm Bofers....plus a crew actually trained for combat. Maybe this post is out of place or off the mark but trying to weaponize basic miner ships is a really bad idea. Skiff and procurer have a done HP and damage bonus. Its a tanky mining ship, that bonus is not interesting for me in terms of the fact it is a mining ship, its nice to have, but adds nothing to its primary role. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Solecist Project 32201	Posted - 2016.08.18 07:12:19 - [97] - Quote It changes nothing about a tank not being a defense. It is merely a wall the defending entity can hide behind. The defense is what's usually happening behind the wall ... ... and in a miner's case it's drones. Though those drones aren't necessarily usefull if the tank lacks and there's no bonus. Why are you so vehemently opposing this? Looks like you have agood reason and you're not stating it. "That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breaths of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly pulverised by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17916	Posted - 2016.08.18 07:22:13 - [98] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Defend the attackers with drones, the only defence that matters is the tank. The drones take a bit of time to get to work... And you cant fit a tank on 4 of the barges due to a lack of slots, CPU and powergrid while the other two get the tank of a fully fitted cruiser baked into the hull. They are horribly broken.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17916	Posted - 2016.08.18 07:23:30 - [99] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Its a tanky mining ship, that bonus is not interesting for me in terms of the fact it is a mining ship, its nice to have, but adds nothing to its primary role. Its a combat bonus.
Solecist Project 32201	Posted - 2016.08.18 07:28:10 - [100] - Quote meh last post of page. "That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breaths of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly pulverised by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia
Solecist Project 32201	Posted - 2016.08.18 07:29:07 - [101] - Quote We need to gather people who agree on this. I am all for it. The long term possibilities are highly interesting. Quite the potential for a shift. "That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breaths of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly pulverised by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2236	Posted - 2016.08.18 07:32:49 - [102] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Defend the attackers with drones, the only defence that matters is the tank. The drones take a bit of time to get to work... And you cant fit a tank on 4 of the barges due to a lack of slots, CPU and powergrid while the other two get the tank of a fully fitted cruiser baked into the hull. They are horribly broken. Nope the others are horribly broken. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2236	Posted - 2016.08.18 07:34:17 - [103] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Its a tanky mining ship, that bonus is not interesting for me in terms of the fact it is a mining ship, its nice to have, but adds nothing to its primary role. Its a combat bonus. On a non-combat mining ship, its nice to have but not that important, for a start I fit an extra bulkhead instead of the drone damage amp. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17918	Posted - 2016.08.18 07:34:22 - [104] - Quote Skiff and proc should get their base hp brought back down to normal levels, keep the combat bonus to drones, get a few more slots and fitting room to open up options and allow for a decent combat fit. They are now perfect mining escorts/defence boats for both fleet work and solo. Retriever and mackinaw both need a good deal more slots and CPU/PG so they can actually have options when fitting them. CCP need to get creative here so I would say go radical. Give them two utility highs and a small bonus to remote shield boosters. Alter the cap to compensate. Again, they need the ability to actually fit a decent setup, 1 mid and 3 lows are next to useless. Covetor and Hulk should be the go to strip miners, they also need more fitting slots and CPU/PG to actually fit things. I would also alter the cargo expanders to also impact the ore hold and reduce the hold on barges to compensate. All barges would be able to hold at least two cycles as a base with the option of improving that if they so wish.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2236	Posted - 2016.08.18 07:40:48 - [105] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Skiff and proc should get their base hp brought back down to normal levels, keep the combat bonus to drones, get a few more slots and fitting room to open up options and allow for a decent combat fit. They are now perfect mining escorts/defence boats for both fleet work and solo. Retriever and mackinaw both need a good deal more slots and CPU/PG so they can actually have options when fitting them. CCP need to get creative here so I would say go radical. Give them two utility highs and a small bonus to remote shield boosters. Alter the cap to compensate. Again, they need the ability to actually fit a decent setup, 1 mid and 3 lows are next to useless. Covetor and Hulk should be the go to strip miners, they also need more fitting slots and CPU/PG to actually fit things. I would also alter the cargo expanders to also impact the ore hold and reduce the hold on barges to compensate. All barges would be able to hold at least two cycles as a base with the option of improving that if they so wish. The coverter, Hulk, Retreiver and Mackinaw should all get their base increased but not as strong as the Skiff and Procurer, there should be differences in roles and yield as there is now. The Hulk and Coveter are fleet mining ships, the Reteiver and Mac are solo yield ships and the skiff and procurer are for those that want defence first and for more risky environments. You just want easy kills and want fitting flexibility like a combat ship when they are specialised mining ships. Get away with you... When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17920	Posted - 2016.08.18 07:46:10 - [106] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: You just want easy kills and want fitting flexibility like a combat ship when they are specialised mining ships. Get away with you... A mining fleet with greater tank, logi and offensive capability is asking for easy kills? I just said give them more tank, I just said add logi, I just said give them more combat capability and you are saying Im asking for easier kills...
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2236	Posted - 2016.08.18 07:59:38 - [107] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: You just want easy kills and want fitting flexibility like a combat ship when they are specialised mining ships. Get away with you... A mining fleet with greater tank, logi and offensive capability is asking for easy kills? I just said give them more tank, I just said add logi, I just said give them more combat capability and you are saying Im asking for easier kills... You are asking for more flexible fitting for a single role ship to fit in with cruisers and then saying that their base EHP should be in line with cruisers. They are not flexible combat ships built around speed and the ability to use weapons and the full suite of combat capabilities, most notably weapons systems in the highs. The only think that matters for these ships is tank, period, because it is a DPS race against tank before CONCORD arrives to give their lame consequences to a cheap ship or cheap ships. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Solecist Project 32202	Posted - 2016.08.18 08:17:18 - [108] - Quote So why do you oppose giving miners more options? Why do you oppose a potential shift away from miners being merely victims? "That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breaths of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly pulverised by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17921	Posted - 2016.08.18 08:20:00 - [109] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: You just want easy kills and want fitting flexibility like a combat ship when they are specialised mining ships. Get away with you... A mining fleet with greater tank, logi and offensive capability is asking for easy kills? I just said give them more tank, I just said add logi, I just said give them more combat capability and you are saying Im asking for easier kills... You are asking for more flexible fitting for a single role ship to fit in with cruisers and then saying that their base EHP should be in line with cruisers. They are not flexible combat ships built around speed and the ability to use weapons and the full suite of combat capabilities, most notably weapons systems in the highs. The only think that matters for these ships is tank, period, because it is a DPS race against tank before CONCORD arrives to give their lame consequences to a cheap ship or cheap ships. So you are saying you don't want miners to have more defensive options? Looks to me like the only person asking for easy miner kills is you.
Elmund Egivand Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 1301	Posted - 2016.08.18 08:41:48 - [110] - Quote Why the devil are you guys acting like the Skiff doesn't exist? She has tank, drone DPS and half the Mackinaw's cargo capacity and reduced m3/sec to compensate! If getting gank is your problem, why don't just fly a fricking Skiff and take the reduced cargo capacity in strides? If money is a problem downgrade into the Procurer! A Minmatar warship is like a rusting Beetle with 500 horsepower Cardillac engines in the rear, armour plating bolted to chassis and a M2 Browning stuck on top.
Solecist Project 32202	Posted - 2016.08.18 08:42:42 - [111] - Quote Well, for some reason he refuses to adress my questions, so i'll do it for him. Likely is that he opposes it, because he believes miners will just keep fitting for yield and be easy prey. That's not unlikely for a part of the mining population, but it's like this for every population. What he ignores is the shift away from people advising miners to fit tank... ... to people advising miners to fit prepared for combat ... ... and adjusting their alarms accordingly for fast response times in case of afk. Alternatively does he hate it, because he's actually a ganker ... ... or because it makes the irrelevant AG even more irrelevant. Reminds me of BLM and SJW, who would never really want what they yell for ... ... because it would remove their excuse that "allows" them to scream for attention. "That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breaths of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly pulverised by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17923	Posted - 2016.08.18 08:51:23 - [112] - Quote Elmund Egivand wrote: Why the devil are you guys acting like the Skiff doesn't exist? She has tank, drone DPS and half the Mackinaw's cargo capacity and reduced m3/sec to compensate! If getting gank is your problem, why don't just fly a fricking Skiff and take the reduced cargo capacity and mining m3/s in strides? If money is a problem downgrade into the Procurer! The problem is the skiff and proc are both overpowered in their base tank. What we need is a balanced barge lineup not only with each other but against all the other ships out there. Some people can't seem to get past the nerf skiff and see the part where its getting its fittings buffed to turn it into something more capable and useful.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2237	Posted - 2016.08.18 09:00:58 - [113] - Quote Elmund Egivand wrote: Why the devil are you guys acting like the Skiff doesn't exist? She has tank, drone DPS and half the Mackinaw's cargo capacity and reduced m3/sec to compensate! If getting gank is your problem, why don't just fly a fricking Skiff and take the reduced cargo capacity and mining m3/s in strides? If money is a problem downgrade into the Procurer! I mine in a Skiff, but baltec1 keeps wanting to nerf it. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Solecist Project 32202	Posted - 2016.08.18 09:02:50 - [114] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Elmund Egivand wrote: Why the devil are you guys acting like the Skiff doesn't exist? She has tank, drone DPS and half the Mackinaw's cargo capacity and reduced m3/sec to compensate! If getting gank is your problem, why don't just fly a fricking Skiff and take the reduced cargo capacity and mining m3/s in strides? If money is a problem downgrade into the Procurer! I mine in a Skiff, but baltec1 keeps wanting to nerf it. You're being dishonestand hide the true reasons for your behaviour. Plus it reminds me of the mail Hengle posted... "That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breaths of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly pulverised by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17926	Posted - 2016.08.18 09:05:36 - [115] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Elmund Egivand wrote: Why the devil are you guys acting like the Skiff doesn't exist? She has tank, drone DPS and half the Mackinaw's cargo capacity and reduced m3/sec to compensate! If getting gank is your problem, why don't just fly a fricking Skiff and take the reduced cargo capacity and mining m3/s in strides? If money is a problem downgrade into the Procurer! I mine in a Skiff, but baltec1 keeps wanting to nerf it. I just asked to buff its defensive abilities, you are demanding for to not have greater defensive options.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2237	Posted - 2016.08.18 09:08:01 - [116] - Quote Solecist Project wrote: So why do you oppose giving miners more options? Why do you oppose a potential shift away from miners being merely victims? Ignoring your later rant and projection on to me. It is a mining ship not a flexible combat ship that can be adjusted to fight with different abilities be it a focus on speed, tank or greater damage. The mining ship is mining that is its job, the biggest risk it has is being blown up by people in Destroyers in a DPS race against CONCORD, so that is what is needed for this ship class. Simply put you can fit a Skiff for yield and usability in terms of mining, but it can then be ganked. But the bigger pictures is taht the three types of mining ships ahve different roles which is fine, many people who mine believe taht the other two mining classes are too weak in terms of tank. Gankers because they want easy kills want to nerf the Skiff class. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2237	Posted - 2016.08.18 09:10:02 - [117] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Elmund Egivand wrote: Why the devil are you guys acting like the Skiff doesn't exist? She has tank, drone DPS and half the Mackinaw's cargo capacity and reduced m3/sec to compensate! If getting gank is your problem, why don't just fly a fricking Skiff and take the reduced cargo capacity and mining m3/s in strides? If money is a problem downgrade into the Procurer! I mine in a Skiff, but baltec1 keeps wanting to nerf it. I just asked to buff its defensive abilities, you are demanding for to not have greater defensive options. You keep asking to nerf it. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17926	Posted - 2016.08.18 09:12:14 - [118] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: You keep asking to nerf it. Aside from the part where I ask for better fittings for it. Fittings that you can use for, say, tank.
Elmund Egivand Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 1301	Posted - 2016.08.18 09:12:50 - [119] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Elmund Egivand wrote: Why the devil are you guys acting like the Skiff doesn't exist? She has tank, drone DPS and half the Mackinaw's cargo capacity and reduced m3/sec to compensate! If getting gank is your problem, why don't just fly a fricking Skiff and take the reduced cargo capacity and mining m3/s in strides? If money is a problem downgrade into the Procurer! The problem is the skiff and proc are both overpowered in their base tank. What we need is a balanced barge lineup not only with each other but against all the other ships out there. Some people can't seem to get past the nerf skiff and see the part where its getting its fittings buffed to turn it into something more capable and useful. Throw enough Catalysts at them and the Skiff/Procurer will still die. Seriously, if you can gank a freighter, ganking a Procurer/Skiff should be easier, though I question the financial sense of ganking these ships. They have the tank of battlecruisers (Procurer) and battleships (Skiff), meaning that ganking them is still very much doable especially for those guys who gank Freighters daily at Jita 4-4. Those drones are great at killing a destroyer or two but that's just about it. And are you guys forgetting that these tanky barges/exhumers don't mine as much or as fast as Mackinaws anyway? I don't see what the problem is. A Minmatar warship is like a rusting Beetle with 500 horsepower Cardillac engines in the rear, armour plating bolted to chassis and a M2 Browning stuck on top.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17926	Posted - 2016.08.18 09:24:45 - [120] - Quote Elmund Egivand wrote: Throw enough Catalysts at them and the Skiff/Procurer will still die. Seriously, if you can gank a freighter, ganking a Procurer/Skiff should be easier, though I question the financial sense of ganking these ships. They have the tank of battlecruisers (Procurer) and battleships (Skiff), meaning that ganking them is still very much doable especially for those guys who gank Freighters daily at Jita 4-4. hose drones are great at killing a destroyer or two but that's just about it. I don't see what the problem is. These ships don't just get used in highsec. You are in null, you have a mining fleet of say, hulks macks and skiffs. A small gang hit you and bubbles your fleet. What happens? You die. The hulks and macks first with the skiffs last only because they have a monster base tank. Big tank means nothing outside of highsec. Now under my plan you have a mixed fleet, the hulks are the dedicated miners, the macks are providing logi support and the skiffs are offering offensive support to fight off the attackers. Suddenly the mining fleet is not defenseless vs a small gang. Every time you tell miners to have a a few combat ships guard them they say nobody is going to be willing to sit around all day staring at space. Every time you tell them to have logi with them they say nobody is willing to do that with no reward. Under the plan I gave you have those things in the very ships are are mining with. You have options, all the barges have a useful role to play in a mining fleet, there is no single "best" ship like today as they are all on an even playing field in terms of tank and they are balanced against the other ships out there. One of the biggest complains from everyone is that mining is boring. Well, here is a plan to make mining less boring by giving you the ability to fight back. Or would you rather just dock up and not play because barges are useless at defending themselves?
Solecist Project 32202	Posted - 2016.08.18 09:29:14 - [121] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Solecist Project wrote: So why do you oppose giving miners more options? Why do you oppose a potential shift away from miners being merely victims? Ignoring your later rant and projection on to me. It is a mining ship not a flexible combat ship that can be adjusted to fight with different abilities be it a focus on speed, tank or greater damage. The mining ship is mining that is its job, the biggest risk it has is being blown up by people in Destroyers in a DPS race against CONCORD, so that is what is needed for this ship class. Simply put you can fit a Skiff for yield and usability in terms of mining, but it can then be ganked. But the bigger pictures is taht the three types of mining ships ahve different roles which is fine, many people who mine believe taht the other two mining classes are too weak in terms of tank. Gankers because they want easy kills want to nerf the Skiff class. okay, but what are the reasons you oppose a change towards more flexibility? "The way it is now" is no reason against change and makes you look like you have an agenda you aren't willing to expose. That's an impression you always leave behind, btw, but that's irrelevant now anyway. Maybe i should rephrase the question: What negative long term consequences do you foresee with the changes baltec1 proposes? And a simple "more ganking" isn't a proper response to such a question. Thanks! "That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breaths of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly pulverised by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2237	Posted - 2016.08.18 09:40:20 - [122] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Elmund Egivand wrote: Throw enough Catalysts at them and the Skiff/Procurer will still die. Seriously, if you can gank a freighter, ganking a Procurer/Skiff should be easier, though I question the financial sense of ganking these ships. They have the tank of battlecruisers (Procurer) and battleships (Skiff), meaning that ganking them is still very much doable especially for those guys who gank Freighters daily at Jita 4-4. hose drones are great at killing a destroyer or two but that's just about it. I don't see what the problem is. These ships don't just get used in highsec. You are in null, you have a mining fleet of say, hulks macks and skiffs. A small gang hit you and bubbles your fleet. What happens? You die. The hulks and macks first with the skiffs last only because they have a monster base tank. Big tank means nothing outside of highsec. Now under my plan you have a mixed fleet, the hulks are the dedicated miners, the macks are providing logi support and the skiffs are offering offensive support to fight off the attackers. Suddenly the mining fleet is not defenseless vs a small gang. Every time you tell miners to have a a few combat ships guard them they say nobody is going to be willing to sit around all day staring at space. Every time you tell them to have logi with them they say nobody is willing to do that with no reward. Under the plan I gave you have those things in the very ships are are mining with. You have options, all the barges have a useful role to play in a mining fleet, there is no single "best" ship like today as they are all on an even playing field in terms of tank and they are balanced against the other ships out there. One of the biggest complains from everyone is that mining is boring. Well, here is a plan to make mining less boring by giving you the ability to fight back. Or would you rather just dock up and not play because barges are useless at defending themselves? Doesn't that mean that the Hulk and Coveter need beefing up a bit which is what we keep saying. And doing that in hisec is a non-starter for damn obvious reasons, but perhaps not for you. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2237	Posted - 2016.08.18 09:45:50 - [123] - Quote Solecist Project wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Solecist Project wrote: So why do you oppose giving miners more options? Why do you oppose a potential shift away from miners being merely victims? Ignoring your later rant and projection on to me. It is a mining ship not a flexible combat ship that can be adjusted to fight with different abilities be it a focus on speed, tank or greater damage. The mining ship is mining that is its job, the biggest risk it has is being blown up by people in Destroyers in a DPS race against CONCORD, so that is what is needed for this ship class. Simply put you can fit a Skiff for yield and usability in terms of mining, but it can then be ganked. But the bigger pictures is taht the three types of mining ships ahve different roles which is fine, many people who mine believe taht the other two mining classes are too weak in terms of tank. Gankers because they want easy kills want to nerf the Skiff class. okay, but what are the reasons you oppose a change towards more flexibility? "The way it is now" is no reason against change and makes you look like you have an agenda you aren't willing to expose. That's an impression you always leave behind, btw, but that's irrelevant now anyway. Maybe i should rephrase the question: What negative long term consequences do you foresee with the changes baltec1 proposes? And a simple "more ganking" isn't a proper response to such a question. Thanks! That flexibility should be applied to the Hulk and Coveter which are the mining ships which are supposed to be used in big mining fleets in 0.0 in protected 0.0 space. CCP have done something to the Rorqual that is interesting but those mining ships need more options, they started by giving another low slot to the Hulk, perhaps that needs a drone offensive bonus now. It is fine to give a proper balance to the Hulk and coveter based on baltec1's suggestion. The Skiff and Procurer are fine while the added yield for the Restriever and Mackinaw are worthwhile choices even if their tank is too light. So if those changes are made to the Hulk and Coveter which are 0.0 mining fleet ships fine, no issue from me and if people want to try that in hisec then fine too. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17927	Posted - 2016.08.18 09:50:30 - [124] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Doesn't that mean that the Hulk and Coveter need beefing up a bit which is what we keep saying. They would be beefed up via the better fitting options you get by adding more slots, cpu and powergrid. Dracvlad wrote: And doing that in hisec is a non-starter for damn obvious reasons, but perhaps not for you. Do tell.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2237	Posted - 2016.08.18 09:59:19 - [125] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Doesn't that mean that the Hulk and Coveter need beefing up a bit which is what we keep saying. They would be beefed up via the better fitting options you get by adding more slots, cpu and powergrid. Dracvlad wrote: And doing that in hisec is a non-starter for damn obvious reasons, but perhaps not for you. Do tell. Well I would support that change for the Hulk and Coveter. You know the reasons..., you of all people should know why... When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Elmund Egivand Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation 1302	Posted - 2016.08.18 09:59:20 - [126] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Elmund Egivand wrote: Throw enough Catalysts at them and the Skiff/Procurer will still die. Seriously, if you can gank a freighter, ganking a Procurer/Skiff should be easier, though I question the financial sense of ganking these ships. They have the tank of battlecruisers (Procurer) and battleships (Skiff), meaning that ganking them is still very much doable especially for those guys who gank Freighters daily at Jita 4-4. hose drones are great at killing a destroyer or two but that's just about it. I don't see what the problem is. These ships don't just get used in highsec. You are in null, you have a mining fleet of say, hulks macks and skiffs. A small gang hit you and bubbles your fleet. What happens? You die. The hulks and macks first with the skiffs last only because they have a monster base tank. Big tank means nothing outside of highsec. Now under my plan you have a mixed fleet, the hulks are the dedicated miners, the macks are providing logi support and the skiffs are offering offensive support to fight off the attackers. Suddenly the mining fleet is not defenseless vs a small gang. Every time you tell miners to have a a few combat ships guard them they say nobody is going to be willing to sit around all day staring at space. Every time you tell them to have logi with them they say nobody is willing to do that with no reward. Under the plan I gave you have those things in the very ships are are mining with. You have options, all the barges have a useful role to play in a mining fleet, there is no single "best" ship like today as they are all on an even playing field in terms of tank and they are balanced against the other ships out there. One of the biggest complains from everyone is that mining is boring. Well, here is a plan to make mining less boring by giving you the ability to fight back. Or would you rather just dock up and not play because barges are useless at defending themselves? Mate, if you are mining in nullsec WITHOUT a Rorqual with a hangar bay full of combat ships and combat boosters along with mining boosters for support (plus backup no further than one jump away), I am going to seriously question your intelligence. In fact, why are you even in nullsec without combat skills of some description to make good use of the ships you will be reshipping into from the Rorqual to take on attackers? A Minmatar warship is like a rusting Beetle with 500 horsepower Cardillac engines in the rear, armour plating bolted to chassis and a M2 Browning stuck on top.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17931	Posted - 2016.08.18 10:01:23 - [127] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: You know the reasons..., you of all people should know why... Nope I want to know what you mean by this.
Solecist Project 32202	Posted - 2016.08.18 10:02:59 - [128] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: That flexibility should be applied to the Hulk and Coveter which are the mining ships which are supposed to be used in big mining fleets in 0.0 in protected 0.0 space. CCP have done something to the Rorqual that is interesting but those mining ships need more options, they started by giving another low slot to the Hulk, perhaps that needs a drone offensive bonus now. It is fine to give a proper balance to the Hulk and coveter based on baltec1's suggestion. The Skiff and Procurer are fine while the added yield for the Restriever and Mackinaw are worthwhile choices even if their tank is too light. So if those changes are made to the Hulk and Coveter which are 0.0 mining fleet ships fine, no issue from me and if people want to try that in hisecwith the Hulk and Coveter then fine too. i asked for possible negative long term consequences and get this non-answer as response. And there no "supposed space" for ships, unless mechanically restricted. Your "supposed to be used in ... 0.0" isn't accurate and has nothing to do with reality. Do you understand that you expose a narrow minded view of how things work? Anyhow: negative long term consequences, please. I can write down both sides of the medal, so why can't you write down even one side? "That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breaths of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly pulverised by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17931	Posted - 2016.08.18 10:04:42 - [129] - Quote Elmund Egivand wrote: Mate, if you are mining in nullsec WITHOUT a Rorqual with a hangar bay full of combat ships and combat boosters along with mining boosters for support (plus backup no further than one jump away), I am going to seriously question your intelligence. In fact, why are you even in nullsec without combat skills of some description to make good use of the ships you will be reshipping into from the Rorqual to take on attackers? What use are those ship in the hold if you are already under attack? Why should barges be completely helpless? Miners want more engaging gameplay, they want to be seen as more than prey. Lets give them that gameplay and ability to protect themselves. Lets make mining a bit more interesting.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2237	Posted - 2016.08.18 10:14:32 - [130] - Quote Solecist Project wrote: Dracvlad wrote: That flexibility should be applied to the Hulk and Coveter which are the mining ships which are supposed to be used in big mining fleets in 0.0 in protected 0.0 space. CCP have done something to the Rorqual that is interesting but those mining ships need more options, they started by giving another low slot to the Hulk, perhaps that needs a drone offensive bonus now. It is fine to give a proper balance to the Hulk and coveter based on baltec1's suggestion. The Skiff and Procurer are fine while the added yield for the Restriever and Mackinaw are worthwhile choices even if their tank is too light. So if those changes are made to the Hulk and Coveter which are 0.0 mining fleet ships fine, no issue from me and if people want to try that in hisecwith the Hulk and Coveter then fine too. i asked for possible negative long term consequences and get this non-answer as response. And there no "supposed space" for ships, unless mechanically restricted. Your "supposed to be used in ... 0.0" isn't accurate and has nothing to do with reality. Do you understand that you expose a narrow minded view of how things work? Anyhow: negative long term consequences, please. I can write down both sides of the medal, so why can't you write down even one side? Well the Hulk and Coveter were defined as CCP as fleet mining ships, while the skiff and procurer are solo mining ships with less yield and greater tank while the Mac and Retreiver are solo mining ships with more yield and greater capacity. So its pretty basic stuff. Negative long term consequence, what? That is an odd statement / question. The ships are balanced for their roles, simple stuff really. If a 0.0 player is asking for more flexible fleet ships then why not, the Hulk and Coveter could be adjusted for that. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2237	Posted - 2016.08.18 10:16:31 - [131] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: You know the reasons..., you of all people should know why... Nope I want to know what you mean by this. Obvious is still obvious... When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17931	Posted - 2016.08.18 10:18:03 - [132] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Obvious is still obvious... Clearly you have nothing.
Solecist Project 32202	Posted - 2016.08.18 10:20:14 - [133] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Well the Hulk and Coveter were defined as CCP as fleet mining ships, while the skiff and procurer are solo mining ships with less yield and greater tank while the Mac and Retreiver are solo mining ships with more yield and greater capacity. So its pretty basic stuff. Negative long term consequence, what? That is an odd statement / question. The ships are balanced for their roles, simple stuff really. If a 0.0 player is asking for more flexible fleet ships then why not, the Hulk and Coveter could be adjusted for that. Fleet mining, yes. Not meant purely for 0.0, as you wrongly "supposed". Negative long term consequences for miners if baltec1's idea came to life. And now it looks like you're struggling... but anyway, now you know, so please provide. "That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breaths of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly pulverised by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2237	Posted - 2016.08.18 10:27:09 - [134] - Quote Solecist Project wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Well the Hulk and Coveter were defined as CCP as fleet mining ships, while the skiff and procurer are solo mining ships with less yield and greater tank while the Mac and Retreiver are solo mining ships with more yield and greater capacity. So its pretty basic stuff. Negative long term consequence, what? That is an odd statement / question. The ships are balanced for their roles, simple stuff really. If a 0.0 player is asking for more flexible fleet ships then why not, the Hulk and Coveter could be adjusted for that. Fleet mining, yes. Not meant purely for 0.0, as you wrongly "supposed". Negative long term consequences for miners if baltec1's idea came to life. And now it looks like you're struggling... but anyway, now you know, so please provide. There is nothing negative in changing the Hulk and Coveter to better meet their role as fleet mining ships, there is no struggle there, their intended role is fleet mining in 0.0, its not my fault that they both have the tank of a wet paper bag. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
ChromeStriker Out of Focus Odin's Call 1048	Posted - 2016.08.18 10:33:33 - [135] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Elmund Egivand wrote: Mate, if you are mining in nullsec WITHOUT a Rorqual with a hangar bay full of combat ships and combat boosters along with mining boosters for support (plus backup no further than one jump away), I am going to seriously question your intelligence. In fact, why are you even in nullsec without combat skills of some description to make good use of the ships you will be reshipping into from the Rorqual to take on attackers? What use are those ship in the hold if you are already under attack? Why should barges be completely helpless? Miners want more engaging gameplay, they want to be seen as more than prey. Lets give them that gameplay and ability to protect themselves. Lets make mining a bit more interesting. Let mining lasers do dmg to ships.... TADA things just got more interesting No Worries
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2237	Posted - 2016.08.18 10:41:01 - [136] - Quote I unveil the combat mining ship, called the Grinder, based on the hull of the Noctis it is configured to be able to use the Medium MJD and has significant drone capabilities with superior stand off abilities and ability to run heavy neuts. Sounds good.... When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Ralph King-Griffin Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance 17502	Posted - 2016.08.18 10:55:51 - [137] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: I unveil the combat mining ship, called the Grinder, based on the hull of the Noctis it is configured to be able to use the Medium MJD and has significant drone capabilities with superior stand off abilities and ability to run heavy neuts. Sounds good.... something like this? [Eos, err, ima barge i swear] Armor Explosive Hardener II Drone Damage Amplifier II Imperial Navy Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane Imperial Navy Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane Medium Armor Repairer II Medium Ancillary Armor Repairer,Nanite Repair Paste 50MN Microwarpdrive II Medium Capacitor Booster II,Navy Cap Booster 400 Medium Capacitor Booster II,Navy Cap Booster 400 Medium Micro Jump Drive Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I Modulated Strip Miner II,Veldspar Mining Crystal II 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 Auxiliary Nano Pump II Medium Auxiliary Nano Pump II Ogre II x10 Hammerhead II x5 Vespa EC-600 x5 =]\|[=
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17931	Posted - 2016.08.18 11:02:27 - [138] - Quote ChromeStriker wrote: Let mining lasers do dmg to ships.... TADA things just got more interesting Someone said the other night that mining lasers should do something like 10 damage. Not enough to be useful but just enough to get a fantastic killmail on something AFK for a while
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2237	Posted - 2016.08.18 11:10:27 - [139] - Quote Ralph King-Griffin wrote: Dracvlad wrote: I unveil the combat mining ship, called the Grinder, based on the hull of the Noctis it is configured to be able to use the Medium MJD and has significant drone capabilities with superior stand off abilities and ability to run heavy neuts. Sounds good.... something like this? [Eos, err, ima barge i swear] Armor Explosive Hardener II Drone Damage Amplifier II Imperial Navy Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane Imperial Navy Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane Medium Armor Repairer II Medium Ancillary Armor Repairer,Nanite Repair Paste 50MN Microwarpdrive II Medium Capacitor Booster II,Navy Cap Booster 400 Medium Capacitor Booster II,Navy Cap Booster 400 Medium Micro Jump Drive Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I Medium Unstable Power Fluctuator I Modulated Strip Miner II,Veldspar Mining Crystal II 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 Auxiliary Nano Pump II Medium Auxiliary Nano Pump II Ogre II x10 Hammerhead II x5 Vespa EC-600 x5 I came over all light headed just looking at that beauty... When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
ChromeStriker Out of Focus Odin's Call 1048	Posted - 2016.08.18 11:11:35 - [140] - Quote baltec1 wrote: ChromeStriker wrote: Let mining lasers do dmg to ships.... TADA things just got more interesting Someone said the other night that mining lasers should do something like 10 damage. Not enough to be useful but just enough to get a fantastic killmail on something AFK for a while ... those lasers have a really long cycle time and are fireing constantly... could be an iteresting mechanic of effectivly zero cycle time weapon... i mean it still wouldnt do much dmg but 10 barges could push off an interloper quite well No Worries
Solecist Project 32203	Posted - 2016.08.18 11:24:18 - [141] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Solecist Project wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Well the Hulk and Coveter were defined as CCP as fleet mining ships, while the skiff and procurer are solo mining ships with less yield and greater tank while the Mac and Retreiver are solo mining ships with more yield and greater capacity. So its pretty basic stuff. Negative long term consequence, what? That is an odd statement / question. The ships are balanced for their roles, simple stuff really. If a 0.0 player is asking for more flexible fleet ships then why not, the Hulk and Coveter could be adjusted for that. Fleet mining, yes. Not meant purely for 0.0, as you wrongly "supposed". Negative long term consequences for miners if baltec1's idea came to life. And now it looks like you're struggling... but anyway, now you know, so please provide. There is nothing negative in changing the Hulk and Coveter to better meet their role as fleet mining ships, there is no struggle there, their intended role is fleet mining in 0.0, its not my fault that they both have the tank of a wet paper bag. Wrong again. The hulk and covetor are not intended to be used solely in 0.0, as they are not restricted to being used in 0.0. They are perfectly fine in highsec as well and how bad players use them has no connetion with their role whatsoever. Furthermore did you oppose baltec1's idea vehemently and still fail to provide a meaningfull response. last chance: You opposed baltec1's idea vehemently and i ask about the negative longterm consequences about his idea. And please learn that you are wrong regarding your perception of both the hulk and the covetor. In any case, trying to weasel around like a politician makes you look like a weakling, so i suggest you stop. "That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breaths of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly pulverised by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia
Solecist Project 32203	Posted - 2016.08.18 11:28:53 - [142] - Quote Meh... i forgot the english term for someone who is a dishonest weasel who constantly tries using words in manipulative ways, trying to portrait himself as a good and upstanding person while the opposite is the case. Can someone help me out? "That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breaths of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly pulverised by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17934	Posted - 2016.08.18 11:33:00 - [143] - Quote Solecist Project wrote: Meh... i forgot the english term for someone who is a dishonest weasel who constantly tries using words in manipulative ways, trying to portrait himself as a good and upstanding person while the opposite is the case. Can someone help me out? Politician.
Solecist Project 32203	Posted - 2016.08.18 11:36:40 - [144] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Solecist Project wrote: Meh... i forgot the english term for someone who is a dishonest weasel who constantly tries using words in manipulative ways, trying to portrait himself as a good and upstanding person while the opposite is the case. Can someone help me out? Politician. Yes, yes, that was it. Someone who pretends to be someone he isn't, only ever looks after himself and will not ever stop being dishonest and manipulative because needs to keep control over the situation. also related: psychopath. Thanks! Now back to your regular thread. "That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breaths of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly pulverised by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2238	Posted - 2016.08.18 11:44:08 - [145] - Quote Solecist Project wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Solecist Project wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Well the Hulk and Coveter were defined as CCP as fleet mining ships, while the skiff and procurer are solo mining ships with less yield and greater tank while the Mac and Retreiver are solo mining ships with more yield and greater capacity. So its pretty basic stuff. Negative long term consequence, what? That is an odd statement / question. The ships are balanced for their roles, simple stuff really. If a 0.0 player is asking for more flexible fleet ships then why not, the Hulk and Coveter could be adjusted for that. Fleet mining, yes. Not meant purely for 0.0, as you wrongly "supposed". Negative long term consequences for miners if baltec1's idea came to life. And now it looks like you're struggling... but anyway, now you know, so please provide. There is nothing negative in changing the Hulk and Coveter to better meet their role as fleet mining ships, there is no struggle there, their intended role is fleet mining in 0.0, its not my fault that they both have the tank of a wet paper bag. Wrong again. The hulk and covetor are not intended to be used solely in 0.0, as they are not restricted to being used in 0.0. They are perfectly fine in highsec as well and how bad players use them has no connetion with their role whatsoever. Furthermore did you oppose baltec1's idea vehemently and still fail to provide a meaningfull response. last chance: You opposed baltec1's idea vehemently and i ask about the negative longterm consequences about his idea. And please learn that you are wrong regarding your perception of both the hulk and the covetor. In any case, trying to weasel around like a politician makes you look like a weakling, so i suggest you stop. Last chance... Of course they can be used in other areas and are, however CCP designed them for that role. The two ships I mentioned were designated for that role by CCP, baltec1 can make them look like micky mouse heads and stick purples disco lights on them for all I care. The Skiff is what I use because of its tank and because I solo mine in hisec, it meats my needs as it is, baltec1 wants to change the skiff to be less then what it is, which I reject. It is the solo mining boat and if he wants to hang fluffy dice from his rear view mirror on the Hulk that is his call. I used the Hulk when it was the ship that had the best defences, I stopped using any mining ship when they all had the tank of a wet paper bag, I mine in the Skiff because it has a tank, I fit additional tank and I accept the lower yield, that is fine for me, if CCP change it, then it will not be fine. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Sarah Flynt Federation Interstellar Resources Silent Infinity 236	Posted - 2016.08.18 11:45:10 - [146] - Quote Elmund Egivand wrote: Mate, if you are mining in nullsec WITHOUT a Rorqual with a hangar bay full of combat ships and combat boosters along with mining boosters for support (plus backup no further than one jump away), I am going to seriously question your intelligence. In fact, why are you even in nullsec without combat skills of some description to make good use of the ships you will be reshipping into from the Rorqual to take on attackers? Please educate yourself before calling others stupid because the way you think mining in nullsec works: it doesn't. The scenario you're describing simply doesn't happen in nullsec because: a) nobody in his right mind puts a Rorqual in a belt thanks to the 5 minute siege timer of the industrial core and b) the ship maintenance bay of the Rorqual is undersized and can only hold industrial/mining ships, nothing else. Sick of High-Sec gankers? Join the public channel Anti-ganking and the dedicated intel channel Gank-Intel !
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17935	Posted - 2016.08.18 11:59:38 - [147] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Last chance... Of course they can be used in other areas and are, however CCP designed them for that role. The two ships I mentioned were designated for that role by CCP, baltec1 can make them look like micky mouse heads and stick purple disco lights on them for all I care. The Skiff is what I use because of its tank and because I solo mine in hisec, it meats my needs as it is, baltec1 wants to change the skiff to be less then what it is, which I reject. It is the solo mining boat and if he wants to hang fluffy dice from his rear view mirror on the Hulk that is his call. I used the Hulk when it was the ship that had the best defences, I stopped using any mining ship when they all had the tank of a wet paper bag, I mine in the Skiff because it has a tank, I fit additional tank and I accept the lower yield, that is fine for me, if CCP change it, then it will not be fine. So on the one hand we have my argument for a skiff with the firepower of a droneboat coupled with a tank somewhere between a force recon and a heavy assault ship complete with the ability to fit tackle, webs, prop mod and so forth. While you are arguing that miners are literally too stupid to fit ships for themselves so CCP should do it for them but if they are outside of highsec then they should have no hope.
Solecist Project 32203	Posted - 2016.08.18 12:08:00 - [148] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Solecist Project wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Solecist Project wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Well the Hulk and Coveter were defined as CCP as fleet mining ships, while the skiff and procurer are solo mining ships with less yield and greater tank while the Mac and Retreiver are solo mining ships with more yield and greater capacity. So its pretty basic stuff. Negative long term consequence, what? That is an odd statement / question. The ships are balanced for their roles, simple stuff really. If a 0.0 player is asking for more flexible fleet ships then why not, the Hulk and Coveter could be adjusted for that. Fleet mining, yes. Not meant purely for 0.0, as you wrongly "supposed". Negative long term consequences for miners if baltec1's idea came to life. And now it looks like you're struggling... but anyway, now you know, so please provide. There is nothing negative in changing the Hulk and Coveter to better meet their role as fleet mining ships, there is no struggle there, their intended role is fleet mining in 0.0, its not my fault that they both have the tank of a wet paper bag. Wrong again. The hulk and covetor are not intended to be used solely in 0.0, as they are not restricted to being used in 0.0. They are perfectly fine in highsec as well and how bad players use them has no connetion with their role whatsoever. Furthermore did you oppose baltec1's idea vehemently and still fail to provide a meaningfull response. last chance: You opposed baltec1's idea vehemently and i ask about the negative longterm consequences about his idea. And please learn that you are wrong regarding your perception of both the hulk and the covetor. In any case, trying to weasel around like a politician makes you look like a weakling, so i suggest you stop. Last chance... Of course they can be used in other areas and are, however CCP designed them for that role. The two ships I mentioned were designated for that role by CCP, baltec1 can make them look like micky mouse heads and stick purple disco lights on them for all I care. The Skiff is what I use because of its tank and because I solo mine in hisec, it meats my needs as it is, baltec1 wants to change the skiff to be less then what it is, which I reject. It is the solo mining boat and if he wants to hang fluffy dice from his rear view mirror on the Hulk that is his call. I used the Hulk when it was the ship that had the best defences, I stopped using any mining ship when they all had the tank of a wet paper bag, I mine in the Skiff because it has a tank, I fit additional tank and I accept the lower yield, that is fine for me, if CCP change it, then it will not be fine. And again you are wrong. They weren't designed for 0.0 specifically. You don't even gain anything from constantly repeating this nonsense ... ... and you are absolutely underqualified to keep this nonsense alive. No matter how hard you try, the ships' intended role has nothing to do with 0.0 at all and in no way or form did ccp mention that these ships are specifically geared towards nullsec. But you're of course free to link a source to your claim. Unlike some other people i can accept when i'm wrong and don't need to weasel around with words just so i can keep up the delusion of having control over a situation. I'm not a weak minded person. And you fail to answer my question regarding your vehement opposition to baltec1's proposal. Again. Again. Again. Maybe you have a reading disorder. I don't know. I'm sorry if this offends you, i'm just curious! Anyway, i will stop this now. People might start calling me out for potentially harassing someone who is seriously outleagued. Sorry about that all these questions. It's probably not your fault at all and i shouldn't automatically assume any bad intentions from your side. Have a nice day and feel free to have the last word if you need it. :) "That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breaths of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly pulverised by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2241	Posted - 2016.08.18 12:11:42 - [149] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Last chance... Of course they can be used in other areas and are, however CCP designed them for that role. The two ships I mentioned were designated for that role by CCP, baltec1 can make them look like micky mouse heads and stick purple disco lights on them for all I care. The Skiff is what I use because of its tank and because I solo mine in hisec, it meats my needs as it is, baltec1 wants to change the skiff to be less then what it is, which I reject. It is the solo mining boat and if he wants to hang fluffy dice from his rear view mirror on the Hulk that is his call. I used the Hulk when it was the ship that had the best defences, I stopped using any mining ship when they all had the tank of a wet paper bag, I mine in the Skiff because it has a tank, I fit additional tank and I accept the lower yield, that is fine for me, if CCP change it, then it will not be fine. So on the one hand we have my argument for a skiff with the firepower of a droneboat coupled with a tank somewhere between a force recon and a heavy assault ship complete with the ability to fit tackle, webs, prop mod and so forth. While you are arguing that miners are literally too stupid to fit ships for themselves so CCP should do it for them but if they are outside of highsec then they should have no hope. You can do what you want with the Hulk and Coveter as it can be used in that role, please go and fit pink fluffy dice on it if you want.. That is the role that CCP designated for it, it is CCP's problem that it is not fit for purpose. You want a fleet mining ship with options work with the Hulk and Coveter. It is that simple... When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17937	Posted - 2016.08.18 12:20:37 - [150] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: You can do what you want with the Hulk and Coveter as it can be used in that role, please go and fit pink fluffy dice on it if you want.. That is the role that CCP designated for it, it is CCP's problem that it is not fit for purpose. You want a fleet mining ship with options work with the Hulk and Coveter. It is that simple... You have failed to back up anything you have said, you have failed to answer any question and your only argument is "CCP fit more tank for me". You are adding nothing to this topic.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2247	Posted - 2016.08.18 12:28:39 - [151] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: You can do what you want with the Hulk and Coveter as it can be used in that role, please go and fit pink fluffy dice on it if you want.. That is the role that CCP designated for it, it is CCP's problem that it is not fit for purpose. You want a fleet mining ship with options work with the Hulk and Coveter. It is that simple... You have failed to back up anything you have said, you have failed to answer any question and your only argument is "CCP fit more tank for me". You are adding nothing to this topic. I am simply stating that the Skiff is fine where it is, no change needed, I have never asked for more tank for the Skiff or Procurer, while you want to nerf its tank by adding other roles to it which are not desired by miners with the aim of reducing its ability as a tanky mining ship.. The Mackinaw and Retreiver need more tank, as does the Hulk and Coveter. But if you want to play around with a fleet ship to give options then fire away with the Hulk and Coveter. If you want to fit them to be some sort of sensor boosting what not then go ahead. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17937	Posted - 2016.08.18 12:39:57 - [152] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: I am simply stating that the Skiff is fine where it is, no change needed, I have never asked for more tank for the Skiff or Procurer, while you want to nerf its tank by adding other roles to it which are not desired by miners with the aim of reducing its ability as a tanky mining ship. Im wanting to add abilities to the skiff. You are literally arguing against making it a better ship. All you are doing is at best showing you have no idea how basic game mechanics work and at worst deliberately shafting miners so you can continue to rial against ganking.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2256	Posted - 2016.08.18 12:46:14 - [153] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: I am simply stating that the Skiff is fine where it is, no change needed, I have never asked for more tank for the Skiff or Procurer, while you want to nerf its tank by adding other roles to it which are not desired by miners with the aim of reducing its ability as a tanky mining ship. Im wanting to add abilities to the skiff. You are literally arguing against making it a better ship. All you are doing is at best showing you have no idea how basic game mechanics work and at worst deliberately shafting miners so you can continue to rial against ganking. Those other abilities are not desired, it is a solo tanky mining ship period. Your motives are to remove its base EHP, and you seek to obscure that by suggesting that the tanky solo mining ship should be redesigned to fit a fleet role. Your ideas can be catered for by CCP playing with the Hulk and Coveter for that role, seems perfectly fine to me. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17940	Posted - 2016.08.18 12:59:03 - [154] - Quote 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.
Viktor Amarr 51	Posted - 2016.08.18 13:06:51 - [155] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Those other abilities are not desired... for semi-afk use. Thanks for clearing that up.
Ded Akara Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2016.08.18 13:11:35 - [156] - Quote So will the Mackinkaw see more use in hi-sec now that it has the best yield and is the best solo miner? Skiff has 20% less yield on the base of it but if you factor in that a skiff can fit 3 yield modules in the lo slots and still have enough cpu to fit a strong T2 tank Mackinkaw can still only fit two yield modules if you want to retain enough to cpu to fit any kind of tank. Like this the super tank yield fit Skiff only has 11% less yield than the Mackinkaw. There's a serious imbalance in the CPU numbers of the barges. Either nerf Skiff CPU hard so it can't be yield fit and have a strong T2 tank or boost mackinkaw/hulk cpu so they can at least fit a half decent tank so they can survive 3 catalysts if properly fit.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17940	Posted - 2016.08.18 13:16:28 - [157] - Quote Ded Akara wrote: So will the Mackinkaw see more use in hi-sec now that it has the best yield and is the best solo miner? Skiff has 20% less yield on the base of it but if you factor in that a skiff can fit 3 yield modules in the lo slots and still have enough cpu to fit a strong T2 tank Mackinkaw can still only fit two yield modules if you want to retain enough to cpu to fit any kind of tank. Like this the super tank yield fit Skiff only has 11% less yield than the Mackinkaw. There's a serious imbalance in the CPU numbers of the barges. Either nerf Skiff CPU hard so it can't be yield fit and have a strong T2 tank or boost mackinkaw/hulk cpu so they can at least fit a half decent tank so they can survive 3 catalysts if properly fit. Skiff and proc will be the order of the day. As you said the other 4 barges have terrible problems with fittings.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2256	Posted - 2016.08.18 13:38:45 - [158] - Quote Viktor Amarr wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Those other abilities are not desired... for semi-afk use. Thanks for clearing that up. Am I supposed to be offended by that in some way? When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Dirty Forum Alt Forum Alts Anonymous 564	Posted - 2016.08.18 13:42:25 - [159] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Viktor Amarr wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Those other abilities are not desired... for semi-afk use. Thanks for clearing that up. Am I supposed to be offended by that in some way? Yes - any level of AFK-ness is inherently evil. EVE should be played like an FPS, where leaving the keyboard while playing harms your team and makes everyone hate you. Now excuse me while I afk autopilot for the other side of EVE
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2256	Posted - 2016.08.18 13:45:30 - [160] - 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. Give the larger drone bay and drone bonus to the Hulk too, fine with me, it does not currently have that role bonuses and it should. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17943	Posted - 2016.08.18 14:08:26 - [161] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Give the larger drone bay and drone bonus to the Hulk too, fine with me, it does not currently have any role bonuses and it should. All the hulk needs is the slots, cpu and PG to fit a hac like tank on it. Role bonus would be the 25% yield to mining lasers currently on the mack. Firepower is the skiffs job.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2256	Posted - 2016.08.18 14:15:00 - [162] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Give the larger drone bay and drone bonus to the Hulk too, fine with me, it does not currently have any role bonuses and it should. All the hulk needs is the slots, cpu and PG to fit a hac like tank on it. Role bonus would be the 25% yield to mining lasers currently on the mack. Firepower is the skiffs job. The skiff is a solo mining boat, the Hulk does not currently have any role bonus so drone damage with that extra low slot would be a good idea. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17943	Posted - 2016.08.18 14:19:02 - [163] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: The skiff is a solo mining boat, the Hulk does not currently have any role bonus so drone damage with that extra low slot would be a good idea. Wrong. It has a place in the plan I have provided.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2256	Posted - 2016.08.18 14:24:24 - [164] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: The skiff is a solo mining boat, the Hulk does not currently have any role bonus so drone damage with that extra low slot would be a good idea. Wrong. It has a place in the plan I have provided. Your plan sucks, it is directly aimed against solo miners and people who want to mine in a ship with a tank. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
March rabbit Mosquito Squadron The-Culture 1866	Posted - 2016.08.18 14:29:56 - [165] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Now under my plan you have a mixed fleet, the hulks are the dedicated miners, the macks are providing logi support and the skiffs are offering offensive support to fight off the attackers. Suddenly the mining fleet is not defenseless vs a small gang. Wait a second. We are talking about high-sec? Then we deal with suicide ganking don't we? - drones need time to reach target - skiff need time to lock target and order drones to attack it. Can skiff lock catalyst fast enough so its defensive capability will matter? (Using command to drones to 'defend fleet member' only means fleet does not use the whole available DPS of skiffs) - mach needs time to lock other ship to repair it. Can it lock hulk/skiff fast enough to provide logi against suiciders? (Using pre-lock only works in really small fleets) - providing logi support to person with LE means you get suspect flag. This means that using machs as logi in high-sec will lead to suicide gank bait and loss of hulks and machs too. Skiffs will do their best and kill lone suicider and that's it. The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17943	Posted - 2016.08.18 14:31:03 - [166] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Your plan sucks, it is directly aimed against solo miners and people who want to mine in a ship with a tank. Explain how the skiff wont be for solo players or have a sizable tank.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17943	Posted - 2016.08.18 14:39:54 - [167] - Quote March rabbit wrote: Wait a second. We are talking about high-sec? Then we deal with suicide ganking don't we? null but lets do highsec! March rabbit wrote: - drones need time to reach target - skiff need time to lock target and order drones to attack it. Can skiff lock catalyst fast enough so its defensive capability will matter? Flight time is nill if you are next to eachother which a fleet would be doing. Sebo on the skiff make locking a target rather fast. March rabbit wrote: - mach needs time to lock other ship to repair it. Can it lock hulk/skiff fast enough to provide logi against suiciders? (Using pre-lock only works in really small fleets) As you said, small fleet you pre lock, large fleet you can fit a sebo. Due to the nature of shield reps they will land the second you lock. March rabbit wrote: - providing logi support to person with LE means you get suspect flag. This means that using machs as logi in high-sec will lead to suicide gank bait and loss of hulks and machs too. Skiffs will do their best and kill lone suicider and that's it. Fly as part of a corp/alliance and be in a fleet and this is a not a thing.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2256	Posted - 2016.08.18 14:42:33 - [168] - Quote March rabbit wrote: baltec1 wrote: Now under my plan you have a mixed fleet, the hulks are the dedicated miners, the macks are providing logi support and the skiffs are offering offensive support to fight off the attackers. Suddenly the mining fleet is not defenseless vs a small gang. Wait a second. We are talking about high-sec? Then we deal with suicide ganking don't we? - drones need time to reach target - skiff need time to lock target and order drones to attack it. Can skiff lock catalyst fast enough so its defensive capability will matter? (Using command to drones to 'defend fleet member' only means fleet does not use the whole available DPS of skiffs) - mach needs time to lock other ship to repair it. Can it lock hulk/skiff fast enough to provide logi against suiciders? (Using pre-lock only works in really small fleets) - providing logi support to person with LE means you get suspect flag. This means that using machs as logi in high-sec will lead to suicide gank bait and loss of hulks and machs too. Skiffs will do their best and kill lone suicider and that's it. Yeah, that is the obvious flaws in baltec1's suggestion which he just seemed to ignore. What he wants is to go back to how it was before the buff to mining ships, so that miners are forced to fleet up or not log in. Which is why he keeps talking about nerfing the base hp of skiffs, because if he can get that low enough then they can run around with a number of Kusion like fleets killing any solo miner with solo play. Previously those people who tried to defend mining fleets were at a massive disadvantage and were set up to fail just as AG is set up to fail. All this suggestion is, is a ego boost for players like him using the mechanics to get joke kills, typical ganker bull shite. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2256	Posted - 2016.08.18 14:43:27 - [169] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Your plan sucks, it is directly aimed against solo miners and people who want to mine in a ship with a tank. Explain how the skiff wont be for solo players or have a sizable tank. You want to nerf its tank, simple as that. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2256	Posted - 2016.08.18 14:44:35 - [170] - Quote baltec1 wrote: March rabbit wrote: Wait a second. We are talking about high-sec? Then we deal with suicide ganking don't we? null but lets do highsec! March rabbit wrote: - drones need time to reach target - skiff need time to lock target and order drones to attack it. Can skiff lock catalyst fast enough so its defensive capability will matter? Flight time is nill if you are next to eachother which a fleet would be doing. Sebo on the skiff make locking a target rather fast. March rabbit wrote: - mach needs time to lock other ship to repair it. Can it lock hulk/skiff fast enough to provide logi against suiciders? (Using pre-lock only works in really small fleets) As you said, small fleet you pre lock, large fleet you can fit a sebo. Due to the nature of shield reps they will land the second you lock. March rabbit wrote: - providing logi support to person with LE means you get suspect flag. This means that using machs as logi in high-sec will lead to suicide gank bait and loss of hulks and machs too. Skiffs will do their best and kill lone suicider and that's it. Fly as part of a corp/alliance and be in a fleet and this is a not a thing. Face palm, that is going to work where people are in one man corps in the main, no no and fecking no. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17943	Posted - 2016.08.18 14:45:28 - [171] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Face palm, that is going to work where people are in one man corps in the main, no no and fecking no. By definition a one man corp is not a fleet.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2256	Posted - 2016.08.18 14:50:19 - [172] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Face palm, that is going to work where people are in one man corps in the main, no no and fecking no. By definition a one man corp is not a fleet. Obviously you have no idea what goes on in terms of hisec mining where people often fleet up and work together, or also what went on before when people fleated up for defence, most of them were not in the same corp. You just want joke kills using CONCORD to gloat over, your suggestion reeks of that bull shite. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Sarah Flynt Federation Interstellar Resources Silent Infinity 238	Posted - 2016.08.18 14:55:17 - [173] - Quote baltec1 wrote: March rabbit wrote: - providing logi support to person with LE means you get suspect flag. This means that using machs as logi in high-sec will lead to suicide gank bait and loss of hulks and machs too. Skiffs will do their best and kill lone suicider and that's it. Fly as part of a corp/alliance and be in a fleet and this is a not a thing. That doesn't prevent the suspect flagging. As soon as you rep somebody who is in a LE with somebody else, you get suspect flagged, regardless of same corp/alliance/fleet/whatever. Sick of High-Sec gankers? Join the public channel Anti-ganking and the dedicated intel channel Gank-Intel !
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17943	Posted - 2016.08.18 14:56:28 - [174] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Face palm, that is going to work where people are in one man corps in the main, no no and fecking no. By definition a one man corp is not a fleet. Obviously you have no idea what goes on in terms of hisec mining where people often fleet up and work together, or also what went on before when people fleated up for defence, most of them were not in the same corp. You just want joke kills using CONCORD to gloat over, your suggestion reeks of that bull shite. Only clueless noggin here is yourself. You have spent that last page ranting about being able to go solo and fit a tank to the skiff after repeatedly being shown nothing for you would change.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17944	Posted - 2016.08.18 14:58:33 - [175] - Quote Sarah Flynt wrote: baltec1 wrote: March rabbit wrote: - providing logi support to person with LE means you get suspect flag. This means that using machs as logi in high-sec will lead to suicide gank bait and loss of hulks and machs too. Skiffs will do their best and kill lone suicider and that's it. Fly as part of a corp/alliance and be in a fleet and this is a not a thing. That doesn't prevent the suspect flagging. As soon as you rep somebody who is in a LE with somebody else, you get suspect flagged, regardless of same corp/alliance/fleet/whatever. So don't be and idiot and get LE. This plan will give people options to defend themselves, not cure stupidity.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2256	Posted - 2016.08.18 15:10:28 - [176] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Face palm, that is going to work where people are in one man corps in the main, no no and fecking no. By definition a one man corp is not a fleet. Obviously you have no idea what goes on in terms of hisec mining where people often fleet up and work together, or also what went on before when people fleated up for defence, most of them were not in the same corp. You just want joke kills using CONCORD to gloat over, your suggestion reeks of that bull shite. Only clueless noggin here is yourself. You have spent that last page ranting about not being able to go solo and fit a tank to the skiff after repeatedly being shown nothing for you would change. Reducing the base HP would reduce the tank, that is pretty clueless on your part, that is what you directly asked for, because you want it so you can set up like the Kusions and be able to gank all mining ships with one player. That is a significant change and something I reject. As for your suggestion working in hisec, you know full well that the mechanics are likely to cause stupid easy deaths in certain circumstances. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17944	Posted - 2016.08.18 15:13:20 - [177] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Reducing the base HP would reduce the tank, that is pretty clueless on your part What part of adding more slots is hard to understand here? The only difference is you fit the tank rather than get it out of the box. Dracvlad wrote: As for your suggestion working in hisec, you know full well that the mechanics are likely to cause stupid easy deaths in certain circumstances. So don't be stupid.
Sarah Flynt Federation Interstellar Resources Silent Infinity 238	Posted - 2016.08.18 15:13:41 - [178] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Sarah Flynt wrote: baltec1 wrote: March rabbit wrote: - providing logi support to person with LE means you get suspect flag. This means that using machs as logi in high-sec will lead to suicide gank bait and loss of hulks and machs too. Skiffs will do their best and kill lone suicider and that's it. Fly as part of a corp/alliance and be in a fleet and this is a not a thing. That doesn't prevent the suspect flagging. As soon as you rep somebody who is in a LE with somebody else, you get suspect flagged, regardless of same corp/alliance/fleet/whatever. So don't be and idiot and get LE. This plan will give people options to defend themselves, not cure stupidity. Yep, put Procurers/Skiffs in your fleet, because according to you "they are now perfect mining escorts/defence boats for both fleet work and solo" but don't you dare to shoot back if attacked because that would give you a LE which in turn makes all your Mack-logis go suspect. That makes perfect sense. Sick of High-Sec gankers? Join the public channel Anti-ganking and the dedicated intel channel Gank-Intel !
Dirty Forum Alt Forum Alts Anonymous 565	Posted - 2016.08.18 15:14:56 - [179] - Quote Or just go suspect and kill whoever else attacks you too - always a fun option (though you would have to train combat skills I'm afraid)
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2256	Posted - 2016.08.18 15:28:01 - [180] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Reducing the base HP would reduce the tank, that is pretty clueless on your part What part of adding more slots is hard to understand here? The only difference is you fit the tank rather than get it out of the box. Dracvlad wrote: As for your suggestion working in hisec, you know full well that the mechanics are likely to cause stupid easy deaths in certain circumstances. So don't be stupid. I add to that tank to get it higher than the base, I know exactly what I need to be able to tank to cover the likely special effort that some gankers would try on me. I have no faith in CCP adjusting this in any sensible way and expect that whatever they do will result in an overall lower EHP which is what you want. Even the best players make mistake, you can ask VMG what happend to their logi when they attacked that first Medium Citadel in Perimeter. Miners have no clue in the main about such things, I am often explaining hisec mechanics to other players. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Nitshe Razvedka 1239	Posted - 2016.08.18 15:35:33 - [181] - Quote Dracvlad is on the money. Miners need Concord and Tank. Can't peel it back any further. Thieving pirates discuss INTEGRITY; Anarchist gankers give us LAWS; and Whoring merc's cry then blow off clients with INSULTS. Up is down and down is up in the C&P Forum.
Solecist Project 32206	Posted - 2016.08.18 15:36:12 - [182] - Quote Okay so now it's established that someone feels like he's big brother ... ... and needs to protect people from their own responsibilities. That fits very well to the rest. I, for one, am all for teaching people instead of protecting them from themselves ... ... and I have faith that a shift away from telling people to tank ... ... towards telling people to be combat ready ... ... is actually a good thing. Anyone making a thread in F&I that goes towards more self responsiblity for miners has my vote. (hint hint) "That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breaths of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly pulverised by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia
Pandora Carrollon Kingsman Tailors 576	Posted - 2016.08.18 15:38:39 - [183] - Quote baltech- I think Drav is having issues with your focus on the mining fleet in your plan. Drav- Being specific in CCP's 'desires' for the various mining barges without citing those desires in some official CCP document is not helping your case. It's letting people just beat the living tar out of you and dismiss your opinion. You should either cite or drop the claim and move on in either case. Just some friendly advice there. I have no particular problem with baltech's plan, it's another idea of how to deal with the issues that exist and will continue to exist despite the changes CCP is making. Perhaps we can all agree that the upcoming changes fall short of changes we'd actually like to see in mining? Perhaps if we all agree the new changes are more hurtful than helpful we can decide to try and stop them from making the transition from SISI to TQ? ARE we all agreed there or does someone like the changes to the barges on SISI? If so, please help us understand the general benefit to the barges because I'm not seeing it right now. Be Positive GÇó Change yourself first, New Eden will come later GÇó EVE is Awesome GÇó CCP isn't the enemy GÇó Players are people too GÇó Where're the clothing blueprints GÇó Yeah, I'm still learning this game -- Pandora's Rules to EVE by
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2257	Posted - 2016.08.18 15:39:29 - [184] - Quote Solecist Project wrote: Okay so now it's established that someone feels like he's big brother ... ... and needs to protect people from their own responsibilities. That fits very well to the rest. I, for one, am all for teaching people instead of protecting them from themselves ... ... and I have faith that a shift away from telling people to tank ... ... towards telling people to be combat ready ... ... is actually a good thing. Anyone making a thread in F&I that goes towards more self responsiblity for miners has my vote. (hint hint) Well you know jack about mining and ganking, it really shows. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Solecist Project 32206	Posted - 2016.08.18 15:47:50 - [185] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Solecist Project wrote: Okay so now it's established that someone feels like he's big brother ... ... and needs to protect people from their own responsibilities. That fits very well to the rest. I, for one, am all for teaching people instead of protecting them from themselves ... ... and I have faith that a shift away from telling people to tank ... ... towards telling people to be combat ready ... ... is actually a good thing. Anyone making a thread in F&I that goes towards more self responsiblity for miners has my vote. (hint hint) Well you know jack about mining and ganking, it really shows. Damn ... I guess that mining fleet of three covetors and an orca I have, with links, is nothing. And I guess having been a pretty well known ganker in 2012 and actually innovating ganking is nothing either. My bad ... I guess I'll go home now. And lol, that reply really shows how you're struggling. "That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breaths of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly pulverised by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia
Nitshe Razvedka 1239	Posted - 2016.08.18 15:47:57 - [186] - Quote Big difference between teaching and permanently feeding people to the wolves. Thieving pirates discuss INTEGRITY; Anarchist gankers give us LAWS; and Whoring merc's cry then blow off clients with INSULTS. Up is down and down is up in the C&P Forum.
Solecist Project 32206	Posted - 2016.08.18 15:51:34 - [187] - Quote Anyway, people in this thread should stop arguing nonsensically with these trolls who have issues. All that matters is creating a thread in F&I and writing down the idea. What these people here think is irrelevant. All that matters is that devs see it and think about. "That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breaths of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly pulverised by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2257	Posted - 2016.08.18 15:57:30 - [188] - Quote Pandora Carrollon wrote: baltech- I think Drav is having issues with your focus on the mining fleet in your plan. Drav- Being specific in CCP's 'desires' for the various mining barges without citing those desires in some official CCP document is not helping your case. It's letting people just beat the living tar out of you and dismiss your opinion. You should either cite or drop the claim and move on in either case. Just some friendly advice there. I have no particular problem with baltech's plan, it's another idea of how to deal with the issues that exist and will continue to exist despite the changes CCP is making. Perhaps we can all agree that the upcoming changes fall short of changes we'd actually like to see in mining? Perhaps if we all agree the new changes are more hurtful than helpful we can decide to try and stop them from making the transition from SISI to TQ? ARE we all agreed there or does someone like the changes to the barges on SISI? If so, please help us understand the general benefit to the barges because I'm not seeing it right now. What the hell are you talking about, you can't even get player names correct. Nope, he can have what he wants as long as CCP work on that with the coveter and hulk, they are the fleet mining ships and that is fine. I keep saying it and baltec1 keeps going on about the base ehp of the Skiff. Go and read what CCP did when they balanced this ships. And then see how people use them. And its not friendly advice, its totally incorrect condescending advice from someone who has no clue. Nope, I will not agree with that statement, so far its just getting them on SISI, the real changes have not yet been detailed and if you think any of these changes so far shown are hurtful in anyway I have to question your knowledge further. They are incomplete and not the final ones, but having two strip miner slots on all ships is great, adding a low to the hulk is great and increasing the yeidl on mining lasars is also great, so it gets rid of that stupid 150% bonus on a single mining laser. The twin mining lasers on the Skiff is something I like. So far I like what I see, but anyone who has been in this game knows that the initial pass on SIS normally means nothing and is subject to change. So stop giving advice and making grandiose statements showing a lack of basic knowledge and that is friendly advice. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2257	Posted - 2016.08.18 15:59:45 - [189] - Quote Solecist Project wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Solecist Project wrote: Okay so now it's established that someone feels like he's big brother ... ... and needs to protect people from their own responsibilities. That fits very well to the rest. I, for one, am all for teaching people instead of protecting them from themselves ... ... and I have faith that a shift away from telling people to tank ... ... towards telling people to be combat ready ... ... is actually a good thing. Anyone making a thread in F&I that goes towards more self responsiblity for miners has my vote. (hint hint) Well you know jack about mining and ganking, it really shows. Damn ... I guess that mining fleet of three covetors and an orca I have, with links, is nothing. And I guess having been a pretty well known ganker in 2012 and actually innovating ganking is nothing either. My bad ... I guess I'll go home now. And lol, that reply really shows how you're struggling. 3 coveters, lol. I have not seen you actively ganking. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17945	Posted - 2016.08.18 16:03:07 - [190] - Quote Sarah Flynt wrote: baltec1 wrote: Sarah Flynt wrote: baltec1 wrote: March rabbit wrote: - providing logi support to person with LE means you get suspect flag. This means that using machs as logi in high-sec will lead to suicide gank bait and loss of hulks and machs too. Skiffs will do their best and kill lone suicider and that's it. Fly as part of a corp/alliance and be in a fleet and this is a not a thing. That doesn't prevent the suspect flagging. As soon as you rep somebody who is in a LE with somebody else, you get suspect flagged, regardless of same corp/alliance/fleet/whatever. So don't be and idiot and get LE. This plan will give people options to defend themselves, not cure stupidity. Yep, put Procurers/Skiffs in your fleet, because according to you "they are now perfect mining escorts/defence boats for both fleet work and solo" but don't you dare to shoot back if attacked because that would give you a LE which in turn makes all your Mack-logis go suspect. That makes perfect sense. It does when you can beat them. If fleeting up is too risky for you then don't. Fit a solo skiff, or fit up a tanked hulk with warp core stabs. There key thing is that there is a lot of options under my plan that you simply do not have with what is on sisi. And your very specific issue doesn't exist outside of highsec.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17945	Posted - 2016.08.18 16:06:28 - [191] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Go and read what CCP did when they balanced this ships. And then see how people use them. And its not friendly advice, its totally incorrect condescending advice from someone who has no clue. This is the third attempt at trying to balance barges under the mantra of one tank one cargo one yield. Its not working, you can't balance them like that. We need a new approach otherwise we will be seeing a 4th balance pass.
Nitshe Razvedka 1240	Posted - 2016.08.18 16:08:45 - [192] - Quote Such a little drama queen sol, don't agree with the strongest rational pragmatic proposal, by one of the most experienced in this field - Dracvlad. Typical play the troll card again. Do you use the card on your mum upstairs. Thieving pirates discuss INTEGRITY; Anarchist gankers give us LAWS; and Whoring merc's cry then blow off clients with INSULTS. Up is down and down is up in the C&P Forum.
Gunrunner1775 Empire Hooligans 76	Posted - 2016.08.18 16:33:05 - [193] - Quote all i hear is "lower the tank on the skiff" from the alot of folks to make it easier to gank?? what?? you cant get a dozen catalysts together to gank a skiff?? thats too much work and effort for you?? do all miners have to be gankable by a solo catalyst?? seems pretty lazy on your part
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2258	Posted - 2016.08.18 16:35:43 - [194] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Go and read what CCP did when they balanced this ships. And then see how people use them. And its not friendly advice, its totally incorrect condescending advice from someone who has no clue. This is the third attempt at trying to balance barges under the mantra of one tank one cargo one yield. Its not working, you can't balance them like that. We need a new approach otherwise we will be seeing a 4th balance pass. From the catastrophic point before the previous balance past this current steup was a success, it gave people options to get in a ship with a meaningful tank and yet it also enabled people to make choices on yield and on ease of use and on mining bonuses. Yeah it is not perfect, but its very much on the right track. CODE and their flunkies seem to be active and killing people who fit for yield in the lessor tanked ships and even those in the higher tanked ships who have fitted for yield, while people who want a tank to be hard to kill can do that. I went from refusing to mine because all of the ships had the tank of a wet paper bag to being able to get in a ship that enabled me to be hard to kill and that is a huge success. In ice systems CODE have been successful so that people are tending to use Skiffs and Procurers, but it wa amazing to watch the lazy entitled CODE players gon on about everyone using Skiffs and Procurers in the systems taht they kept gamking people and yet where I mine where CODE fear to tread I see Hulks, Macs Retreivers and most amazingly of all a coveter, but that was a Goon, much to my amusement. So CCP are on the right track, as I keep pointing out they have to have a ship that can take the Kusions plus three dual boxers in terms of a tank. The Skiff as it is does that with a tank fitted to it, not the max tank but not far off it. Your suggestions for 0.0 mining are interesting, however the coveter and hulk need to be adjusted better for that and they need a lot of work. You just have a boner in terms of the skiffs base EHP, it offends you and it colours your whole thinking. There will be people in hisec who will do what you suggested, but the solo players that want to be hard to kill deserve to have the Skiff, period. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Gunrunner1775 Empire Hooligans 77	Posted - 2016.08.18 16:43:10 - [195] - Quote Quote: DEV BLOG Ship Balancing: Mining Barges 2012-08-03 18:10 \|By CCP Tallest The goal here is to allow players to choose a barge that fits their specific play style rather than lead them on a journey from the worst barge to the best one. GÇó The Covetor and Hulk cater to group mining operations due to their large mining capability, low EHP and storage, forcing them to rely on others to haul and resupply them with mining crystals. GÇó The Retriever and Mackinaw are specifically designed for autonomy purposes, as their large ore bays allow their pilot to stay inside an asteroid belt for longer without having to dock. GÇó 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. GÇó 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. looks like its doing its job
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17945	Posted - 2016.08.18 16:53:20 - [196] - Quote Gunrunner1775 wrote: all i hear is "lower the tank on the skiff" from the alot of folks to make it easier to gank?? what?? you cant get a dozen catalysts together to gank a skiff?? thats too much work and effort for you?? do all miners have to be gankable by a solo catalyst?? seems pretty lazy on your part Try reading the rest of it.
Gunrunner1775 Empire Hooligans 81	Posted - 2016.08.18 16:56:58 - [197] - Quote well, a few options we could go back to the old days were 1 ship is specilized in mining astroids, one is for ice and one is for mercocite, make them all same base tank catch is,, that tank has to be enough to tank a null sec rat... or are you gonna make a mining ship that is for null sec only with uber tank and not useable in high sec???? another option complete and total overhaul of the tank... make the ships Armor tank instead of shield tank lots of low slots... then players have choice of tank or yield (since both armor tank and mining laser upgrades are low slot) but then we are right back were we started because the majority will fit out max tank ,and then we have nothing but skiffs running around with low yield and max tank if CCP goes the path of nurfing the tank on the skiff to make it no longer viable option for mining and protection from gankers, i forsee that the majority of astroid miners will go back to what we did years ago... mining in a battleship (yes, we did mine in Rokhs and Dominix and bannana boats back in the day) as for ice miners.. they will use the ice mining frigate instead... (its fast and nimble and can escape vast majority of ganks ) "other in game entites" will *****.. "they are mining in battleships, we cant gank them" .... majority of miners in high sec, will almost always go for max tank and sacrifice yield / profits for the tank
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17945	Posted - 2016.08.18 17:01:40 - [198] - Quote Gunrunner1775 wrote: well, a few options we could go back to the old days were 1 ship is specilized in mining astroids, one is for ice and one is for mercocite, make them all same base tank catch is,, that tank has to be enough to tank a null sec rat... or are you gonna make a mining ship that is for null sec only with uber tank and not useable in high sec???? another option complete and total overhaul of the tank... make the ships Armor tank instead of shield tank lots of low slots... then players have choice of tank or yield (since both armor tank and mining laser upgrades are low slot) but then we are right back were we started because the majority will fit out max tank ,and then we have nothing but skiffs running around with low yield and max tank if CCP goes the path of nurfing the tank on the skiff to make it no longer viable option for mining and protection from gankers, i forsee that the majority of astroid miners will go back to what we did years ago... mining in a battleship (yes, we did mine in Rokhs and Dominix and bannana boats back in the day) as for ice miners.. they will use the ice mining frigate instead... (its fast and nimble and can escape vast majority of ganks ) "other in game entites" will *****.. "they are mining in battleships, we cant gank them" .... majority of miners in high sec, will almost always go for max tank and sacrifice yield / profits for the tank Read this
Elinarien Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 57	Posted - 2016.08.18 17:02:51 - [199] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Gunrunner1775 wrote: all i hear is "lower the tank on the skiff" from the alot of folks to make it easier to gank?? what?? you cant get a dozen catalysts together to gank a skiff?? thats too much work and effort for you?? do all miners have to be gankable by a solo catalyst?? seems pretty lazy on your part Try reading the rest of it. In your opinion, 1. What would be the max EHP of a Skiff and how would that be achieved? 2. What would you consider to be an appropriate yield be in m3 per 180 secs with that tank?
Kueyen Mei-Ha's Light Fleet Coordination Coalition 158	Posted - 2016.08.18 17:03:10 - [200] - Quote 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? Until all are free...
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17945	Posted - 2016.08.18 17:07:27 - [201] - Quote Elinarien wrote: 1. What would be the max EHP of a Skiff and how would that be achieved? 80-90k T2 mods, much in the same way the eagle and cerb are set up. I could get higher results using cheap bling mods and thats omni resists so if you tank vs the most common gankers you will wind up with higher numbers. Important thing to note here is the fact you could finally fit large shield extenders under my plan. Elinarien wrote: 2. What would you consider to be an appropriate yield be in m3 per 180 secs with that tank? As its a shield tank the question would be it depends on if you go max yield (3 MTU) mad damage (3 DDU) a mix of both or cargo. A 3 MTU skiff would drag in the same as a 3 MTU mack. The hulk would have the 25% higher bonus.
Sarah Flynt Federation Interstellar Resources Silent Infinity 240	Posted - 2016.08.18 17:08:07 - [202] - Quote Pandora Carrollon wrote: I have no particular problem with baltech's plan, it's another idea of how to deal with the issues that exist and will continue to exist despite the changes CCP is making. Me neither, except for the whole remote rep thing, which wasn't really thought through wrt. highsec. I agree with his base concept however. Everything except for the Procurer/Skiff is in a horrible place. If he thinks basetank on Proc/Skiff should be lower in exchange for more slots and fitting I'm totally okay with that if I can still achieve the same result as today with these additional fitting options. I'm against lowering the tank (after fitting) as Procurer/Skiff have enabled new gameplay in other spaces than highsec that wasn't there before: you can now decide (without being a fool) to stay on grid and put up a real fight against larger targets than a single frig, depending on what's incoming. In turn an attacker has to decide if he really wants to fight several Procurers/Skiffs as that can turn sideways pretty quickly (especially with potential recons on the grid that he can't see on dscan ). As for the other barges/exhumers: fitting options are laughable at best. I can't even remember when I last saw a Covetor in the field because they're so bad (not only highsec, nullsec as well). Macks/Hulks have 4 mid slots and it's a challenge to find something usable for all 4 slots without plastering lowslots/rigs with fitting mods/rigs or go deadspace right away. With NPC caps that can show up at any time in null that's even more problematic now than it was before as they also need much longer to warp out than Procurers/Skiffs. With what's currently on SiSi: the model itself looks cool but using basically the same model for all 3 ships is not cool. I'd have wished that their roles are somehow reflected in the model: proc/skiff looking much more like a tank and retriever/mack with visible additional oreholds. As for the stats: combined with the mining mod changes there isn't really much change at all, except for the yield of the Retriever/Mack. Certainly not what I had hoped for and expecially not the "significant overhaul" that's being advertized on the updates page. Sick of High-Sec gankers? Join the public channel Anti-ganking and the dedicated intel channel Gank-Intel !
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17945	Posted - 2016.08.18 17:10:27 - [203] - 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. The exhumers would have HAC likes tanks, the T1 barges would have cruiser level tanks. They will be as profitable to gank as those combat ships which is not at all. Kueyen wrote: 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? Honestly the ore gear could do with being looked at.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2261	Posted - 2016.08.18 17:18:23 - [204] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Elinarien wrote: 1. What would be the max EHP of a Skiff and how would that be achieved? 80-90k T2 mods, much in the same way the eagle and cerb are set up. I could get higher results using cheap bling mods and thats omni resists so if you tank vs the most common gankers you will wind up with higher numbers. Important thing to note here is the fact you could finally fit large shield extenders under my plan. Elinarien wrote: 2. What would you consider to be an appropriate yield be in m3 per 180 secs with that tank? As its a shield tank the question would be it depends on if you go max yield (3 MTU) mad damage (3 DDU) a mix of both or cargo. A 3 MTU skiff would drag in the same as a 3 MTU mack. The hulk would have the 25% higher bonus. That is a too low a tank, set to be within a Kusion, I knew that was what you were after, pretty damn obvious... When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Gunrunner1775 Empire Hooligans 81	Posted - 2016.08.18 17:19:49 - [205] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Skiff and proc should get their base hp brought back down to normal levels, keep the combat bonus to drones, get a few more slots and fitting room to open up options and allow for a decent combat fit. They are now perfect mining escorts/defence boats for both fleet work and solo. Retriever and mackinaw both need a good deal more slots and CPU/PG so they can actually have options when fitting them. CCP need to get creative here so I would say go radical. Give them two utility highs and a small bonus to remote shield boosters. Alter the cap to compensate. Again, they need the ability to actually fit a decent setup, 1 mid and 3 lows are next to useless. Covetor and Hulk should be the go to strip miners, they also need more fitting slots and CPU/PG to actually fit things. I would also alter the cargo expanders to also impact the ore hold and reduce the hold on barges to compensate. All barges would be able to hold at least two cycles as a base with the option of improving that if they so wish. this is what im seeing in your post: skiff - proc = lower the base tank, add more slots... results, right back were we started .. miners will fill those slots with tanky stuff, not offensive stuff.. and "other entities" will again ***** and complain that its too tanky... leave the skiff alone, its doing the job it was designed to do.. retr - makinaw = add more slots / more cpu/pg.. again, folks will fit tank... actualy, in theory, this possibility could result in tank almost as good as the skiff.. cause again, folks will fit tank tank tank cov - hulk = same thing as the ret/mak i only looked at the hulk / mak / skiff on test.... and if i recall correctly, the hulk / mak was 2high / 4medium / 3low, the skiff was 2high/6medium/3low playing around with both the mak and the hulk... i could fit tank OR yield,, not both, and not realy a middle ground either, the tank is still insufficient for any dangerous mining i did not mess with any of the T1 mining barges. from my observation and talking with people that fly them, they strictly use them as a throw away ship, fit bare minimum on it for max yield, and dont care if it gets ganked or not the issue for fitting the ship and ballanceing between tank and yield . is the tank is shield tank goes in mid slots, and the yield boosting modules go in low slot... yea, would like to see a few more mid slots on the T1 mining barges to have the option to fit a tank OR fit for yield
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17945	Posted - 2016.08.18 17:21:19 - [206] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: That is a too low a tank, set to be within a Kusion, I knew that was what you were after, pretty damn obvious... If its enough for HACs when fighting several hundred people its enough for you vs highsec gankers.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17945	Posted - 2016.08.18 17:25:51 - [207] - Quote Gunrunner1775 wrote: the issue for fitting the ship and ballanceing between tank and yield . is the tank is shield tank goes in mid slots, and the yield boosting modules go in low slot... yea, would like to see a few more mid slots on the T1 mining barges to have the option to fit a tank OR fit for yield Thats where I got crafty. Ore holds would be reduced to only allow 2-3 cycles, in return cargo expanders would impact the ore hold. This means you fit yield, cargo, damage (in the case of the skiff and proc) or utility such as warp core stabs, nanofibers etc. I would have gone with making them armour tankers but the instant hit from shield reps seems a better plan.
Gunrunner1775 Empire Hooligans 81	Posted - 2016.08.18 17:36:52 - [208] - Quote i had thought of the cruiser thing.... give them the speed /agility / signature radius of a cruiser or HAC but these ships are technicaly battlecruiser sized (mak has a signature rateing of 250, hulk is 200,... vs say a cerberus 195 or cyclone and hurricane both at 250), they also got almost as much volumn as the battlecruisers they shoudl all have the speed / agility /signature radius ... and tank of battlecruisers then give 1 yield bonus, 1 gets cargo bonus, and 1 gets "offensive" bonus with drones
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2261	Posted - 2016.08.18 17:38:06 - [209] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: That is a too low a tank, set to be within a Kusion, I knew that was what you were after, pretty damn obvious... If its enough for HACs when fighting several hundred people its enough for you vs highsec gankers. Its a mining ship not a HAC in a fleet battle, bluntly that level of tank enables multi boxer solo gankers to kill every single mining ship no matter the tank.. From my perspective that is too low. And the 2 to 3 cycles, wow you really hate solo miners don't you. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17945	Posted - 2016.08.18 17:42:17 - [210] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Its a mining ship not a HAC n a fleet battle, bluntly that level of tank enables multi boxer solo gankers to kill every single mining ship no matter the tank.. From my perspective that is too low. Using your logic even the veldnought can be killed. They have more than enough tank. Dracvlad wrote: And the 2 to 3 cycles, wow you really hate solo miners don't you. So fit cargo expanders.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2261	Posted - 2016.08.18 17:45:28 - [211] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Its a mining ship not a HAC n a fleet battle, bluntly that level of tank enables multi boxer solo gankers to kill every single mining ship no matter the tank.. From my perspective that is too low. Using your logic even the veldnought can be killed. They have more than enough tank. Dracvlad wrote: And the 2 to 3 cycles, wow you really hate solo miners don't you. So fit cargo expanders. I am talking about Catalysts used by the Kusions as a base line, what the hell relevance does a dreadnought in hisec have to this? And reduce its tank even further, yeah you will be happy. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17945	Posted - 2016.08.18 17:48:08 - [212] - Quote Gunrunner1775 wrote: i had thought of the cruiser thing.... give them the speed /agility / signature radius of a cruiser or HAC but these ships are technicaly battlecruiser sized (mak has a signature rateing of 250, hulk is 200,... vs say a cerberus 195 or cyclone and hurricane both at 250), they also got almost as much volumn as the battlecruisers they shoudl all have the speed / agility /signature radius ... and tank of battlecruisers They are larger due to being industrial but the base is cruiser line hence the original stats. I would leave their mobility/agility/signature as is for now. Gunrunner1775 wrote: then give 1 yield bonus, 1 gets cargo bonus, and 1 gets "offensive" bonus with drones I would say that leaves with the same issues we currently have with mining ships. Ganking is a minor issue, the real problem comes with what happens outside of highsec. That's why I went with a logi specialisation for the mack and retriever so the mining fleet can hold its ground better.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17945	Posted - 2016.08.18 17:53:23 - [213] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: I am talking about Catalysts used by the Kusions as a base line, what the hell relevance does a dreadnought in hisec have to this? Anything can be ganked with enough bodies, the amount it will take to kill an overheating skiff with the tank of a HAC is rather high. Dracvlad wrote: And reduce its tank even further, yeah you will be happy. If you are entering structure you are dead anyway.
Gunrunner1775 Empire Hooligans 81	Posted - 2016.08.18 18:05:16 - [214] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Ganking is a minor issue, the real problem comes with what happens outside of highsec. That's why I went with a logi specialisation for the mack and retriever so the mining fleet can hold its ground better. ganking is the only issue realy... its ganking that lead to this imballance to begin with.... ive mined in wormholes, ive mined in nullsec, this imballance in type of ships used in mining has nothing to do with null sec or wormhole mining... in null/wh i would mine in a skiff if rest of my mates were not online, then we would form a small fleet and shift to hulks, and have 1 or 2 ships on combat air patrol provideing security ect haveing a protective ship in fleet does not work in high sec due to the nature of criminal flags ect.... the protector can not do anything at all until the aggressor has suspect or criminal flag, and by that time, its too late... the advantage rests totaly in the hands of the aggressor... the only defense a miner has in high sec, is eyes on local and maximum tank possible this is not the case of the ishtar were everyone was flying it, so nurf it and then people will fly other things nurfing the tank on the skiff will not solve the problem, lets hypotheticaly consider that they do nurf the tank on the skiff.. to the point were its significantly easier to gank.... what do you think the miners are going to do??? also, consider the bigger picture of the in game economy if such were to happen. how will this alter the nature of the game..... this is not a small ballance change your talking,
Viktor Amarr 53	Posted - 2016.08.18 18:16:00 - [215] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: That is a too low a tank, set to be within a Kusion, I knew that was what you were after, pretty damn obvious... If its enough for HACs when fighting several hundred people its enough for you vs highsec gankers. Its a mining ship not a HAC in a fleet battle, bluntly that level of tank enables multi boxer solo gankers to kill every single mining ship no matter the tank.. From my perspective that is too low. And the 2 to 3 cycles, wow you really hate solo miners don't you. No just non-effort afk ones.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17946	Posted - 2016.08.18 18:36:39 - [216] - Quote Gunrunner1775 wrote: ganking is the only issue realy... its ganking that lead to this imballance to begin with.... You would think that looking at the forums but in reality more are killed outside of highsec than in it. If we then add in barges that die to wars too then the numbers ganked are tiny. Whining about ganking might have brought about the changes but the problem with the ships is, as always, much wider than just a niche group in highsec.
Dirty Forum Alt Forum Alts Anonymous 566	Posted - 2016.08.18 18:43:05 - [217] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Gunrunner1775 wrote: ganking is the only issue realy... its ganking that lead to this imballance to begin with.... You would think that looking at the forums but in reality more are killed outside of highsec than in it. If we then add in barges that die to wars too then the numbers ganked are tiny. Whining about ganking might have brought about the changes but the problem with the ships is, as always, much wider than just a niche group in highsec. Oddly...I've never seen a pilot outside of high sec complaining that they died because their mining ship was under-powered for the task at hand... Nor have I seen a mining ship killed during war-time that would have been aided by any kind of fitting rebalance... Just saying...
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17946	Posted - 2016.08.18 18:49:13 - [218] - Quote Dirty Forum Alt wrote: Oddly...I've never seen a pilot outside of high sec complaining that they died because their mining ship was under-powered for the task at hand... Nor have I seen a mining ship killed during war-time that would have been aided by any kind of fitting rebalance... Just saying... Just because they ***** less doesn't mean they don't see the ships as pathetic.
Dirty Forum Alt Forum Alts Anonymous 566	Posted - 2016.08.18 18:51:12 - [219] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dirty Forum Alt wrote: Oddly...I've never seen a pilot outside of high sec complaining that they died because their mining ship was under-powered for the task at hand... Nor have I seen a mining ship killed during war-time that would have been aided by any kind of fitting rebalance... Just saying... Just because they ***** less doesn't mean they don't see the ships as pathetic. It doesn't mean they do see the ships as pathetic either... edit: Indeed the roaming/camping skiff/procurer combat fleets would seem to indicate that they do not consider current mining ships to be too weak - rather they are fun ships to kill people with. Also the truly weak ships are good for BAIT - and they will hate you if you take that away from them.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17946	Posted - 2016.08.18 19:16:22 - [220] - Quote Dirty Forum Alt wrote: baltec1 wrote: Dirty Forum Alt wrote: Oddly...I've never seen a pilot outside of high sec complaining that they died because their mining ship was under-powered for the task at hand... Nor have I seen a mining ship killed during war-time that would have been aided by any kind of fitting rebalance... Just saying... Just because they ***** less doesn't mean they don't see the ships as pathetic. It doesn't mean they do see the ships as pathetic either... edit: Indeed the roaming/camping skiff/procurer combat fleets would seem to indicate that they do not consider current mining ships to be too weak - rather they are fun ships to kill people with. Also the truly weak ships are good for BAIT - and they will hate you if you take that away from them. You're seriously defending the covetor?
Dirty Forum Alt Forum Alts Anonymous 569	Posted - 2016.08.18 19:35:58 - [221] - Quote baltec1 wrote: You're seriously defending the covetor? Outside of high-sec miners generally rely on separate combat ships to kill rats and defend them, so I don't see any particular problem with it there... edit: And given your alliance you of all people should appreciate the value of good, tantalizing bait - even if you have to put the cyno on a separate cloaky ship
Ded Akara Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2016.08.18 22:21:11 - [222] - Quote PLEASE PLEASE give the Hulk/Mackinkaw extra CPU or we're going to continue seeing 90% of miners in Skiffs. Skiff is the only barge that can fit max yield whilst having CPU free to fit a tank. Mackinkaw + Hulk with 3 yields mods has no free CPU to fit tank mods. Even with just 2 yield mods they still struggle to fit much with such little CPU to use. How is it right that a max yield Skiff with 3 yield mods can easily fit a full T2 tank, but a Mackinkaw or Hulk that has sacrificed one yield mod, (just 2 yield mod fitted) will struggle to fit tank modules?
Solecist Project 32207	Posted - 2016.08.19 00:36:32 - [223] - Quote Gunrunner1775 wrote: Quote: DEV BLOG Ship Balancing: Mining Barges 2012-08-03 18:10 \|By CCP Tallest The goal here is to allow players to choose a barge that fits their specific play style rather than lead them on a journey from the worst barge to the best one. GÇó The Covetor and Hulk cater to group mining operations due to their large mining capability, low EHP and storage, forcing them to rely on others to haul and resupply them with mining crystals. GÇó The Retriever and Mackinaw are specifically designed for autonomy purposes, as their large ore bays allow their pilot to stay inside an asteroid belt for longer without having to dock. GÇó 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. GÇó 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. looks like its doing its job AFK is literally by definition not a playstyle. You can not use this as argument. Players would be perfectly safe in hulks and covetors with just a bit knowledge. The amount of attention one has to spend equals watching one properly set-up overview-tab in the background. They'd be prealigned and ready to warp. As there is a cheap and easy solution to safely go for max yield setups, even with multiple accounts at once, it makes no sense to balance around people who don't want to play. They should be balanced just like every other ship. Even a cheetah can kill someone without dieing first... "That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breaths of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly pulverised by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia
FT Cold R3d Fire Mouth Trumpet Cavalry 62	Posted - 2016.08.19 01:28:30 - [224] - Quote Maybe it would be productive to add new modules that enhance strip miners for mid slots. Sort of like tracking computers, but for strip miners, or drone navigation computers that give a very large bonus to mining drone speed. Nerf the base range of strip miners a bit maybe to force players into a trade-off for using them. Same with ore holds, maybe reduce them a bit and add rigs that increase only ore hold to give players a meaningful choice between tank and optimal mining. Hell, you could even add a secondary function to survey scanners.
Shallanna Yassavi Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 327	Posted - 2016.08.19 01:53:20 - [225] - Quote Local tank best tank. They don't get into weapons range, and they do 0 DPS. The problem with mining isn't suicide gankers or buffer. It's that the best way to make money mining in hisec is so mind-numbingly boring and non-interactive, you can watch movies while the ice miners cycle and not lose any efficiency (ice doesn't require so much babysitting). Yaaaaaaawn. Still, that's a token activity you can halfway pay attention to while you plot and scheme your conquest of everywhere, so it shouldn't be ripped out entirely. It just shouldn't be the most efficient way to do it. Diving wormholes for gas, not so much. Death is almost always a few inattentive seconds away, but the payout is way better if you find a good site and now how not to die to sleepers or other players. If there were shiny ore sites which required probing with a venture/T2 version and some manual piloting, that would change the equation significantly. People who actively flew their mining ships would be able to make more with an actively flown Prospect than a half-asleep Skiff. It would be still better if this site required a good hacker to get into (teamwork!)-and, like some wormhole sites, de-spawned if everyone left after it was opened, so no hacking and flying back to get a mining ship unless you've got someone you can leave in the site for a minute. A signature :o
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 633	Posted - 2016.08.19 06:13:27 - [226] - Quote I don't think I'm too happy with the kinds of barges the way they are now. They could easily be made into one hull with fitting options- for example using a Procurer as a baseline model. On that I have to agree with Baltec. There is of course the issue that, as someone else pointed out, there are no useful midslot modules that affect mining, and an expanded cargohold does not expand the orehold. These are however technicalities that can be worked out. Now, adding such fitting options would of course obsolete the current lineup. Why? Because there is in fact only one relevant bonus a mining ship can receive: a yield bonus. And also because all three of them are roughly equivalent to two cruisers (or half a battlecruiser) -- it's not like one of them is a nimble destroyer-like miner and the other's a battlecruiser-style command ship miner. All three of them happen to be in the heavy-cruiser-almost-BC ballpark. I am happy with the distinction between ninja mining frigates and barges; but rather than having a three-of-the-same lineup, perhaps we should repurpose one to be an armed platform which also happens to mine (some). The latter could be achieved by giving it a massive bonus to mining drones, freeing up (unbonused?) highslots with turret / launcher hardpoints to slap anything you like on there. More like a generic SOCT cruiser with an orehold than anything else, really. As for the third one, I have some ideas but they feel like I'm trying to "invent" something just because there are three. I doubt however CCP is going to do something outrageous like adding some combat capability to transports or barges. The tears would flood the old continent. Already some are flipping a gasket when a ship that costs two cruisers has a heavy cruiser's tank with a frigate's DPS. Yet there it is: roll the current lineup into 1 model, and give us a Combat miner please.
Gunrunner1775 Empire Hooligans 85	Posted - 2016.08.19 07:12:07 - [227] - Quote Solecist Project wrote: AFK is literally by definition not a playstyle. You can not use this as argument. Players would be perfectly safe in hulks and covetors with just a bit knowledge. The amount of attention one has to spend equals watching one properly set-up overview-tab in the background. They'd be prealigned and ready to warp. As there is a cheap and easy solution to safely go for max yield setups, even with multiple accounts at once, it makes no sense to balance around people who don't want to play. They should be balanced just like every other ship. Even a cheetah can kill someone without dieing first... apparently you have not done any mineing in quite some time AFK mining does not realy exist except for 1 exception, that would possibly be the makinaw doing ice mining anyone that can pilot a hulk/mak/skiff.. is fairly maxed out in mining speed hulks chew thru rocks so fast. you are constantly dragging and dropping in to the orca (or can).. you are constantly targeting new rocks .... you can not even get up and go to the restroom because the ore bay would be full befor you reach the restroom door.. its non stop clicking, Skiffs are almost like that.. takes a bit longer to fill them up, but again, your constantly clicking on new roids, clicking the survey module to scan.. the makinaw is realy the only one that could even be considered AFK mining, and only if mining ice at that hell, you can AFK mine in the frigates easier then you can the exhumers, they take significantly longer to fill up due to slow rate of mining
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2268	Posted - 2016.08.19 07:50:56 - [228] - Quote Gunrunner1775 wrote: Solecist Project wrote: AFK is literally by definition not a playstyle. You can not use this as argument. Players would be perfectly safe in hulks and covetors with just a bit knowledge. The amount of attention one has to spend equals watching one properly set-up overview-tab in the background. They'd be prealigned and ready to warp. As there is a cheap and easy solution to safely go for max yield setups, even with multiple accounts at once, it makes no sense to balance around people who don't want to play. They should be balanced just like every other ship. Even a cheetah can kill someone without dieing first... apparently you have not done any mineing in quite some time AFK mining does not realy exist except for 1 exception, that would possibly be the makinaw doing ice mining anyone that can pilot a hulk/mak/skiff.. is fairly maxed out in mining speed hulks chew thru rocks so fast. you are constantly dragging and dropping in to the orca (or can).. you are constantly targeting new rocks .... you can not even get up and go to the restroom because the ore bay would be full befor you reach the restroom door.. its non stop clicking, Skiffs are almost like that.. takes a bit longer to fill them up, but again, your constantly clicking on new roids, clicking the survey module to scan.. the makinaw is realy the only one that could even be considered AFK mining, and only if mining ice at that hell, you can AFK mine in the frigates easier then you can the exhumers, they take significantly longer to fill up due to slow rate of mining That is exactly what I thought, I mean most rocks I go after in my Skiff last for one and a half cycles, when you hear them say AFK mining you snigger at them with a knowing smile at their level of failness. As I fit for tank I don't even have a survey scanner on which is why I like the two strip miners, less wasted cycles... When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2268	Posted - 2016.08.19 07:57:10 - [229] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: I don't think I'm too happy with the kinds of barges the way they are now. They could easily be made into one hull with fitting options- for example using a Procurer as a baseline model. On that I have to agree with Baltec. There is of course the issue that, as someone else pointed out, there are no useful midslot modules that affect mining, and an expanded cargohold does not expand the orehold. These are however technicalities that can be worked out. Now, adding such fitting options would of course obsolete the current lineup. Why? Because there is in fact only one relevant bonus a mining ship can receive: a yield bonus. And also because all three of them are roughly equivalent to two cruisers (or half a battlecruiser) -- it's not like one of them is a nimble destroyer-like miner and the other's a battlecruiser-style command ship miner. All three of them happen to be in the heavy-cruiser-almost-BC ballpark. I am happy with the distinction between ninja mining frigates and barges; but rather than having a three-of-the-same lineup, perhaps we should repurpose one to be an armed platform which also happens to mine (some). The latter could be achieved by giving it a massive bonus to mining drones, freeing up (unbonused?) highslots with turret / launcher hardpoints to slap anything you like on there. More like a generic SOCT cruiser with an orehold than anything else, really. As for the third one, I have some ideas but they feel like I'm trying to "invent" something just because there are three. I doubt however CCP is going to do something outrageous like adding some combat capability to transports or barges. The tears would flood the old continent. Already some are flipping a gasket when a ship that costs two cruisers has a heavy cruiser's tank with a frigate's DPS. Yet there it is: roll the current lineup into 1 model, and give us a Combat miner please. You should go looke at mine and Ralph's earlier exchange in this thread in terms of a combat miner. The issue here is that the gankers hate the skiff because they cannot up their game enough to kill it unless someone fits it totally for yield, they want to be in the situation to be able to destroy every mining ship with the capabilities they have. That is why baltec1 said 80k to 90k effective hitpoints, which is what they can put in the field without special effort. So take it from my perspective, I have to have a truly special effort on low SP skill points as an AG to gank a freighter wreck, while they want all barges set so they don't have to make a special effort. This is why I keep saying the balance is out of kilter. My objective in all of this is to continue to have a mining ship that is a stretch goal, if CCP fails to understand that as an act of balance then there is truly no hope for them. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Geronimo McVain McVain's Minning and Exploration Inc 176	Posted - 2016.08.19 08:28:53 - [230] - Quote Generally CCP should take another route. Exhumers cost as much as T1 Battleships so give them the slots like a battleship and the fitting resources (CPU, grid, cap, high slots). 2 Slots that are open for strip miners and then go on. In High some Ewar will be beneficial because it might keep the group of gankers long enough at bay for Concord to blap them. In low and Null you would go for a fighting fitting to stop the rats and some overconfident gankers. The difference would be in the mining bonus or the tank/offensive boni. Mining is boring because it is all passive. Think about a mining expedition in Low with a lot of skiffs. That should show small groups of gankers their pod and let them search for easier prey.
March rabbit Mosquito Squadron The-Culture 1870	Posted - 2016.08.19 09:22:06 - [231] - Quote baltec1 wrote: March rabbit wrote: - drones need time to reach target - skiff need time to lock target and order drones to attack it. Can skiff lock catalyst fast enough so its defensive capability will matter? Flight time is nill if you are next to eachother which a fleet would be doing. Sebo on the skiff make locking a target rather fast. March rabbit wrote: - mach needs time to lock other ship to repair it. Can it lock hulk/skiff fast enough to provide logi against suiciders? (Using pre-lock only works in really small fleets) As you said, small fleet you pre lock, large fleet you can fit a sebo. Due to the nature of shield reps they will land the second you lock. Okey. So machs and skiffs should have place in middle slots group for sebos. Not sure if they have it now so i guess this is detail which needs to be kept in mind. baltec1 wrote: March rabbit wrote: - providing logi support to person with LE means you get suspect flag. This means that using machs as logi in high-sec will lead to suicide gank bait and loss of hulks and machs too. Skiffs will do their best and kill lone suicider and that's it. Fly as part of a corp/alliance and be in a fleet and this is a not a thing. LE is a relation between 2 players, not between player and corporation/alliance/fleet. Not sure how being in the same corp/alliance/fleet helps here. The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Solecist Project 32209	Posted - 2016.08.19 09:23:23 - [232] - Quote Gunrunner1775 wrote: apparently you have not done any mineing in quite some time AFK mining does not realy exist except for 1 exception, that would possibly be the makinaw doing ice mining anyone that can pilot a hulk/mak/skiff.. is fairly maxed out in mining speed hulks chew thru rocks so fast. you are constantly dragging and dropping in to the orca (or can).. you are constantly targeting new rocks .... you can not even get up and go to the restroom because the ore bay would be full befor you reach the restroom door.. its non stop clicking, Skiffs are almost like that.. takes a bit longer to fill them up, but again, your constantly clicking on new roids, clicking the survey module to scan.. the makinaw is realy the only one that could even be considered AFK mining, and only if mining ice at that hell, you can AFK mine in the frigates easier then you can the exhumers, they take significantly longer to fill up due to slow rate of mining Are you really serious or are you just really bad at attempting to kid yourself? The vast majority mines afk in a skiff, for obvious reasons, so there's no reason to include the hulk in this. The skiff is the afk mining machine. Engage laser. Set alarm. Alt+tab or stand up and leave. AFK is not a playstyle and that drivel of yours has absolutely nothing to do with it, by definition, because people don't go afk in ships that get filled too fast. Try harder, seriously. "That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breaths of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly pulverised by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia
March rabbit Mosquito Squadron The-Culture 1870	Posted - 2016.08.19 09:28:58 - [233] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Sarah Flynt wrote: baltec1 wrote: March rabbit wrote: - providing logi support to person with LE means you get suspect flag. This means that using machs as logi in high-sec will lead to suicide gank bait and loss of hulks and machs too. Skiffs will do their best and kill lone suicider and that's it. Fly as part of a corp/alliance and be in a fleet and this is a not a thing. That doesn't prevent the suspect flagging. As soon as you rep somebody who is in a LE with somebody else, you get suspect flagged, regardless of same corp/alliance/fleet/whatever. So don't be and idiot and get LE. This plan will give people options to defend themselves, not cure stupidity. Well... That's the new way of combating suicide gankers before: tank your mining ship and mine safely after: make dedicated fleet composition, be aware all the time, get into suspect status and deal with all these bored high-sec 'pvpers' with pimped ships, OGB and neutral logistics? One thing can be said for sure: it WILL BE more interesting Not sure if there will be ONE such fleet which survived first full mining session tho..... The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2269	Posted - 2016.08.19 10:46:01 - [234] - Quote Solecist Project wrote: Holy **** why even participate in this. You shouldn't support Drac's delusion that what he thinks matters to anyone but himself, but that is exactly what you pretty much do. I can't be the only one who notices, so wtf is going on? If any of you took this topic seriously, you'd be posting it where it matters. Instead you waste your time with someone who has no say in the matter ... ... constantly BEHAVES like he has any say on the matter ... ... and you play right into his delusions. I'll just go make that thread in F&I myself if you don't. Even Infinity Ziona has some up now and they're horrible! Why so mad? When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Solecist Project 32212	Posted - 2016.08.19 10:59:04 - [235] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Solecist Project wrote: Holy **** why even participate in this. You shouldn't support Drac's delusion that what he thinks matters to anyone but himself, but that is exactly what you pretty much do. I can't be the only one who notices, so wtf is going on? If any of you took this topic seriously, you'd be posting it where it matters. Instead you waste your time with someone who has no say in the matter ... ... constantly BEHAVES like he has any say on the matter ... ... and you play right into his delusions. I'll just go make that thread in F&I myself if you don't. Even Infinity Ziona has some up now and they're horrible! Why so mad? I could have asked you the same several pages ago, hypocrite, but i'm not such a child like you are. Unlike you i don't get off of weak manipulation attempts and amuse myself when people actually care about the topic. Unlike you, who is so smug and arrogant, he's even believing that his word counts for anything. I give you that, you keep the easy prey busy and ruin it for everyone else ... ... but your cold predicting of them makes you yourself just as predictable! "That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breaths of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly pulverised by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2269	Posted - 2016.08.19 11:27:49 - [236] - Quote Solecist Project wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Solecist Project wrote: Holy **** why even participate in this. You shouldn't support Drac's delusion that what he thinks matters to anyone but himself, but that is exactly what you pretty much do. I can't be the only one who notices, so wtf is going on? If any of you took this topic seriously, you'd be posting it where it matters. Instead you waste your time with someone who has no say in the matter ... ... constantly BEHAVES like he has any say on the matter ... ... and you play right into his delusions. I'll just go make that thread in F&I myself if you don't. Even Infinity Ziona has some up now and they're horrible! Why so mad? I could have asked you the same several pages ago, hypocrite, but i'm not such a child like you are. Unlike you i don't get off of weak manipulation attempts and amuse myself when people actually care about the topic. Unlike you, who is so smug and arrogant, he's even believing that his word counts for anything. I give you that, you keep the easy prey busy and ruin it for everyone else ... ... but your cold predicting of them makes you yourself just as predictable! Weak manipulation, I am putting forth a point of view, it is different to yours, grow up and deal with the fact that people have different opinions. I don't want it so it to be easy to kill the hard prey, I want the gankers have to work for it not swan around blasting everything like they did before the previous balance pass... When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17950	Posted - 2016.08.19 16:26:04 - [237] - Quote March rabbit wrote: Well... That's the new way of combating suicide gankers before: tank your mining ship and mine safely after: make dedicated fleet composition, be aware all the time, get into suspect status and deal with all these bored high-sec 'pvpers' with pimped ships, OGB and neutral logistics? One thing can be said for sure: it WILL BE more interesting Not sure if there will be ONE such fleet which survived first full mining session tho..... I have killed those pirates with worse fleet setups in the past. You could of course just fit a tanky hulk with some higgs and align to a safe. Or go with an AB skiff. Out in null the fleet setup will be great especially when combined with the new Rorqual.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17950	Posted - 2016.08.19 16:31:06 - [238] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: [ So what we are talking about is reducing the tank of the Skiff so they can be ganked, the key thing is that at this moment Kusion has to use all his toons to kill one or get friends, so now we drop down to 7. Why does it have to be made so damn easy? That is my question every time! So you are saying all t2 cruisers and most battlecruisers have too little tank? Because all of them can be killed by the same number of catalysts. Add a few more cats and you are killing battleships and pvp t3 cruisers. Escalate more and you can wipe out a dreadnought. What you want is for CCP to make you safe rather than have the tools to do it for yourself, thats not good game balance.
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 633	Posted - 2016.08.19 16:36:47 - [239] - Quote baltec1 wrote: So you are saying all t2 cruisers and most battlecruisers have too little tank? Because all of them can be killed by the same number of catalysts. Add a few more cats and you are killing battleships and pvp t3 cruisers. Escalate more and you can wipe out a dreadnought. Q: Then why don't you? A1: Because they shoot back. A2: Because they don't loiter in predictable locations: you have to probe them or tackle them quickly when they pass by. A3: Because of gate/stationguns. A4: Because of :reasons: Which one is it? Whether through fitting options or straight built into the hull, that tank is essential.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17950	Posted - 2016.08.19 16:50:03 - [240] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: baltec1 wrote: So you are saying all t2 cruisers and most battlecruisers have too little tank? Because all of them can be killed by the same number of catalysts. Add a few more cats and you are killing battleships and pvp t3 cruisers. Escalate more and you can wipe out a dreadnought. Q: Then why don't you? A1: Because they shoot back. A2: Because they don't loiter in predictable locations: you have to probe them or tackle them quickly when they pass by. A3: Because of gate/stationguns. A4: Because of :reasons: Which one is it? Whether through fitting options or straight built into the hull, that tank is essential. There is nothing to gain from trying to gank unprofitable combat ships. 80-90k with t2 gear is tank enough. Lets not forget that the skiff has an offensive bonus that gives it the same firepower as a pilgrim or curse. Again, ganking only makes up a small part of the total barges killed, the barge rebalance should be based entire around your misguided obsessive hate of gankers. It should be based on what is best for these ships throughout EVE.
Solecist Project 32224	Posted - 2016.08.19 16:57:30 - [241] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: baltec1 wrote: So you are saying all t2 cruisers and most battlecruisers have too little tank? Because all of them can be killed by the same number of catalysts. Add a few more cats and you are killing battleships and pvp t3 cruisers. Escalate more and you can wipe out a dreadnought. Q: Then why don't you? A1: Because they shoot back. A2: Because they don't loiter in predictable locations: you have to probe them or tackle them quickly when they pass by. A3: Because of gate/stationguns. A4: Because of :reasons: Which one is it? Whether through fitting options or straight built into the hull, that tank is essential. I have to admit that while i notice the mild passive aggressiveness ... ... i'm kind of lost on this post of yours. What are you trying to say? "That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breaths of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly pulverised by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 633	Posted - 2016.08.19 17:12:51 - [242] - Quote What I'm trying to say, is that the discussion around EHP tends to ignore the second half of the equation. A ship's combat worth = EHP x DPS. A ship with 80k EHP, 200 DPS is equivalent to a 40k, 400 DPS ship. Comparing Zealots and battleships to barges is plain wrong. I get that they're supposed to be less combat-ready than a warship, but if DPS=150, then tank has to go up. As I illustrated by saying that 8 catalysts will NOT gank a battleship, because the battleship will simply shoot them all before its tank caves in.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17952	Posted - 2016.08.19 17:21:01 - [243] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: What I'm trying to say, is that the discussion around EHP tends to ignore the second half of the equation. A ship's combat worth = EHP x DPS. A ship with 80k EHP, 200 DPS is equivalent to a 40k, 400 DPS ship. Comparing Zealots and battleships to barges is plain wrong. I get that they're supposed to be less combat-ready than a warship, but if DPS=150, then tank has to go up. As I illustrated by saying that 8 catalysts will NOT gank a battleship, because the battleship will simply shoot them all before its tank caves in. I wouldn't be too sure about that
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 633	Posted - 2016.08.19 17:22:06 - [244] - Quote AHAHAHA LOOOOL +1 Sir - it deserved to die
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2271	Posted - 2016.08.19 18:15:14 - [245] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Brokk Witgenstein wrote: What I'm trying to say, is that the discussion around EHP tends to ignore the second half of the equation. A ship's combat worth = EHP x DPS. A ship with 80k EHP, 200 DPS is equivalent to a 40k, 400 DPS ship. Comparing Zealots and battleships to barges is plain wrong. I get that they're supposed to be less combat-ready than a warship, but if DPS=150, then tank has to go up. As I illustrated by saying that 8 catalysts will NOT gank a battleship, because the battleship will simply shoot them all before its tank caves in. I wouldn't be too sure about that Actually my opinion is that the base EHP of Battleshsips are too low and I have felt that for some time. Quote: So you are saying all t2 cruisers and most battlecruisers have too little tank? Because all of them can be killed by the same number of catalysts. Add a few more cats and you are killing battleships and pvp t3 cruisers. Escalate more and you can wipe out a dreadnought. What you want is for CCP to make you safe rather than have the tools to do it for yourself, thats not good game balance. The Balance I am after is having at least one mining ship that is a challenge to gank and that is the Skiff and to the lessor extent the Procurer, if CCP goes to the level you have requested then that means that there are no options to get into something really tanky other than sticking mining lasers onto a triple plated Domi. As I keep pointing out the mining ships are designed to mine, not for speed or agility, not to equip offensive weapons, this means that their tank can be better than cruisers and I totally reject any comparison with cruisers and HAC's, T3's or even BC's. My point of view is that the existing level of the Skiff is perfectly fine and if CCP reduces it then they are showing yet again that they don't care about hisec miners and their balance and making it a challenge for gankers. Your fleet concept only works in null sec and low sec, it does not work in hisec. EDIT: And your comment of asking CCP to give me the tools to enable me to be safe, damn right I want to be able to chose to tank a ship to be safe, you getting it down to the level you want would destroy that, so at that point I will be mining in a triple plated Domi. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17954	Posted - 2016.08.19 18:45:05 - [246] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Actually my opinion is that the base EHP of Battleshsips are too low and I have felt that for some time. Thats because you are bad at this game.
Utremi Fasolasi The Scope Gallente Federation 488	Posted - 2016.08.19 19:13:18 - [247] - Quote Brigadine Ferathine wrote: Moac Tor wrote: I don't see why the barges need to be changed at all given they were tiericided successfully only recently. Maybe the Covetor / Retriever class barges could do with a little increase in EHP so they can't be ganked by a lone catalyst, but other than that the fundamental concept that was laid out in the original tiericide is fine. The retriever was the real issue for me. It cant even handle basic rats. It has no slots for a tank and has no base HP so it dies if anything sneezes on it. Bulkheads in the lows and hull tank rigs boost it up quite a bit.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2271	Posted - 2016.08.19 19:13:36 - [248] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Actually my opinion is that the base EHP of Battleshsips are too low and I have felt that for some time. Thats because you are bad at this game. Well I don't get the rules changed to win mate... When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 637	Posted - 2016.08.19 19:19:29 - [249] - Quote Utremi Fasolasi wrote: Brigadine Ferathine wrote: The retriever was the real issue for me. It cant even handle basic rats. It has no slots for a tank and has no base HP so it dies if anything sneezes on it. Bulkheads in the lows and hull tank rigs boost it up quite a bit. It is peculiar though. A shieldtanker (as are all ORE ships) with no mids to speak of ... I may disagree on a lot of things with Baltec but as for fitting options he does have a point.
Lugues Slive Diamond Light Industries 40	Posted - 2016.08.19 19:33:04 - [250] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: I don't think I'm too happy with the kinds of barges the way they are now. They could easily be made into one hull with fitting options- for example using a Procurer as a baseline model. On that I have to agree with Baltec. There is of course the issue that, as someone else pointed out, there are no useful midslot modules that affect mining, and an expanded cargohold does not expand the orehold. These are however technicalities that can be worked out. Now, adding such fitting options would of course obsolete the current lineup. Why? Because there is in fact only one relevant bonus a mining ship can receive: a yield bonus. And also because all three of them are roughly equivalent to two cruisers (or half a battlecruiser) -- it's not like one of them is a nimble destroyer-like miner and the other's a battlecruiser-style command ship miner. All three of them happen to be in the heavy-cruiser-almost-BC ballpark. I am happy with the distinction between ninja mining frigates and barges; but rather than having a three-of-the-same lineup, perhaps we should repurpose one to be an armed platform which also happens to mine (some). The latter could be achieved by giving it a massive bonus to mining drones, freeing up (unbonused?) highslots with turret / launcher hardpoints to slap anything you like on there. More like a generic SOCT cruiser with an orehold than anything else, really. As for the third one, I have some ideas but they feel like I'm trying to "invent" something just because there are three. I doubt however CCP is going to do something outrageous like adding some combat capability to transports or barges. The tears would flood the old continent. Already some are flipping a gasket when a ship that costs two cruisers has a heavy cruiser's tank with a frigate's DPS. Yet there it is: roll the current lineup into 1 model, and give us a Combat miner please. What I was thinking along these lines is to add an ore bay expander that gives a fixed increase instead of %, make the MLU penalty be armor hp, and convert barges to armor tanks. Fittings would be 2 high, 2-3 mid, and a ton of low. That way you can choose to increase tank, drone dps, hold, or yield as you want. And as a side note MLU do not suffer diminishing returns at the moment.
Solecist Project 32231	Posted - 2016.08.19 20:00:42 - [251] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: As I illustrated by saying that 8 catalysts will NOT gank a battleship, because the battleship will simply shoot them all before its tank caves in. i really don't know how many cats it takes at minimum, but suiciding a battleship in a 0.5 ... ... there's simply not enough time to kill a meaningfull amount, plus moving cats will be hard to hit. It seems really unreasonable to me to assume that a bs would take down it's gankers in a 15-20 second window. And by "it's gankers" i mean an amount that actually increases its chance of survival, so most likely at least two. I mean, always bring at least one more than needed if you can, just to be sure. Right? And even if it's the exact a,ount, we'd fit afterburners to avoid tracking ... ... or the final solution in this regard: sensor dampeners. No way a BS has a chance unless the tank is bigger than accounted for... ... and i doubt the same for cruisers, but they might have a higher chance of succeeding. Please correct me if i'm missing something. "That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breaths of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly pulverised by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5106	Posted - 2016.08.19 22:50:24 - [252] - 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 - [253] - 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
Dirty Forum Alt Forum Alts Anonymous 582	Posted - 2016.08.19 23:06:15 - [254] - Quote Rather than transforming mining ships into full-fledged combat vessels (more than they already are) it might be simpler to just re-introduce the old regular ships w/ mining bonuses... In addition to the previous frigate/cruiser levels they could introduce a new class of Heavy Assault Cruiser or battleship with the ability to fit strip miners - to make it so there would at least be a chance some miners might fly them. Of course, the fact that these ships already existed and were transformed into logistics ships instead probably indicates this is not a direction CCP is interested in going...
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5106	Posted - 2016.08.19 23:19:15 - [255] - 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
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17961	Posted - 2016.08.20 07:07:52 - [256] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: 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? I would keep the two CCP have decided to fit on it.
March rabbit Mosquito Squadron The-Culture 1871	Posted - 2016.08.20 07:43:51 - [257] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: 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. Idea is interesting for sure. The only thing needs to be worked on: workaround for logistics to be usable against attackers and not deal with suspect flag. Else this will only lead to death of the whole fleets. The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Kenrailae The Scope Gallente Federation 572	Posted - 2016.08.20 07:53:46 - [258] - Quote You already have mining corps that 100% refuse to take the most simple precautions of even a single logistics cruiser to keep their ships alive through the half hearted ganks..... why in the heck do you think they'd want to give up those slots for anything but more mining yield? A fully fit scythe is what? 40 mil? 20 mil if you make it cheap? a fraction of the cost of a Hulk. You guys mention 'nobody wants to sit in a logi cruiser and hope for a gank,' but there are alot of roles in Eve that people don't want to do, that have to be done. Fueling towers and citadels. It's not fun. But it has to be done. Logi cruisers or other pre-emptive measures for a fleet of miners are the same sort of deal. Sure, it's not 'fun' per say, but it's part of the game, and needs done. The Law is a point of View The NPE IS a big deal
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17961	Posted - 2016.08.20 08:03:29 - [259] - Quote Kenrailae wrote: You already have mining corps that 100% refuse to take the most simple precautions of even a single logistics cruiser to keep their ships alive through the half hearted ganks..... why in the heck do you think they'd want to give up those slots for anything but more mining yield? A fully fit scythe is what? 40 mil? 20 mil if you make it cheap? a fraction of the cost of a Hulk. You guys mention 'nobody wants to sit in a logi cruiser and hope for a gank,' but there are alot of roles in Eve that people don't want to do, that have to be done. Fueling towers and citadels. It's not fun. But it has to be done. Logi cruisers or other pre-emptive measures for a fleet of miners are the same sort of deal. Sure, it's not 'fun' per say, but it's part of the game, and needs done. Are you willing to sit in a belt earning nothing for several hours with nothing to do? I know I'm not, I have limited time to play and spending it baby sitting miners rather than enjoying myself isn't good gameplay. At least this way the people mining can do the protecting at the same time.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17961	Posted - 2016.08.20 08:06:17 - [260] - Quote March rabbit wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: 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. Idea is interesting for sure. The only thing needs to be worked on: workaround for logistics to be usable against attackers and not deal with suspect flag. Else this will only lead to death of the whole fleets. Just to clarify: - fleet is sitting on belt, working on roids, paying attention to surroundings - suicider comes in, attacks one hulk - logistics starts to work and all ships get suspect flag (suicider has LE with target) - more ships warping to belt and killing all the logistics - at the same time defenders (skiffs) are sitting still and doing nothing: they cannot join party because they will be CONCORDed Thats more of an issue with the way crimewatch was set up. Incursion runners, pvp gangs and mission groups have the same problem.
Kenrailae The Scope Gallente Federation 572	Posted - 2016.08.20 08:08:27 - [261] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Kenrailae wrote: You already have mining corps that 100% refuse to take the most simple precautions of even a single logistics cruiser to keep their ships alive through the half hearted ganks..... why in the heck do you think they'd want to give up those slots for anything but more mining yield? A fully fit scythe is what? 40 mil? 20 mil if you make it cheap? a fraction of the cost of a Hulk. You guys mention 'nobody wants to sit in a logi cruiser and hope for a gank,' but there are alot of roles in Eve that people don't want to do, that have to be done. Fueling towers and citadels. It's not fun. But it has to be done. Logi cruisers or other pre-emptive measures for a fleet of miners are the same sort of deal. Sure, it's not 'fun' per say, but it's part of the game, and needs done. Are you willing to sit in a belt earning nothing for several hours with nothing to do? I know I'm not, I have limited time to play and spending it baby sitting miners rather than enjoying myself isn't good gameplay. At least this way the people mining can do the protecting at the same time. I have and DO, Baltec. I randomly go to noob systems and do my damndest to give them orca and claymore boosts to try to help them out/teach them. I've spent the last couple weeks in them as I'm kinda taking a cool down from Super serious Low sec PVP. You should try explaining fleet boosting mechanics and how much they're missing out to a brand new player.... THAT is some work. I'm not opposed to expanding/diversifying the ORE ships, nor adding 'utility' cruisers to the Empire races. Variety is awesome. But I also have 0 expectations that if you were to try to give mining ships the same versatility of, loose example, a vexor, that they would get used for that at all. The core problem here is in attitude toward mining and high sec, not in the tools that are already available. Industrialists have to factor transport and install costs into their build costs.... miners should also be of the mindset that they have to factor basic defense into their op shares. The Law is a point of View The NPE IS a big deal
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17961	Posted - 2016.08.20 08:29:15 - [262] - Quote Kenrailae wrote: Industrialists have to factor transport and install costs into their build costs.... miners should also be of the mindset that they have to factor basic defense into their op shares. 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.
Kenrailae The Scope Gallente Federation 572	Posted - 2016.08.20 08:49:56 - [263] - Quote 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 there's always going to be the back swing 'You gave my ship these but now I don't have enough of this to do this with it so buff this so I can be Ubertank!' There's also the can't defend them without concord bit. They can be defended. People just are not willing to view them the same way any other fleet is viewed, for fear of profit shares. Not losing a Hulk is a major profit share. But even then, people are not able to come to terms with there will still be cases where the 'other guy' just brought more to the table to gank you. You don't take a T3 fleet out without logi, Ewar, DPS, and an oh crap plan. Or a null/low mining fleet. High sec Mining fleets should be bound to the same rules. I honestly don't know the best way to address that basic flaw in attitude towards high sec mining. But I still hold that that is the bigger share of the problems. Not opposed to diversifying the barges/re-introducing utility cruisers, but want it to be for the right reasons, not continuous bandaging of the actual problem. The Law is a point of View The NPE IS a big deal
Solecist Project 32258	Posted - 2016.08.20 09:15:39 - [264] - 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 there's always going to be the back swing 'You gave my ship these but now I don't have enough of this to do this with it so buff this so I can be Ubertank!' There's also the can't defend them without concord bit. They can be defended. People just are not willing to view them the same way any other fleet is viewed, for fear of profit shares. Not losing a Hulk is a major profit share. But even then, people are not able to come to terms with there will still be cases where the 'other guy' just brought more to the table to gank you. You don't take a T3 fleet out without logi, Ewar, DPS, and an oh crap plan. Or a null/low mining fleet. High sec Mining fleets should be bound to the same rules. I honestly don't know the best way to address that basic flaw in attitude towards high sec mining. But I still hold that that is the bigger share of the problems. Not opposed to diversifying the barges/re-introducing utility cruisers, but want it to be for the right reasons, not continuous bandaging of the actual problem. They wouldn't even need tank if the mining op was set up to warp out in a second or two. The whole balancing around afk is the issue. It shouldn't be happening in the first place! Instead of teaching miners how to be safe ... ... everyone's just telling them how to tank and thus be a victim. Yes, relying on authority to protect you makes you a dependent victim. And worse, there's people who want them to stay victims just so they can keep bitching. #MinerLivesMatter #SocialJusticeMiners "That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breaths of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly pulverised by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17961	Posted - 2016.08.20 09:26:29 - [265] - Quote Kenrailae wrote: From that perspective, that's fine, sensible, reasonable, etc. But there's always going to be the back swing 'You gave my ship these but now I don't have enough of this to do this with it so buff this so I can be Ubertank!' There's also the can't defend them without concord bit. They can be defended. People just are not willing to view them the same way any other fleet is viewed, for fear of profit shares. Not losing a Hulk is a major profit share. But even then, people are not able to come to terms with there will still be cases where the 'other guy' just brought more to the table to gank you. You don't take a T3 fleet out without logi, Ewar, DPS, and an oh crap plan. Or a null/low mining fleet. High sec Mining fleets should be bound to the same rules. I honestly don't know the best way to address that basic flaw in attitude towards high sec mining. But I still hold that that is the bigger share of the problems. Not opposed to diversifying the barges/re-introducing utility cruisers, but want it to be for the right reasons, not continuous bandaging of the actual problem. Flying logi in a combat fleet actualy involves playing the game. A logi boat in a mining fleet doesn't do anything for hours on end other than twiddle their thumbs while watching netflix. Under my idea the logi for the mining fleet is right there mining with you.
Kenrailae The Scope Gallente Federation 572	Posted - 2016.08.20 09:31:17 - [266] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Flying logi in a combat fleet actualy involves playing the game. A logi boat in a mining fleet doesn't do anything for hours on end other than twiddle their thumbs while watching netflix. Under my idea the logi for the mining fleet is right there mining with you. IF and only IF you get into a fight. The rest the time you just sit there and warp to gates, or on a titan... and twiddle your thumbs while watching netflix. The Law is a point of View The NPE IS a big deal
Elinarien Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 57	Posted - 2016.08.20 09:38:43 - [267] - Quote This discussion misses the fundamentally obvious point - which is that the root cause of the problem is that in Eve the resources are not scarce. Not only that, but resources should be depleted when over-extraction occurs, forcing players to identify new sources. So, introduce scarcity and players will fight over their access. Otherwise it's just stupid suggestions such as mining mini-games.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17961	Posted - 2016.08.20 09:40:04 - [268] - Quote Kenrailae wrote: IF and only IF you get into a fight. The rest the time you just sit there and warp to gates, or on a titan... and twiddle your thumbs while watching netflix. Spoken like a man who doesn't fly logi in fleets.
Kenrailae The Scope Gallente Federation 572	Posted - 2016.08.20 09:43:03 - [269] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Kenrailae wrote: IF and only IF you get into a fight. The rest the time you just sit there and warp to gates, or on a titan... and twiddle your thumbs while watching netflix. Spoken like a man who doesn't fly logi in fleets. Nah, I flew logi all the time. Was usually logi FC/Anchor. You can do the research if you want. The Law is a point of View The NPE IS a big deal
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17961	Posted - 2016.08.20 09:51:49 - [270] - Quote Kenrailae wrote: Nah, I flew logi all the time. Was usually logi FC/Anchor. You can do the research if you want. If you are a logi anchor you deffinatly don't watch netflix and twiddle your thumbs while roaming. Look this is a rather simple thing, nobody supports a mining fleet with logi and dps ships because it is both boring and they get nothing from doing it. By making the very ships that mine able to provide both of those things you have people being rewarded while protecting the mining fleet.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2271	Posted - 2016.08.20 10:00:20 - [271] - Quote baltec1 wrote: March rabbit wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: 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. Idea is interesting for sure. The only thing needs to be worked on: workaround for logistics to be usable against attackers and not deal with suspect flag. Else this will only lead to death of the whole fleets. Just to clarify: - fleet is sitting on belt, working on roids, paying attention to surroundings - suicider comes in, attacks one hulk - logistics starts to work and all ships get suspect flag (suicider has LE with target) - more ships warping to belt and killing all the logistics - at the same time defenders (skiffs) are sitting still and doing nothing: they cannot join party because they will be CONCORDed Thats more of an issue with the way crimewatch was set up. Incursion runners, pvp gangs and mission groups have the same problem. So your suggestion has no merit in hisec, because that is how the mechanics work, its exactly the same with loot scopping through a DST, it is how the mechanics are. This means that CCP has to leave one ship that can be tanked to its current level. What you have suggested is perfectly fine for null sec and even low sec, but it does not work for hisec where the only metric that counts is surviving the massed firepower of multiple destroyers until CONCORD comes. The Skiffs current tank is right, period. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17961	Posted - 2016.08.20 10:05:46 - [272] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: So your suggestion has no merit in hisec, because that is how the mechanics work. If billion isk incursion fleets manage then so can miners. Dracvlad wrote: What you have suggested is perfectly fine for null sec and even low sec, but it does not work for hisec where the only metric that counts is surviving the massed firepower of multiple destroyers until CONCORD comes. The Skiffs current tank is right, period. As already pointed out, ganking makes up a minority of barge losses and under my plan the barges would have ample tank to survive.
Kenrailae The Scope Gallente Federation 572	Posted - 2016.08.20 10:07:59 - [273] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Kenrailae wrote: Nah, I flew logi all the time. Was usually logi FC/Anchor. You can do the research if you want. If you are a logi anchor you deffinatly don't watch netflix and twiddle your thumbs while roaming. Look this is a rather simple thing, nobody supports a mining fleet with logi and dps ships because it is both boring and they get nothing from doing it. By making the very ships that mine able to provide both of those things you have people being rewarded while protecting the mining fleet. You do if you're sitting on a titan, or just warping gate to gate because there are no fights. And that's where we disagree. Your simple solution is to change the tools that are in the game for this reason. My simple solution is to use the tools that are in the game for that reason. You want to change them so the 'smart players' have more options, I am of the opinion changing them should be a very careful thing to avoid the hazardous slope of 'you buffed it to do this but now I can't do this because you messed it up the first time so fix it.' You have already watched this happen with Freighters, and the unrelenting stream of 'nerf ganking' threads when there are already more than sufficient tools to effectively negate all but the most serious gank efforts. To you, I'm sure I'm probably appearing to want to keep them in the same cookie cutter for whatever reason. That's not the case. To me, you're indirectly perpetuating the attitude that mining fleets don't need to take steps to do things properly, as most the mining fleets, especially in high sec, won't use that buff for what you intend it for, as it's the attitude behind high sec mining in particular that is problematic. I've within the last two weeks suggested on multiple occasions that a newbro mining corp use a logistics cruiser so they keep their covetors alive. They refused to, choosing to pursue max ore yield. Consequently, they were ganked. It is not so simple a thing. Changing ships won't deal with the problem. It'll help a few people, but it'll be just another bad change to many other people. The Law is a point of View The NPE IS a big deal
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17961	Posted - 2016.08.20 10:16:16 - [274] - Quote Kenrailae wrote: You do if you're sitting on a titan, or just warping gate to gate because there are no fights. Which is different from every other ship in the fleet how? Kenrailae wrote: And that's where we disagree. Your simple solution is to change the tools that are in the game for this reason. My simple solution is to use the tools that are in the game for that reason. You want to change them so the 'smart players' have more options, I am of the opinion changing them should be a very careful thing to avoid the hazardous slope of 'you buffed it to do this but now I can't do this because you messed it up the first time so fix it.' You have already watched this happen with Freighters, and the unrelenting stream of 'nerf ganking' threads when there are already more than sufficient tools to effectively negate all but the most serious gank efforts. To you, I'm sure I'm probably appearing to want to keep them in the same cookie cutter for whatever reason. That's not the case. To me, you're indirectly perpetuating the attitude that mining fleets don't need to take steps to do things properly, as most the mining fleets, especially in high sec, won't use that buff for what you intend it for, as it's the attitude behind high sec mining in particular that is problematic. The answer to this is easy. You ignore the idiot that wants an overpowered ship and beat them down when they start to whine for one. Kenrailae wrote: I've within the last two weeks suggested on multiple occasions that a newbro mining corp use a logistics cruiser so they keep their covetors alive. They refused to, choosing to pursue max ore yield. Consequently, they were ganked. Why would they? The guy in the logi gets nothing out of it Kenrailae wrote: It is not so simple a thing. Changing ships won't deal with the problem. It'll help a few people, but it'll be just another bad change to many other people. How is it a bad change for other people? [/quote]
Kenrailae The Scope Gallente Federation 573	Posted - 2016.08.20 10:24:37 - [275] - Quote Which is entirely the point. If there is nothing going on, then that person(s) isn't doing anything except BS'ing in chat. That doesn't mean you just tell the whole fleet to log out while the hunter is still looking for targets. They sit. And wait. And do nothing. Yet here we are, still going on with nerf ganking and changing tools that work so they work better against said thing because there's not already enough options for dealing with a problem. Which is where we come to the attitude of, again, high sec mining in particular. As an industrialist MUST calculate his transit and install costs, a mining FC must calculate her defense cost. The logistics guys would be part of the cuts, as their job is to make sure no hulks are harmed in the making of this profit share. It would very likely be taken as a bad change because now you have slots and fitting, but not enough to fit for max tank/yield because again, the attitude behind mining is it's not required to take those same steps and deal with some of the same problems that every other fleet must deal with, from the varied roles for 'what if' to the down time as your specific job is not required 100% of the time. Again, you have witnessed this personally with the freighter low slots. 'Yay I have low slots, but I don't have enough CPU to fit anything in them, wtf were you doing CCP.' The Law is a point of View The NPE IS a big deal
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17961	Posted - 2016.08.20 10:34:55 - [276] - Quote Kenrailae wrote: Which is entirely the point. If there is nothing going on, then that person(s) isn't doing anything except BS'ing in chat. That doesn't mean you just tell the whole fleet to log out while the hunter is still looking for targets. They sit. And wait. And do nothing. Key difference here is that logi in fleet has a reward. Logi in a mining op has nothing which is why miners wont do it. They would prefer to be mining and earning isk so why no let them? Give them the ability to take logi and mine. The option to bring a dedicated logi ship is still there and it would provide better reps simply because its a dedicated logi boat. The statis quo isn't working, something has to change and change radically. Kenrailae wrote: Yet here we are, still going on with nerf ganking and changing tools that work so they work better against said thing because there's not already enough options for dealing with a problem. And people will continue to demand more firepower out of their cruiser or faster warp speeds out of their battleship or more tank for their capital. Miners should not continue to get the shaft just because a few idiots call for game braking things. Kenrailae wrote: Which is where we come to the attitude of, again, high sec mining in particular. As an industrialist MUST calculate his transit and install costs, a mining FC must calculate her defense cost. The logistics guys would be part of the cuts, as their job is to make sure no hulks are harmed in the making of this profit share. What makes more profit, a barge with logi capabilities or a dedicated logi cruiser? Kenrailae wrote: It would very likely be taken as a bad change because now you have slots and fitting, but not enough to fit for max tank/yield because again, the attitude behind mining is it's not required to take those same steps and deal with some of the same problems that every other fleet must deal with, from the varied roles for 'what if' to the down time as your specific job is not required 100% of the time. Again, you have witnessed this personally with the freighter low slots. 'Yay I have low slots, but I don't have enough CPU to fit anything in them, wtf were you doing CCP.' Ignore them. The good miners will reap the rewards while bad ones don't.
Kenrailae The Scope Gallente Federation 573	Posted - 2016.08.20 10:49:36 - [277] - Quote Logi does not have a reward unless they are given one. They often miss out on kill mails, are often the first ones primaried, and often have the hardest job of the entire fleet. Not much reward.... Yes, something does have to change. But just changing ships won't change what needs to change. Miners get the shaft predominately due to bad or ignorant decisions, both from young and old players alike. NOT because they don't have the means to deal with them. A barge with logi capabilities is not necessarily going to be fit to do that logi thing. Just because you give a barge the option, does not mean it will be used. Miners have had the option of using links and logi for years now, but choose not to. Precedent is that they will not. A barge that isn't doing its 'job' of logi and loses another barge is costing more than a logi cruiser that always does it's job of logi and saves a barge from being ganked. Ignoring them doesn't work. Because it keeps going on and on and on and on until CCP makes a change, and its a bad one, and now we're here debating on why it's broken to begin with. If I had reason to believe that changing barges to do that job like you suggest WOULD be used for that job, I'd be right there with ya. But I absolutely do not. I am completely convinced it will be completely ignored, as have all the other tools for protecting a mining fleet. I would LIKE to see utility cruisers come back. The old exeq was awesome. I would like to see more diverse ORE ships. But I'm not at all in a hurry to just throw another change at a problem without addressing the problem. The Law is a point of View The NPE IS a big deal
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17965	Posted - 2016.08.20 11:00:28 - [278] - Quote Kenrailae wrote: Logi does not have a reward unless they are given one. They often miss out on kill mails, are often the first ones primaried, and often have the hardest job of the entire fleet. Not much reward.... Again this shows you are not a logi pilot. Kenrailae wrote: Yes, something does have to change. But just changing ships won't change what needs to change. All of the problems with barges are to do with the barges themselves. Kenrailae wrote: Miners get the shaft predominately due to bad or ignorant decisions, both from young and old players alike. NOT because they don't have the means to deal with them. I point to the coveotr as an example of why you are wrong. Kenrailae wrote: A barge with logi capabilities is not necessarily going to be fit to do that logi thing. Just because you give a barge the option, does not mean it will be used. Miners have had the option of using links and logi for years now, but choose not to. Precedent is that they will not. A barge that isn't doing its 'job' of logi and loses another barge is costing more than a logi cruiser that always does it's job of logi and saves a barge from being ganked. So I guess CCP should not have done the logi rebalance because people might not have fitted them for logi? Thats a moronic argument. Kenrailae wrote: If I had reason to believe that changing barges to do that job like you suggest WOULD be used for that job, I'd be right there with ya. But I absolutely do not. I am completely convinced it will be completely ignored, as have all the other tools for protecting a mining fleet. I would LIKE to see utility cruisers come back. The old exeq was awesome. I would like to see more diverse ORE ships. But I'm not at all in a hurry to just throw another change at a problem without addressing the problem. So we should not fix barges because people can still be morons? Again, thats a stupid argument.
Kenrailae The Scope Gallente Federation 574	Posted - 2016.08.20 11:09:31 - [279] - Quote Again, I invite you to do the research. Again, the tools have existed. Miners have chosen not to use them. Why is it going to change just because you make the tools shinier? The covetor is the one in worst shape. But even it is still usable with a few basic precautions. Again, with the caveat that there are always gonna be times the other guy just had a bigger stick, and that's Eve. Not really sure how you came to that. I'm going to guess you're going off the presumption that I'm suggesting people won't refit them after a change. My response to that is some might. But again, the precedent is far and away, miners choose NOT to use tools that are available. No need to start with the attacks. No, we shouldn't just throw more shiny at it because people aren't doing basic things to ensure a margin of some sort of security. Because again, it will have the snowball effect we've seen with every other change to mining barges and ganking in that now its messed up for this reason and it's not good enough so has to be better. Making them versatile platforms with HAC sized tanks and bigger bays and drone bays and more slots and fittings doesn't specifically fix them. It just makes them different. The Law is a point of View The NPE IS a big deal
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17965	Posted - 2016.08.20 11:17:28 - [280] - Quote Kenrailae wrote: Again, I invite you to do the research. There is a diference between "I have flown logi" and "I am logi". Kenrailae wrote: Again, the tools have existed. Miners have chosen not to use them. Why is it going to change just because you make the tools shinier? Because miners now have the option themelves. Kenrailae wrote: The covetor is the one in worst shape. But even it is still usable with a few basic precautions. Again, with the caveat that there are always gonna be times the other guy just had a bigger stick, and that's Eve. The covetor is by far one of the most useless ships in EVE and no amount of attitude change in pilots will change this. Kenrailae wrote: Not really sure how you came to that. I'm going to guess you're going off the presumption that I'm suggesting people won't refit them after a change. My response to that is some might. But again, the precedent is far and away, miners choose NOT to use tools that are available. No need to start with the attacks. They don't have the tools they need. Miner wont fly logi because it earns them nothing and combat pilots have no interest in sitting around doing fuckall. Again, the stasis quo is not working, has never worked, and will never work. Change is needed to fix the problems that have been with mining for 13 years now. Kenrailae wrote: No, we shouldn't just throw more shiny at it because people aren't doing basic things to ensure a margin of some sort of security. Because again, it will have the snowball effect we've seen with every other change to mining barges and ganking in that now its messed up for this reason and it's not good enough so has to be better. Making them versatile platforms with HAC sized tanks and bigger bays and drone bays and more slots and fittings doesn't specifically fix them. It just makes them different. So I guess capital ships should not have been fixed either? Same batty argument of your applies to them as much as it does to the barge changes.
Kenrailae The Scope Gallente Federation 576	Posted - 2016.08.20 11:20:14 - [281] - Quote Literally just edited my other post :/ See edit. The Law is a point of View The NPE IS a big deal
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17965	Posted - 2016.08.20 11:40:44 - [282] - Quote Kenrailae wrote: Literally just edited my other post :/ See edit. Fair enough.
Solecist Project 32260	Posted - 2016.08.20 11:47:43 - [283] - Quote Kenrailae wrote: No, we shouldn't just throw more shiny at it because people aren't doing basic things to ensure a margin of some sort of security. Because again, it will have the snowball effect we've seen with every other change to mining barges and ganking in that now its messed up for this reason and it's not good enough so has to be better. Making them versatile platforms with HAC sized tanks and bigger bays and drone bays and more slots and fittings doesn't specifically fix them. It just makes them different. I'll just cut this short here. You are both right. Ken, what you are missing is the high possibility of a cultural shift away from victimhood. The current situation is that miners are being told to use skiffs, else they'd get ganked. There wasa time not too long ago, when it wasn't the case like this. In the time between, a shift occurred, that changed the landscape and the barges themselves. People everywhere say "use a skiff or you'll get ganked". If this had been the case years ago, Hulkaggeddon wouldn't ever have been a thing. Changing the theme of barges from "ship of a potential victim" to "self reliable mining vessel"* ... (*whatever :P) ... plus designing it in a way that makes it useful for actual combat instead of victimhood ... ... would as well, again, cause a shift. People would talk differently about mining ships. They would brag about leet kills they made in a hulk. (i foresee "HULK SMASH!!" usage increasing) They would spread the feeling that these ships actually mirror self reliance instead of dependency. People would teach not anymore about just fitting tank and hoping the best just because it's the least effort to do so. They would start teaching about self defence. Tactics. How to stay safe. They would have actual topics with future miners who will want to be miners with teeth. (doable!) Now you might say "what about those who want to play afk?" ? Well, what about them? They'll slowly, but definitely, get replaced by a superior generation of miners, of course. And that's how it should be, because ... ... afk, even semi-afk, is not a playstyle. Balancing ships around people who are not playing isn't really a sensible thing to do. "That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breaths of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly pulverised by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia
Soel Reit Dambusters 617 Sq 73	Posted - 2016.08.20 11:52:32 - [284] - Quote Solecist Project wrote: Kenrailae wrote: No, we shouldn't just throw more shiny at it because people aren't doing basic things to ensure a margin of some sort of security. Because again, it will have the snowball effect we've seen with every other change to mining barges and ganking in that now its messed up for this reason and it's not good enough so has to be better. Making them versatile platforms with HAC sized tanks and bigger bays and drone bays and more slots and fittings doesn't specifically fix them. It just makes them different. I'll just cut this short here. why? we want the long version pls
Kenrailae The Scope Gallente Federation 576	Posted - 2016.08.20 12:17:23 - [285] - Quote Solecist Project wrote: Ken, what you are missing is the high possibility of a cultural shift away from victimhood. I will say I never feel like a victim when I'm out doing my noob system boosting. I take many steps to protect my stuff, and do everything I can to ensure I am in as much control of the situation as a player can be in Eve. I acknowledge that eventually someone is going to come along with a bigger stick. But I can also tell you they'll need a really big one. If they bring it, fair. Welcome to Eve. The Law is a point of View The NPE IS a big deal
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2272	Posted - 2016.08.20 12:53:27 - [286] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: So your suggestion has no merit in hisec, because that is how the mechanics work. If billion isk incursion fleets manage then so can miners. Dracvlad wrote: What you have suggested is perfectly fine for null sec and even low sec, but it does not work for hisec where the only metric that counts is surviving the massed firepower of multiple destroyers until CONCORD comes. The Skiffs current tank is right, period. As already pointed out, ganking makes up a minority of barge losses and under my plan the barges would have ample tank to survive. We are talking about mining and not incursion runners, the pace is completely different. It is disingenuous to do so. Ganking makes up the majority of losses in hisec, with the tank you have proposed for the Skiff 80k to 90k you would make every mining ship vulnerable even if they fitted to max tank which is not giving miners the tools for the job. At the moment the Skiff is corretly set up and is the only choice for miners who do not want to be ganked, as long as that choice is left to me with the tank it has now I don't care what else CCP does. As long as they have a ship which people can chose which has a tank that deters the easy complacent gankers then I am fine. 90k does not do it, but the present Skiff does. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Solecist Project 32261	Posted - 2016.08.20 13:00:32 - [287] - Quote Kenrailae wrote: Solecist Project wrote: Ken, what you are missing is the high possibility of a cultural shift away from victimhood. I will say I never feel like a victim when I'm out doing my noob system boosting. I take many steps to protect my stuff, and do everything I can to ensure I am in as much control of the situation as a player can be in Eve. I acknowledge that eventually someone is going to come along with a bigger stick. But I can also tell you they'll need a really big one. If they bring it, fair. Welcome to Eve. why is this about you and only about you? You're not the only one out there. There are tons of people out there getting taught exactly that. You are doing it right, but all these other people who don't, they're who this should be about. Fine ... at least I've tried! vOv "That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breaths of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly pulverised by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2272	Posted - 2016.08.20 13:01:42 - [288] - Quote The majority of people who mine in hisec are solo or small entity players, I mine with two toons in my own damn fleet. The damn asteroids are so damn small one and a half cycle is often what I get, I can't share a belt with anyone else, what the hell are you smoking? Why are you suggesting that hisec miners can sit in some composite fleet like that when the basic resources are so low that it is not worth it. And will get even worse with on grid boosting, Hisec due to the small size of asteroid belts is not going to be mined by fleets like that, the only pace it happens is ice belts, your suggestions are fine for null sec and low sec, I actually like them for that, but still at the end of the day the Skiff as it is now is the ship that gives balance to hisec, something that the gankers have to up their game to gank. Outside of the heavily ganked systems many people use the other ships. Why can't players have the choice to mine in a ship that can be tanked above what gankers are comfortable to gank with, why do we have to have that choice removed from us. I see no valid reasons apart from making it easy for gankers. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Kenrailae The Scope Gallente Federation 577	Posted - 2016.08.20 13:02:32 - [289] - Quote Solecist Project wrote: Kenrailae wrote: Solecist Project wrote: Ken, what you are missing is the high possibility of a cultural shift away from victimhood. I will say I never feel like a victim when I'm out doing my noob system boosting. I take many steps to protect my stuff, and do everything I can to ensure I am in as much control of the situation as a player can be in Eve. I acknowledge that eventually someone is going to come along with a bigger stick. But I can also tell you they'll need a really big one. If they bring it, fair. Welcome to Eve. why is this about you and only about you? You're not the only one out there. There are tons of people out there getting taught exactly that. You are doing it right, but all these other people who don't, they're who this should be about. Fine ... at least I've tried! vOv It's not. It's about the mentality. The Law is a point of View The NPE IS a big deal
Solecist Project 32261	Posted - 2016.08.20 13:05:22 - [290] - Quote Unlike you apparently, others can't read the minds of their opposites... Formulate your thoughts and write them down? "That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breaths of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly pulverised by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia
Kenrailae The Scope Gallente Federation 577	Posted - 2016.08.20 13:08:54 - [291] - Quote What do you need written down? The Law is a point of View The NPE IS a big deal
Solecist Project 32261	Posted - 2016.08.20 13:10:12 - [292] - Quote Kenrailae wrote: What do you need written down? Nevermind. Have fun posting. "That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breaths of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly pulverised by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia
Kenrailae The Scope Gallente Federation 577	Posted - 2016.08.20 13:11:59 - [293] - Quote Solecist Project wrote: Kenrailae wrote: What do you need written down? Nevermind. Have fun posting. was a legit question. What were you missing/didn't I explain adequately? Okay though. have fun doing that thing you do. The Law is a point of View The NPE IS a big deal
Solecist Project 32261	Posted - 2016.08.20 13:17:24 - [294] - Quote Kenrailae wrote: Solecist Project wrote: Kenrailae wrote: What do you need written down? Nevermind. Have fun posting. was a legit question. What were you missing/didn't I explain adequately? Okay though. have fun doing that thing you do. It's fine, I'll jump in eventually, when the conversation reaches an actual point of progression. I guess it's a better way and my fault for expecting something. Btw, you ignored 90% of my above, medium length, well written post. Ttyl! "That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breaths of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly pulverised by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia
Trevize Demerzel 15	Posted - 2016.08.20 13:19:57 - [295] - Quote Here's a thought... Make mining barges immune to warp disruption, sorta like interceptors. That way the AFK miner is still an easy gank target and the miner that is paying attention can just warp off :-) -
Kenrailae The Scope Gallente Federation 577	Posted - 2016.08.20 13:25:33 - [296] - Quote Bro, I literally spent almost 2 full pages discussing this mentality thing with baltec. That Victimhood thing you mentioned, is what those almost two pages were about from my perspective, which I had felt I'd outlined pretty clear. I made a commentary that I've never felt like a victim because I DO the things baltec and I were discussing, mostly because you started that sentence by addressing me in it, so I made a commentary response. You then said I was trying to make it about me and only me? And that I ignored 90% of your well written post? Quote: "why is this about you and only about you? You're not the only one out there. There are tons of people out there getting taught exactly that. You are doing it right, but all these other people who don't, they're who this should be about. Fine ... at least I've tried! vOv" If this is the one you mean, I responded to it. And had just had a long discussion with baltec the almost two pages prior about this very thing. Sorry if that wasn't clear. I f I missed something to let me know. The Law is a point of View The NPE IS a big deal
Solecist Project 32261	Posted - 2016.08.20 13:27:26 - [297] - Quote Trevize Demerzel wrote: Here's a thought... Make mining barges immune to warp disruption, sorta like interceptors. That way the AFK miner is still an easy gank target and the miner that is paying attention can just warp off :-) I... this... I mean ..... Wow, that's worth taking a look at... Holy **, SO ***** smart to even consider this! :D "That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breaths of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly pulverised by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia
Solecist Project 32261	Posted - 2016.08.20 13:33:30 - [298] - Quote My bad, i'll scan your posting history. Apparently i skipped things switching between threads. Coffee..l "That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breaths of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly pulverised by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia
Kenrailae The Scope Gallente Federation 578	Posted - 2016.08.20 13:39:41 - [299] - Quote It's the OTHER thread we're writing books back and forth The Law is a point of View The NPE IS a big deal
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 645	Posted - 2016.08.20 13:54:02 - [300] - Quote Solecist Project wrote: Trevize Demerzel wrote: Here's a thought... Make mining barges immune to warp disruption, sorta like interceptors. That way the AFK miner is still an easy gank target and the miner that is paying attention can just warp off :-) I... this... I mean ..... Wow, that's worth taking a look at... Holy **, SO ***** smart to even consider this! :D Venture already has a +2 warpstrength bonus LOL (you thought this was going too far? I say it's already happened lololo)
Solecist Project 32263	Posted - 2016.08.20 13:59:21 - [301] - Quote Kenrailae wrote: It's the OTHER thread we're writing books back and forth LOL I'm such a moron sometimes! :D edit: WRONG THREAD DAMMIT "That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia Typos. the curse of mobility.
Dirty Forum Alt Forum Alts Anonymous 583	Posted - 2016.08.20 14:26:27 - [302] - Quote Well it seems I'm late to the party - but I've never understood why miner fleets don't just toss a few logistics cruisers in their orca and put their logistics pilots in prop-mod-fit skiffs/procurers (so they can still get to the orca quickly if it happens to get bumped). Then the fleet has logi, and the logi pilots still get to mine and earn isk as long as nobody is actively ganking the fleet... I mean it isn't foolproof - but it would certainly help prevent at least the half-hearted ganks and make the gankers work significantly harder. Just throwing it out there
Solecist Project 32263	Posted - 2016.08.20 14:38:39 - [303] - Quote Dirty Forum Alt wrote: Well it seems I'm late to the party - but I've never understood why miner fleets don't just toss a few logistics cruisers in their orca and put their logistics pilots in prop-mod-fit skiffs/procurers (so they can still get to the orca quickly if it happens to get bumped). Then the fleet has logi, and the logi pilots still get to mine and earn isk as long as nobody is actively ganking the fleet... I mean it isn't foolproof - but it would certainly help prevent at least the half-hearted ganks and make the gankers work significantly harder. Just throwing it out there I dare you to mine with me and not die to tell about the tale ... "That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia Typos. the curse of mobility.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2273	Posted - 2016.08.20 15:06:23 - [304] - Quote Solecist Project wrote: Dirty Forum Alt wrote: Well it seems I'm late to the party - but I've never understood why miner fleets don't just toss a few logistics cruisers in their orca and put their logistics pilots in prop-mod-fit skiffs/procurers (so they can still get to the orca quickly if it happens to get bumped). Then the fleet has logi, and the logi pilots still get to mine and earn isk as long as nobody is actively ganking the fleet... I mean it isn't foolproof - but it would certainly help prevent at least the half-hearted ganks and make the gankers work significantly harder. Just throwing it out there I dare you to mine with me and not die to tell about the tale ... You were using coveters... When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Lucy Lollipops State War Academy Caldari State 104	Posted - 2016.08.20 17:35:38 - [305] - Quote For what I saw in a video they are basically improving covetor, nerfing procurer and keeping retriever the same... and same thing for the exhumers versions. Am I correct?
Solecist Project 32266	Posted - 2016.08.20 18:31:12 - [306] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Solecist Project wrote: Dirty Forum Alt wrote: Well it seems I'm late to the party - but I've never understood why miner fleets don't just toss a few logistics cruisers in their orca and put their logistics pilots in prop-mod-fit skiffs/procurers (so they can still get to the orca quickly if it happens to get bumped). Then the fleet has logi, and the logi pilots still get to mine and earn isk as long as nobody is actively ganking the fleet... I mean it isn't foolproof - but it would certainly help prevent at least the half-hearted ganks and make the gankers work significantly harder. Just throwing it out there I dare you to mine with me and not die to tell about the tale ... You were using coveters... Why? I mean ... what? Yeah I have a few accounts that were close to t2 barges before they stopped. What do you mean? "That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia Typos. the curse of mobility.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2273	Posted - 2016.08.20 19:39:08 - [307] - Quote Solecist Project wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Solecist Project wrote: Dirty Forum Alt wrote: Well it seems I'm late to the party - but I've never understood why miner fleets don't just toss a few logistics cruisers in their orca and put their logistics pilots in prop-mod-fit skiffs/procurers (so they can still get to the orca quickly if it happens to get bumped). Then the fleet has logi, and the logi pilots still get to mine and earn isk as long as nobody is actively ganking the fleet... I mean it isn't foolproof - but it would certainly help prevent at least the half-hearted ganks and make the gankers work significantly harder. Just throwing it out there I dare you to mine with me and not die to tell about the tale ... You were using coveters... Why? I mean ... what? Yeah I have a few accounts that were close to t2 barges before they stopped. What do you mean? Earlier in this thread you said you were using coveters, three of them, they are the most useless mining shps in the game with a tank that is not even up to the level of a wet paper bag, they blow up if you sneeze on them. If you use them the possibility of dying is very very high... When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Solecist Project 32268	Posted - 2016.08.20 20:32:39 - [308] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Earlier in this thread you said you were using coveters, three of them, they are the most useless mining shps in the game with a tank that is not even up to the level of a wet paper bag, they blow up if you sneeze on them. If you use them the possibility of dying is very very high... True. Three accounts, all unsubbed btw. Your idea of usefullness is flawed and your self image is seriously distorted. Have you tried thinking of another thought than just the first one that pops into your mind? I bet there's a really smart guy behind the egomaniac you portrait on the forums. And yeah the covetor isn't actually tanky ... ... but it doesn't need to be when you warp out within two seconds at first sign of danger. "That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia Typos. the curse of mobility.
Gunrunner1775 Empire Hooligans 89	Posted - 2016.08.20 20:51:55 - [309] - Quote so, what are you "anti-skiff" people going to do when the high sec miners go back to mining in Battleships like it was years ago you cant gank a Rokh or Apoc with 2 catalysts, whats the difference between mining in a dominix and mining in a skiff?? slightly bigger cargo hold and slightly more yield, bit less on the firepower from drones on the skiff according to Isk the guide pdf... the rokh and apoclypse mine almost as much as the skiff (if they use mining drones)... the dominix is a bit less, but cause its keeping its drones for defense (my version of ISK The guide Vol 1 Aegis 1.1) Quote: In the table below, all relevant skills are maxed out for the sake of comparing the options available. Fleet bonuses are not applied in this table for simplicityGÇÖs sake, nor are MLUs applied for the same reason. To have a broader picture, the yield from the drones is included Apoc - 2251 m3/3min Rokh - 2251 m3/3min (can fit a better tank then the proc or skiff as well ) Dominix w/o drones - 1688 m3/3min vs Procurer - 2340 m3 / 3min Skiff - 2610 m3/3min
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2273	Posted - 2016.08.20 21:04:44 - [310] - Quote Gunrunner1775 wrote: so, what are you "anti-skiff" people going to do when the high sec miners go back to mining in Battleships like it was years ago you cant gank a Rokh or Apoc with 2 catalysts, whats the difference between mining in a dominix and mining in a skiff?? slightly bigger cargo hold and slightly more yield, bit less on the firepower from drones on the skiff according to Isk the guide pdf... the rokh and apoclypse mine almost as much as the skiff (if they use mining drones)... the dominix is a bit less, but cause its keeping its drones for defense (my version of ISK The guide Vol 1 Aegis 1.1) Quote: In the table below, all relevant skills are maxed out for the sake of comparing the options available. Fleet bonuses are not applied in this table for simplicityGÇÖs sake, nor are MLUs applied for the same reason. To have a broader picture, the yield from the drones is included Apoc - 2251 m3/3min Rokh - 2251 m3/3min (can fit a better tank then the proc or skiff as well ) Dominix w/o drones - 1688 m3/3min vs Procurer - 2340 m3 / 3min Skiff - 2610 m3/3min So Rokh for me then if they nerf the Skiff... Thanks for that, I will set one up and have a look at it, so if you do this CCP our mining Battleships will blot out the suns... When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Gunrunner1775 Empire Hooligans 90	Posted - 2016.08.20 21:20:24 - [311] - Quote according to EFT, i just fit out a Rokh (all level 5 skills, which i have anyway) has well over 80,000 ehp vs hybrid damage, and local reps (i put a large ancillary shield booster on it, thats more then sufficent) it will mine 750 m3/min, and has a cargo of 3487 m3 (keeping drones for defense, not mining) vs skiff which has similar tank, and does 1140 m3/min w/ 15k m3 cargo at least with the rokh, i have option of lowering yield and adding guns to stomp something Dominix - does not mine as much, tank is a bit weaker if you want more cargo space, but the drones are flat out brutal
Gunrunner1775 Empire Hooligans 90	Posted - 2016.08.20 21:32:19 - [312] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: So Rokh for me then if they nerf the Skiff... Thanks for that, I will set one up and have a look at it, so if you do this CCP our mining Battleships will blot out the suns... actualy, that would be a rather funny sight to see... and consider that could drop 1 or 2 mining lasers for guns as well (or remote reps), could slightly lower tank and toss in sensor booster in mid slot to improve lock on speed, but meh, not necessary realy, not in high sec, bring on the catalysts swarms and watch them die
Solecist Project 32271	Posted - 2016.08.20 21:41:48 - [313] - Quote This mining comparison by ships and modules might be of interest to you. "That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia Typos. the curse of mobility.
Shallanna Yassavi Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 337	Posted - 2016.08.20 21:42:58 - [314] - Quote Ganks are over very quickly. Even with remote reps, the barge they're trying to save would be half dead before most of the fleet knew who was getting popped. They have to pop before CONCORD shows up or any reinforcements would have a much shorter CONCORD timer to contend with. A signature :o
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2273	Posted - 2016.08.20 21:46:58 - [315] - Quote Gunrunner1775 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: So Rokh for me then if they nerf the Skiff... Thanks for that, I will set one up and have a look at it, so if you do this CCP our mining Battleships will blot out the suns... actualy, that would be a rather funny sight to see... and consider that could drop 1 or 2 mining lasers for guns as well (or remote reps), could slightly lower tank and toss in sensor booster in mid slot to improve lock on speed, but meh, not necessary realy, not in high sec, bring on the catalysts swarms and watch them die Well if the dedicated mining ships are not fit for purprose then has to be the way to do it. I could even use a Marauder if I wanted to, that would really be funny with Bastion mode and active reps. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Gunrunner1775 Empire Hooligans 91	Posted - 2016.08.20 21:50:28 - [316] - Quote Shallanna Yassavi wrote: Ganks are over very quickly. Even with remote reps, the barge they're trying to save would be half dead before most of the fleet knew who was getting popped. They have to pop before CONCORD shows up or any reinforcements would have a much shorter CONCORD timer to contend with. im talking about everyone mining in Rokhs or Dominix or other battleships... massive swarms of battleships at the roid belts day and night .. its why i said meh, dont need it . haveing a large ancillary shield booster is enough.... the gankers will have to star useing massive swarms of catalysts.... or ... bring in several hurricanes and tornados or what ever battlecruiser is flaver of the month for ganking
Gunrunner1775 Empire Hooligans 91	Posted - 2016.08.20 22:00:29 - [317] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Gunrunner1775 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: So Rokh for me then if they nerf the Skiff... Thanks for that, I will set one up and have a look at it, so if you do this CCP our mining Battleships will blot out the suns... actualy, that would be a rather funny sight to see... and consider that could drop 1 or 2 mining lasers for guns as well (or remote reps), could slightly lower tank and toss in sensor booster in mid slot to improve lock on speed, but meh, not necessary realy, not in high sec, bring on the catalysts swarms and watch them die Well if the dedicated mining ships are not fit for purprose then has to be the way to do it. I could even use a Marauder if I wanted to, that would really be funny with Bastion mode and active reps. would most likely have to use a Vargur marauder shield tank, and 4 turret slots (not much mining yield there)... but the shield tank frees up low slots for more cargo room, and the local tank would make it all but immune to ganking (the fire power they would have to bring would be enourmous)
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17973	Posted - 2016.08.21 03:40:58 - [318] - Quote 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. Dracvlad wrote: Ganking makes up the majority of losses in hisec, with the tank you have proposed for the Skiff 80k to 90k you would make every mining ship vulnerable even if they fitted to max tank which is not giving miners the tools for the job. At the moment the Skiff is corretly set up and is the only choice for miners who do not want to be ganked, as long as that choice is left to me with the tank it has now I don't care what else CCP does. As long as they have a ship which people can chose which has a tank that deters the easy complacent gankers then I am fine. 90k does not do it, but the present Skiff does. So the EHP of a marauder is not enough? Once again you show you have no understanding of balance.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2273	Posted - 2016.08.21 07:50:54 - [319] - Quote While baltec1's proposal is interesting for 0.0 mining and no one can argue against it for that as a concept, it is rather interesting, his suggestions would be an absolute disaster for hisec and the balance of the game there. Most asteroid belts in hisec are very small and in my 0.6 system I often only have one and a half cycles of ore before the roid is gone, that in itself makes a fleet in asteroid belts a non-starter. Most miners in hisec are solo players who have one or two characters in space, you have people spread out in different systems because of the lack of minerals and the only real fleet mining of note is the race around ice belts. Of course there are exceptions and you will see some multi boxers clearing betlts at a insane speed. For hisec the only thing that counts is how much tank you have before CONCORD arrive, nothing else matters, at the moment hisec players have balance in that they can chose ships for yield and or tank, when chosing for yield they have to get that ship out as soon as a threat comes in local, or get aligned and then warp out when people come onto D-scan. That is not really a simple thing as people make out because in some systems there are always gankers in system. So the balance is that you can at this point get into a shiop and fit it so that the gankers have to make a special effort to gank you, they have to bring friends, which I am told by the gankers is what Eve is all about. Sadly for them this is not the case, baltec1 has suggested 80k to 90k as the level which I can point out is directly within the range of solo players multi boxing. He also wants to remove the ore bays as they are now and get back to the fitting choices for cargo, so that a solo miner who fits for tank is at an even greater disadvantage. The balance for hisec is simply this you can chose ships for tank or yield and select ships that are cheap and easy to replce if ganked or if the risk is really great you tank a Skiff to the max which means they have to make a special effort, but you lose out on yield. Currently when you look at hisec systems out of the way you see a good sample of different ships being used, I see Hulks, Mac's and Retreivers all the time, I also see a number of Procurers and the odd Skiff. What I don't see are coveters, well once I did and it was a Goon which made me laugh.... What does this say, well in my system it rarely gets visited by gankers, this means that people chose more yield based fits. If you then compare this to Kino for example there are gankers in tat system all the time, therefore people who mine there use the Skiff. The gankers leave them alone because they are based in various systems and pick of yield and the lower level mining ships, they are not prepared to move additional resource into those systems and gank the Skiffs. So as per normal the gankers because they are lazy and entitled are calling for a nerf to the base hp of the procurer and skiff. In terms of game balance for hisec miners they have a choice based on yield and tank and convience which actually works for them, a major reversal from the complete abortion that they had before, which was a choice between a ship with the tank of a wet paper bag or another ship with the tank of a wet paper bag. At this the balance is fine because people who want to be hard to kill are able to jump into a ship which they can setup to be hard to kill so that the gankers have to make a special effort, if CCP reduces the base amount then that choice is removed from hisec miners. If CCP does this then all they are doing is giving easy kills to gankers again and making it so miners are not able to get into a ship that requires a special effort and that is an issue for the game. It is not my problem that the gankers cannot get enough people to gank a Skiff, it is their fault, their lack of effort, and if CCP makes it easy for them again then CCP will prove beyond all doubt that they are only interested in giving easy kills to the easy kill brigade. You need to think it through CCP. By all means increase the number of slots for the other ships, set up the Hulk and coveter as flexible fleet ships, but leave hisec with the option of the current Skiff which requires the gankers to up their game, if you do not you are letting hisec miners down yet again and will prove beyond all doubt that you are pandering to the gankers in your decisions. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Shae Tadaruwa Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 812	Posted - 2016.08.21 08:04:30 - [320] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Ganking makes up the majority of losses in hisec, ... Where's the data for that conclusion? Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2275	Posted - 2016.08.21 10:03:06 - [321] - Quote 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! When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Geronimo McVain McVain's Minning and Exploration Inc 179	Posted - 2016.08.21 10:07:51 - [322] - Quote 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.
Gunrunner1775 Empire Hooligans 92	Posted - 2016.08.21 11:00:46 - [323] - Quote a quick look at kill boards and from past 72 hours, i see the following as of down time on 21 august 196 exhumers killed in pvp 32.7% = Hulk 37.7% = Mackinaw 29.6% = Skiff i dont see any problems with these numbers
Gunrunner1775 Empire Hooligans 92	Posted - 2016.08.21 11:07:53 - [324] - Quote also in reguards to what baltec was saying about changeing the fittin only 1 thing realy needs to be done all the barges should have 2 High slot 4 Medium slot 3 Low slot all the exhumers should have 2 high slot 5 medium slot 3 low slot do not change any of the cpu pg or any of the other stats, just simple slot lay out, thats it ive run various spread sheets showing the numbers this would allow all the ships to fit for tank (decent tank) OR yield, but they wont have the cpu/pg for both they can fit shield hardeners / extenders / damage control for TANK ...... OR ..... they can fit mining laser upgrades for YIELD they would still retain their basic role concept.... hulk = master of yield / large scale fleet mining, makinaw = master of solo miner skiff = master of the dangerous space miner edit: this is along with the changes to strip miners and other stuff they did on test that i have seen
Viktor Amarr 83	Posted - 2016.08.21 11:09:20 - [325] - Quote Gunrunner1775 wrote: a quick look at kill boards and from past 72 hours, i see the following as of down time on 21 august 196 exhumers killed in pvp 32.7% = Hulk 37.7% = Mackinaw 29.6% = Skiff i dont see any problems with these numbers The really important numbers are about ganks in high sec 55% Hulk 33% Mackinaw 11% Skiff (one moron had a 1.1 bil shield fit and got ganked by a bazillion catas) If not for the idiot with the clown fit Skiff he'd never been ganked in the first place and skiff would have been 0%.
Shae Tadaruwa Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 819	Posted - 2016.08.21 11:16:38 - [326] - Quote 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. Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
Gunrunner1775 Empire Hooligans 92	Posted - 2016.08.21 11:39:37 - [327] - Quote Viktor Amarr wrote: Gunrunner1775 wrote: a quick look at kill boards and from past 72 hours, i see the following as of down time on 21 august 196 exhumers killed in pvp 32.7% = Hulk 37.7% = Mackinaw 29.6% = Skiff i dont see any problems with these numbers The really important numbers are about ganks in high sec 55% Hulk 33% Mackinaw 11% Skiff (one moron had a 1.1 bil shield fit and got ganked by a bazillion catas) If not for the idiot with the clown fit Skiff he'd never been ganked in the first place and skiff would have been 0%. while a part of me would like to agree with you, as someone stated earlier, can not ballance the game off just high sec or just null sec.. have to look at all of it.... if the numbers are fairly ballanced across the board.. then i dont see a problem
Dirty Forum Alt Forum Alts Anonymous 587	Posted - 2016.08.21 11:54:02 - [328] - Quote Viktor Amarr wrote: If not for the idiot with the clown fit Skiff he'd never been ganked in the first place and skiff would have been 0%. So just following along with your math...only 9 mining ships got ganked in high-sec total in the past 72 hours? This seems unlikely...
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17978	Posted - 2016.08.21 12:00:36 - [329] - 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. And under my plan the mining fleet would logi too.
Viktor Amarr 87	Posted - 2016.08.21 12:02:42 - [330] - Quote Dirty Forum Alt wrote: Viktor Amarr wrote: If not for the idiot with the clown fit Skiff he'd never been ganked in the first place and skiff would have been 0%. So just following along with your math...only 9 mining ships got ganked in high-sec total in the past 72 hours? This seems unlikely... Eek, I did it for one day. As in calender day :P Still, the percentages wouldn't be very different.
Solecist Project 32285	Posted - 2016.08.21 12:04:34 - [331] - Quote Dirty Forum Alt wrote: Viktor Amarr wrote: If not for the idiot with the clown fit Skiff he'd never been ganked in the first place and skiff would have been 0%. So just following along with your math...only 9 mining ships got ganked in high-sec total in the past 72 hours? This seems unlikely... Does anyone actually check for this stuff? We all take it for granted so much, we might have heen fooling ourselves all the time... omg, what a thought!! Now i gotta check! LOL "That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia Typos. the curse of mobility.
Gunrunner1775 Empire Hooligans 92	Posted - 2016.08.21 12:05:10 - [332] - Quote high sec looks like in past 72 hours 29 hulks, 51 makinaws 9 skfifs
Solecist Project 32292	Posted - 2016.08.21 12:23:24 - [333] - Quote Gunrunner1775 wrote: high sec looks like in past 72 hours 29 hulks, 51 makinaws 9 skfifs Skfifs. Haha I really like that! :D I went to zkill. I will scrape the site for minerkills in highsec. I assume that the vast majority of kills are being reported on the killboard... that'll be fun! ^_^ "That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia Typos. the curse of mobility.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2275	Posted - 2016.08.21 12:48:17 - [334] - 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. Well that was what I said in a discussion about mining barges and exhumers Stop trying to make points like this its a bit silly. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2275	Posted - 2016.08.21 12:49:29 - [335] - Quote baltec1 wrote: 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. And under my plan the mining fleet would logi too. But in hisec what does that cover ice miners only, get way with you... When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Shae Tadaruwa Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 822	Posted - 2016.08.21 12:52:49 - [336] - Quote Gunrunner1775 wrote: high sec looks like in past 72 hours 29 hulks, 51 makinaws 9 skfifs People should probably not leave themselves so vulnerable when they are at war. Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17978	Posted - 2016.08.21 16:02:44 - [337] - Quote 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! Why should they be balanced (poorly) around highsec ganking when it makes up a tiny fraction of barges killed?
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2277	Posted - 2016.08.21 16:12:00 - [338] - Quote baltec1 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! Why should they be balanced (poorly) around highsec ganking when it makes up a tiny fraction of barges killed? CCP can make the ships also work for hisec, the Skiff and Procurer as they are now are perfectly balanced in terms of giving tank options against hisec gankers, with those ships you have to make a special effort and their yield is less. So what you are suggesting is that the mining ships are balanced ignoring hisec, about par for the course that... When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Dirty Forum Alt Forum Alts Anonymous 587	Posted - 2016.08.21 16:21:23 - [339] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Why should they be balanced (poorly) around highsec ganking when it makes up a tiny fraction of barges killed? You (and a few others) keep saying this... And yet CODE. keeps bragging that they are consistently in the top 4-7 alliances for total kills in all of EVE. Even including all combat ship kills and all of the large 0.0 alliances with their famous fleet battles... So just to be clear: Are you saying that only a tiny fraction of the ships CODE. kills are mining ships? 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?
Caco De'mon The Conference Elite CODE. 56	Posted - 2016.08.21 16:31:53 - [340] - Quote 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? Not a tiny fraction but only 28% according to KBz and that's by ship type. CODE Stats If you do by ISK value then it's pretty obvious that it's transports that pay the bills.... *"See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand."
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17978	Posted - 2016.08.21 16:33:45 - [341] - Quote 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?
Shallanna Yassavi Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 340	Posted - 2016.08.21 16:53:57 - [342] - Quote Of course the most used ships in huge fleet battles are mining ships. Where do you think all those so-expensive-there-will-only-ever-be-a-few supers came from? A signature :o
Geronimo McVain McVain's Minning and Exploration Inc 181	Posted - 2016.08.22 06:24:25 - [343] - Quote baltec1 wrote: And under my plan the mining fleet would logi too. Incursion runners make 100+M Isk/h including Logis, Miners make <30M Isk/h EXCLUDING logis. The calculation Ehp x Dps to calculate the combat value of a ship is good but where do you land with mining ships? Because they have lousy DPS the Ehp must go up to compensate. The main problem is not targeting the passive nature of mining: you have to relay on others to protect you, may it be rats in belts or gankers.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17980	Posted - 2016.08.22 08:10:44 - [344] - Quote Geronimo McVain wrote: baltec1 wrote: And under my plan the mining fleet would logi too. Incursion runners make 100+M Isk/h including Logis, Miners make <30M Isk/h EXCLUDING logis. The calculation Ehp x Dps to calculate the combat value of a ship is good but where do you land with mining ships? Because they have lousy DPS the Ehp must go up to compensate. The main problem is not targeting the passive nature of mining: you have to relay on others to protect you, may it be rats in belts or gankers. The logi are also mining ships, they would have 2 strip miners.
Wayne Donne Royal Oaks Glen Oaks Oakwood Oaks Country Club All My Friends Are Ded 1	Posted - 2016.08.22 16:45:03 - [345] - Quote How hard is this???? Covetor/Hulk: Best Yield \| Worst Tank \| Unique : Range Retrieve/Mack: Medium Yield \| Medium Tank \| Unique : Capacity Proc/Skiff : Worst Yield \| Best Tank \| Unique : DPS
Kueyen Mei-Ha's Light Fleet Coordination Coalition 159	Posted - 2016.08.22 16:53:24 - [346] - Quote Wayne Donne wrote: Retrieve/Mack: Medium Yield \| Medium Tank \| Unique : Capacity Proc/Skiff : Worst Yield \| Best Tank \| Unique : DPS Sadly, it looks like the Retriever and Mackinaw have lost their role bonusses in the current build on Singularity (well, as far as I can tell, they never actually had the +25% yield role bonus listed in their Traits, but now it isn't even listed in there anymore). So now it'll continue the current "Worst yield" for Procurer, Retriever, Skiff and Mackinaw alike. Looks like CCP is struggling to find a valid role for them... Until all are free...
Ded Akara Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2016.08.22 20:39:12 - [347] - Quote Kueyen wrote: Wayne Donne wrote: Retrieve/Mack: Medium Yield \| Medium Tank \| Unique : Capacity Proc/Skiff : Worst Yield \| Best Tank \| Unique : DPS Sadly, it looks like the Retriever and Mackinaw have lost their role bonusses in the current build on Singularity (well, as far as I can tell, they never actually had the +25% yield role bonus listed in their Traits, but now it isn't even listed in there anymore). So now it'll continue the current "Worst yield" for Procurer, Retriever, Skiff and Mackinaw alike. Looks like CCP is struggling to find a valid role for them... So the mackinkaw/ret will be just large cargo hold, gimp yield and easy to gank? Everyone is just going to continue using skiffs and those few who do use mackinkaws are quickly going to switch to skiffs.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5107	Posted - 2016.08.22 21:09:47 - [348] - 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 - [349] - 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 - [350] - 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 - [351] - 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
Dirty Forum Alt Forum Alts Anonymous 592	Posted - 2016.08.22 22:24:38 - [352] - Quote ^ Honestly I think Ganking is in a good spot right now. I don't think it is a "problem". Even a few hundred mining ships a day is barely a drop in the bucket compared to the thousands out there mining - and you'll get no argument from me that the vast majority of them had it coming for not being prepared at all. I just don't see why you guys need to pretend it isn't happening, or down-play it to the point of claiming that "more freighters die outside of high sec" or "more mining barges die outside of high sec" etc... The numbers are pretty glaringly obvious if you bother to look at them...And they indicate that ganking numbers are perfectly manageable - but it does happen, often. A small number of gankers are quite active. Just take the win and stop pushing for more...
Gunrunner1775 Empire Hooligans 96	Posted - 2016.08.22 23:16:54 - [353] - Quote scenario: day 1: log on my 3 accts, set up to go mineing.. use 2x hulks, tank fit, and 1 orca provideing fleet boosts, again tank fit i start mineing.. shortly "hostile" group shows up.. i been at keyboard paying attention... so i warp off. and dock... i have no tank what so ever to speak of... even when tank fit.. i have no real offensive capabilities... so. my only option is to dock up so i dock up, day wasted day 2: change in plans... orca too risky, too slow.. so opt to go with 3x mackinaw . again tank fit same thing happens.. hostile party shows up... i dock up... cant mine cause again, even tank fit, got paper tank, and got no real offensive abilities to speak of day 3: i go with 3x skiffs.... full tank, a few hostiles show up, i dont immediatly dock, but keep an eye out on local... i can now be a bit braver until a bunch of hostiles show up.. at which point i would dock up, but not when just 1 or 2 shows up end results.. i now always mine in a skiff... i have the tank to survive but sacrifice some income... flying a hulk or a mack, ends up sacrificeing more income because you spend more time docked up avoiding the gankers you cant fight them or defend aginst them in a hulk or mackinaw... but in a skiff, at least you have a chance at surviveing ... you have no chance at all in the other two .. nurfing the skiff wont solve the issue... it will just mean people quit mineing and do other things, or they quit the game because they can no longer do the thing they enjoy doing (and even if you do not want to belive it, or if your just a complete and total idiot and totaly clueless about the economy of the game... this would be a very very bad thing for the overall economy)
Dirty Forum Alt Forum Alts Anonymous 595	Posted - 2016.08.22 23:28:41 - [354] - Quote Gunrunner1775 wrote: (and even if you do not want to belive it, or if your just a complete and total idiot and totaly clueless about the economy of the game... this would be a very very bad thing for the overall economy) Must we really start that entire argument...again? Also: Day 4: I realize my orca has a huge fleet hangar I've been failing to use, so I fit my orca for tank + mining boosts, load up the fleet hangar with a Scimitar and a svipul, and undock my 2x hulks + orca and go mine. When the "hostile" group shows up in local, I smile to myself as I open up the fleet hangar on the orca. As the red catalysts become visible on grid (now a good 15-30 seconds before they can actually do anything due to enormous modern grid sizes) I calmly re-ship into my logistics ship + svipul, and lock all of my ships so I'm ready to apply logistics to whoever gets shot. I also set the logi to orbit at 20km, and make sure the svipul is in targetting mode. As the catalysts finish landing on grid, I spam ctrl + click on them with my svipul pilot to insta-lock them, with my artillery prepped to fire. Once my artillery activates on the first catalyst I activate my warp disruptor on the second, and see how many I can kill before they either suicide or flee. When my svipul takes fire, I repair it easily. If the gankers target my orca? Still plenty of time to transfer RR over to it. I make sure to kill the capsules of my enemies as well, and leave their corpses floating in the void of space as a warning to others. Days 5, 6, and 7 continue much the same - I get high yield from mining and also 50-60 million isk of free ganker loot occasionally. Maybe I throw a few blackbirds into my orca fleet hangar to counter the inevitable bomber/talos attack on my max-tanked orca - or maybe I resign myself to the fact that I'll make more isk looting the ganker wrecks than saving the orca anyway. In any case, my EVE mining career is now much more exciting, and more profitable! Yaaaay EVE \o/
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 654	Posted - 2016.08.22 23:40:37 - [355] - Quote I love it when you talk Dirty
Gunrunner1775 Empire Hooligans 96	Posted - 2016.08.22 23:51:24 - [356] - Quote while i love your description, and i have used a varient of that.... its not as effective in high sec.... example:.. yes, i swap to combat ships technicaly i can not shoot at them until they shoot at me first in high sec, or else i will get myself concorded (which i do not desire) in theory, they can warp in, and just sit there and follow me around and take no action, at which point, i am again unable to mine (unless i am mineing in a skiff, at which point i can mine if its only a couple of catalysts... if its about dozen give or take, then yea, time to dock up)
Dirty Forum Alt Forum Alts Anonymous 595	Posted - 2016.08.22 23:55:13 - [357] - Quote Gunrunner1775 wrote: while i love your description, and i have used a varient of that.... its not as effective in high sec.... example:.. yes, i swap to combat ships technicaly i can not shoot at them until they shoot at me first in high sec, or else i will get myself concorded (which i do not desire) in theory, they can warp in, and just sit there and follow me around and take no action, at which point, i am again unable to mine (unless i am mineing in a skiff, at which point i can mine if its only a couple of catalysts... if its about dozen give or take, then yea, time to dock up) I believe you will find most gankers these days you can shoot before they shoot you. They've been at it a while now, they are pretty much all -10. The ones who aren't -10 are the newbs they've recruited - who are much less threatening in general anyway, but also more likely to panic and fire uselessly.
Gunrunner1775 Empire Hooligans 96	Posted - 2016.08.22 23:58:44 - [358] - Quote LOL had just edited my post to state that i have observed the direct oppisite of what you are saying different regions of space im guessing... 99% of the freighter gankers i have observed are all -10, but the miner gankers, at least the ones i have followed around observing, im guessing these must be their alts (or mains) and they use another toon to farm tags to fix security status, or hunt rats just enough to fix it
Dirty Forum Alt Forum Alts Anonymous 595	Posted - 2016.08.23 00:01:16 - [359] - Quote Gunrunner1775 wrote: LOL had just edited my post to state that i have observed the direct oppisite of what you are saying different regions of space im guessing... 99% of the freighter gankers i have observed are all -10, but the miner gankers, at least the ones i have followed around observing, im guessing these must be their alts (or mains) and they use another toon to farm tags to fix security status, or hunt rats just enough to fix it Well fair enough. There is an even sneakier trick to use if you aren't up against the harder-core ones who bring a lot more numbers then: Instead of combat ships, pack some max-tanked skiffs in the orca....and see if they notice the swap
Gunrunner1775 Empire Hooligans 96	Posted - 2016.08.23 00:03:51 - [360] - Quote with the change in the graphics of the exhumers that is on test... the swap from hulk to skiff.. and them not notice, MIGHT work.. depends on how they got the overview set and if they are paying attention graphics are so damned similar, and all of them have 2 strip miners.... unless you zoom in, or have overview set right... you cant tell the difference
Dirty Forum Alt Forum Alts Anonymous 595	Posted - 2016.08.23 00:05:54 - [361] - Quote Well worst case it means you get max yield when they aren't around and even when they show up instead of not mining you just go down to slightly reduced yield. And in the ideal case you get the free ganker loot to boost profits My point is if you get creative you can turn the tables on them, and instead of ruining your day they actually make things better. Nothing is 100% foolproof - but it is a game, so if you can find ways to make it fun even when others are trying to ruin your fun...that is a win.
Gunrunner1775 Empire Hooligans 96	Posted - 2016.08.23 00:18:58 - [362] - Quote while i totaly agree with what you are saying most folks will just say screw it and mine with a skiff... at least in high sec.. in WH space, i always use a skiff, stabbed and all that other good stuff,, especialy those that do not have orca support hulk and mack, just too paper thin. and even when paying attention, you gotta dock up, because you just will not survive 1-2 cats comeing in to gank you... and docked up miners = no income 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 )
Dirty Forum Alt Forum Alts Anonymous 595	Posted - 2016.08.23 00:21:16 - [363] - Quote Gunrunner1775 wrote: while i totaly agree with what you are saying most folks will just say screw it and mine with a skiff... at least in high sec.. in WH space, i always use a skiff, stabbed and all that other good stuff,, especialy those that do not have orca support hulk and mack, just too paper thin. and even when paying attention, you gotta dock up, because you just will not survive 1-2 cats comeing in to gank you... and docked up miners = no income 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 ) Last time people started mining with rokh's they buffed mining ships w/ ore holds lol One way or another the universe will keep going, and miners will find ways to mine - even if they are all in ventures/endurances edit: Or even if they all end up in battleships
Gunrunner1775 Empire Hooligans 96	Posted - 2016.08.23 00:24:17 - [364] - Quote i still wanna see it, just for the hell of it, fleets of battleships mining astroids (think i used an osprey back in the day, and then a rokh befor i had the skills for exhumers, and befor they changed up all the mining skills ) ... would mine gas in wormholes with a cormorant and later a ferox back then as well
Vincent Athena V.I.C.E. 3906	Posted - 2016.08.23 01:37:06 - [365] - Quote I remember when CCP said they were redoing exhumers. I recommended they look at the mining Rokh, and make sure that, when compared to a Rokh, exhumers were preferable. That is, when you want to mine with a big tank, you would not prefer the Rokh to an exhumer, when the Rokh is fitted for cargo, you would not prefer it over an exhumer, and when the Rohk is fitted for yield, you would not prefer it over an exhumer. Know a Frozen fan? Check this out Frozen fanfiction
Gunrunner1775 Empire Hooligans 96	Posted - 2016.08.23 01:39:12 - [366] - Quote Vincent Athena wrote: I remember when CCP said they were redoing exhumers. I recommended they look at the mining Rokh, and make sure that, when compared to a Rokh, exhumers were preferable. That is, when you want to mine with a big tank, you would not prefer the Rokh to an exhumer, when the Rokh is fitted for cargo, you would not prefer it over an exhumer, and when the Rohk is fitted for yield, you would not prefer it over an exhumer. well , if they nurf the skiff. its garunteed that a huge chunk of miners would prefer mining in a rokh over that of a mack or hulk
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17986	Posted - 2016.08.23 07:08:00 - [367] - Quote Gunrunner1775 Why are you so determined to have no options for the mining barges?
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2298	Posted - 2016.08.23 07:21:39 - [368] - Quote Gunrunner1775 wrote: Vincent Athena wrote: I remember when CCP said they were redoing exhumers. I recommended they look at the mining Rokh, and make sure that, when compared to a Rokh, exhumers were preferable. That is, when you want to mine with a big tank, you would not prefer the Rokh to an exhumer, when the Rokh is fitted for cargo, you would not prefer it over an exhumer, and when the Rohk is fitted for yield, you would not prefer it over an exhumer. well , if they nurf the skiff. its garunteed that a huge chunk of miners would prefer mining in a rokh over that of a mack or hulk Well I am fitting one up ready for this nerf, our Rokh's will blot out the sun.... When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2298	Posted - 2016.08.23 07:23:54 - [369] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Gunrunner1775 Why are you so determined to have no options for the mining barges? It is you who wants no options for mining barges and exhumers, you just want easy gank targets to farm in hisec and are using 0.0 mining as a smoekscreen, after all PL mine in their sov space, not... When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17986	Posted - 2016.08.23 07:26:44 - [370] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: baltec1 wrote: Gunrunner1775 Why are you so determined to have no options for the mining barges? It is you who wants no options for mining barges and exhumers, you just want easy gank targets to farm in hisec and are using 0.0 mining as a smoekscreen, after all PL mine in their sov space, not... Again, same EHP as a marauder coupled with an offensive bonus to drones is not easy to gank, especially when they would have logi support.
Solecist Project 32330	Posted - 2016.08.23 07:32:42 - [371] - Quote I see you have reached zero progress. "That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia Typos. the curse of mobility.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2298	Posted - 2016.08.23 07:33:34 - [372] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: baltec1 wrote: Gunrunner1775 Why are you so determined to have no options for the mining barges? It is you who wants no options for mining barges and exhumers, you just want easy gank targets to farm in hisec and are using 0.0 mining as a smoekscreen, after all PL mine in their sov space, not... Again, same EHP as a marauder coupled with an offensive bonus to drones is not easy to gank, especially when they would have logi support. Most people do solo mining in hisec your ideas are not relevant to hisec. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17987	Posted - 2016.08.23 07:37:41 - [373] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Most people do solo mining in hisec your ideas are not relevant to hisec. All incursion maurauders are in highsec, almost all mission battleships are in highsec, they have 80k ehp, skiff will get 80-90k ehp, please explain how the skiff will not be able to survive solo in highsec while all of these battleships get along just fine.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2298	Posted - 2016.08.23 07:41:00 - [374] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Most people do solo mining in hisec your ideas are not relevant to hisec. All incursion maurauders are in highsec, almost all mission battleships are in highsec, they have 80k ehp, skiff will get 80-90k ehp, please explain how the skiff will not be able to survive solo in highsec while all of these battleships get along just fine. Pretty obvious that is not comparable. For a start can you solo incursions? When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2298	Posted - 2016.08.23 07:42:15 - [375] - Quote Gunrunner1775 wrote: Vincent Athena wrote: I remember when CCP said they were redoing exhumers. I recommended they look at the mining Rokh, and make sure that, when compared to a Rokh, exhumers were preferable. That is, when you want to mine with a big tank, you would not prefer the Rokh to an exhumer, when the Rokh is fitted for cargo, you would not prefer it over an exhumer, and when the Rohk is fitted for yield, you would not prefer it over an exhumer. well , if they nurf the skiff. its garunteed that a huge chunk of miners would prefer mining in a rokh over that of a mack or hulk Would you be able to send me a fit in game, thanks. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17987	Posted - 2016.08.23 07:43:53 - [376] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Most people do solo mining in hisec your ideas are not relevant to hisec. All incursion maurauders are in highsec, almost all mission battleships are in highsec, they have 80k ehp, skiff will get 80-90k ehp, please explain how the skiff will not be able to survive solo in highsec while all of these battleships get along just fine. Pretty obvious that is not comparable. For a start can you solo incursions? Notice that part where I added all the solo mission runners? Answer the question.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2298	Posted - 2016.08.23 07:50:00 - [377] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Most people do solo mining in hisec your ideas are not relevant to hisec. All incursion maurauders are in highsec, almost all mission battleships are in highsec, they have 80k ehp, skiff will get 80-90k ehp, please explain how the skiff will not be able to survive solo in highsec while all of these battleships get along just fine. Pretty obvious that is not comparable. For a start can you solo incursions? Notice that part where I added all the solo mission runners? Answer the question. Gates anyone? Using a MJD to be away from the warp in, NPC aggro... When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17987	Posted - 2016.08.23 07:56:02 - [378] - Quote 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?
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2298	Posted - 2016.08.23 07:57:11 - [379] - Quote 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. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2298	Posted - 2016.08.23 08:01:21 - [380] - Quote 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... When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17987	Posted - 2016.08.23 08:10:15 - [381] - Quote 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.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2298	Posted - 2016.08.23 08:21:07 - [382] - Quote 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.... When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17987	Posted - 2016.08.23 08:30:40 - [383] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Better is a relative term mate and that is all one has to say.... Which is to say, it isn't. It either can't mine as much or cant fit a tank and not mine as much and in both cases its cargo hold is non existent. So you are saying you would use a subpar ship that is worse than the skiff in my plan. Go figure.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2298	Posted - 2016.08.23 08:38:48 - [384] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Better is a relative term mate and that is all one has to say.... Which is to say, it isn't. It either can't mine as much or cant fit a tank and not mine as much and in both cases its cargo hold is non existent. So you are saying you would use a subpar ship that is worse than the skiff in my plan. Go figure. The Skiff under your nerf suggestion would be worse for me, it goes from being optimised for hisec mining to being optimised for ganking. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17987	Posted - 2016.08.23 08:41:21 - [385] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: The Skiff under your nerf suggestion would be worse for me, it goes from being optimised for hisec mining to being optimised for ganking. Again, same EHP as almost every battleship currently operating perfectly fine in highsec.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2298	Posted - 2016.08.23 08:42:20 - [386] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: The Skiff under your nerf suggestion would be worse for me, it goes from being optimised for hisec mining to being optimised for ganking. Again, same EHP as almost every battleship currently operating perfectly fine in highsec. Not relevant. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17987	Posted - 2016.08.23 08:55:48 - [387] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Not relevant. How? Same EHP in the same area of space.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2300	Posted - 2016.08.23 08:58:03 - [388] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Not relevant. How? Same EHP in the same area of space. Are they mining? When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17987	Posted - 2016.08.23 09:00:48 - [389] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Are they mining? What does that have to do with EHP?
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2300	Posted - 2016.08.23 09:16:04 - [390] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Are they mining? What does that have to do with EHP? What do mission BS have to do with mining? When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Moac Tor Cyber Core Stain Confederation 686	Posted - 2016.08.23 09:28:59 - [391] - Quote Contrary to popular thought in this thread, the actual usage stats (in ore mined) as given by Fozzie are below. Retriever: 23% Mackinaw: 22% Hulk: 21% Skiff: 14% Procurer: 8% Covetor: 7% Venture: 4% Other: 1% Skiff and the Procurer are at the bottom of the pile of the barge line up. And so if anything they should be buffed if we are balancing based upon metrics (which is CCP's preferred method of balancing) Modulated ECM Effects An Alternative to Skill Trading
Gaius Clabbacus Sister Beneficia's Home of Harmless Miners 25	Posted - 2016.08.23 10:04:23 - [392] - Quote Moac Tor wrote: Contrary to popular thought in this thread, the actual usage stats (in ore mined) as given by Fozzie are below. Retriever: 23% Mackinaw: 22% Hulk: 21% Skiff: 14% Procurer: 8% Covetor: 7% Venture: 4% Other: 1% Skiff and the Procurer are at the bottom of the pile of the barge line up. And so if anything they should be buffed if we are balancing based upon metrics (which is CCP's preferred method of balancing) If only you had bothered to read one more paragraph: CCP Fozzie wrote: Unsurprisingly the Retriever and Mackinaw are still on top (unchanged from the last time we presented these stats) due to the very high value placed on ore bay capacity among a solid chunk of miners. However we don't feel any need to reduce the power of Retrievers and Mackinaws, as their popularity isn't out of control and other alternatives have their own well-balanced strengths.
Dirty Forum Alt Forum Alts Anonymous 600	Posted - 2016.08.23 10:46:02 - [393] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Again, same EHP as a marauder coupled with an offensive bonus to drones is not easy to gank, especially when they would have logi support. Can I get the 20,000 ehp per second active tank from the marauder too if we are using that as our metric? That would be one scary skiff...
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17987	Posted - 2016.08.23 10:57:33 - [394] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: baltec1 wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Are they mining? What does that have to do with EHP? What do mission BS have to do with mining? Same EHP. You have no argument here.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17987	Posted - 2016.08.23 10:58:50 - [395] - Quote Dirty Forum Alt wrote: baltec1 wrote: Again, same EHP as a marauder coupled with an offensive bonus to drones is not easy to gank, especially when they would have logi support. Can I get the 20,000 ehp per second active tank from the marauder too if we are using that as our metric? That would be one scary skiff... mining in a fleet with logi macks will give you that.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 3542	Posted - 2016.08.23 11:05:15 - [396] - Quote baltec1 wrote: mining in a fleet with logi macks will give you that. Nice moving Goalposts Baltec. You got called on your example and you have singly failed to back it up. Especially since your own calls for change including giving barges PG/CPU & Slots so they can fit active tank, prop mods & other modules as they see fit. We all know that these Logi Machs are mythical and will never ever happen because mining is one of the lowest income professions. So stop trying to tout them as some magical solution to things.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17987	Posted - 2016.08.23 11:17:33 - [397] - Quote 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? Nevyn Auscent wrote: Especially since your own calls for change including giving barges PG/CPU & Slots so they can fit active tank, prop mods & other modules as they see fit. We all know that these Logi Machs are mythical and will never ever happen because mining is one of the lowest income professions. So stop trying to tout them as some magical solution to things. Why would not bring a logi barge? It can sit there and mine with the rest and provide logi when the fleet needs it.
Dirty Forum Alt Forum Alts Anonymous 600	Posted - 2016.08.23 11:24:49 - [398] - Quote 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...
Solecist Project 32336	Posted - 2016.08.23 11:30:00 - [399] - 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. Wait, what? Non marauders can use bastion? "That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia Typos. the curse of mobility.
Dirty Forum Alt Forum Alts Anonymous 601	Posted - 2016.08.23 11:32:18 - [400] - Quote Solecist Project wrote: 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. Wait, what? Non marauders can use bastion? No, just pointing out that it is a silly point of comparison - and that nobody would be happy with the ehp they get on their incursion marauder if that was all they got, without the massive active tank
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17987	Posted - 2016.08.23 11:33:08 - [401] - Quote Dirty Forum Alt wrote: 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. Im talking about incursion fleets, don't try to muddy the argument by now trying to reference different ships to what you quoted. Dirty Forum Alt wrote: 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"... That is in an argument over EHP, not in argument over logi rep amount. Again, stop trying to confuse the two arguments to deliberately try and sow confusion. Dirty Forum Alt wrote: 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... Feel free to show me a 150k-500k ehp svipul.
Dirty Forum Alt Forum Alts Anonymous 601	Posted - 2016.08.23 11:38:15 - [402] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Feel free to show me a 150k-500k ehp svipul. Just as soon as you show me a 90k ehp svipul. Because that is your number. Now who is trying to muddy the argument? We were talking about high sec PvP Ships. Like this one
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17987	Posted - 2016.08.23 11:48:28 - [403] - Quote Dirty Forum Alt wrote: baltec1 wrote: Feel free to show me a 150k-500k ehp svipul. Just as soon as you show me a 90k ehp svipul. Because that is your number. Now who is trying to muddy the argument? We were talking about high sec PvP Ships. Like this one Shock horror you decide to go for the most broken ship class in the game, the t3C. My 90k EHP is based upon heavy assault cruisers, a realistic number. A number that brings the skiff into the same range as mission battleships and marauders.
Dirty Forum Alt Forum Alts Anonymous 601	Posted - 2016.08.23 11:54:48 - [404] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dirty Forum Alt wrote: baltec1 wrote: Feel free to show me a 150k-500k ehp svipul. Just as soon as you show me a 90k ehp svipul. Because that is your number. Now who is trying to muddy the argument? We were talking about high sec PvP Ships. Like this one Shock horror you decide to go for the most broken ship class in the game, the t3C. My 90k EHP is based upon heavy assault cruisers, a realistic number. A number that brings the skiff into the same range as mission battleships and marauders. I went for the most common ehp-based ship type used for high sec pvp, since that was your example. Most HACs that the high-sec wardec groups are currently flying seem to be active-repper fit... And I never disagreed with your comparison to heavy assault cruisers - I merely pointed out that it is silly to compare them to mission ships and marauders, since those ships only survive due to their active repairs - not their ehp. You are comparing apples to oranges and saying they are about the same size... Well good for you, but they aren't the same in any other way...
Shae Tadaruwa Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 852	Posted - 2016.08.23 12:05:26 - [405] - Quote Dirty Forum Alt wrote: I went for the most common ehp-based ship type used for high sec pvp, since that was your example. Are Svipuls more common than buffer T3C amongst the wardeccers? Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17987	Posted - 2016.08.23 12:07:42 - [406] - Quote Dirty Forum Alt wrote: And I never disagreed with your comparison to heavy assault cruisers - I merely pointed out that it is silly to compare them to mission ships and marauders, since those ships only survive due to their active repairs - not their ehp. You are comparing apples to oranges and saying they are about the same size... Well good for you, but they aren't the same in any other way... They are the same in terms of EHP. Frankly, if battleships are getting by just fine with 60-80k ehp then the is no reason at all why the skiff will also not get by with 80-90k ehp.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17987	Posted - 2016.08.23 12:10:47 - [407] - Quote Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Dirty Forum Alt wrote: I went for the most common ehp-based ship type used for high sec pvp, since that was your example. Are Svipuls more common than buffer T3C amongst the wardeccers? Svipuls are more common everywhere, hence why they get called cancer. All of the T3s are horribly overpowered so we should never be basing anything off their stats.
Dirty Forum Alt Forum Alts Anonymous 605	Posted - 2016.08.23 12:10:50 - [408] - Quote Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Dirty Forum Alt wrote: I went for the most common ehp-based ship type used for high sec pvp, since that was your example. Are Svipuls more common than buffer T3C amongst the wardeccers? It depends who you look at. The more active roaming groups (such as marmite) obviously prefer small, mobile ships - so their top ships tend to be the svipul and garmur at present. The static camping groups (Vendetta, Archetype, etc) tend to heavily favour their tanky ships - so their #1 choice is the proteus (yes, it even beats out the fast-tackle svipul) Ironically although the proteus is a close 2nd, P I R A T is shifting towards a slightly more mobile Cynabal setup lately - so that is their preferred ship recently - and probably has somewhere around the 90k ehp that baltec is talking about. But it is the exception, not the rule.
Dirty Forum Alt Forum Alts Anonymous 605	Posted - 2016.08.23 12:11:47 - [409] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Dirty Forum Alt wrote: I went for the most common ehp-based ship type used for high sec pvp, since that was your example. Are Svipuls more common than buffer T3C amongst the wardeccers? Svipuls are more common everywhere, hence why they get called cancer. All of the T3s are horribly overpowered so we should never be basing anything off their stats. The top 10 most used ships for the past 7 days for Vendetta Mercenary Group: Top Ships Proteus Proteus120 Phobos89 Stratios70 Legion67 Dramiel44 Loki40 Machariel35 Svipul30 Ishtar24 Broadsword15
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17987	Posted - 2016.08.23 12:17:27 - [410] - Quote Dirty Forum Alt wrote: baltec1 wrote: Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Dirty Forum Alt wrote: I went for the most common ehp-based ship type used for high sec pvp, since that was your example. Are Svipuls more common than buffer T3C amongst the wardeccers? Svipuls are more common everywhere, hence why they get called cancer. All of the T3s are horribly overpowered so we should never be basing anything off their stats. The top 10 most used ships for the past 7 days for Vendetta Mercenary Group: Top Ships Proteus Proteus120 Phobos89 Stratios70 Legion67 Dramiel44 Loki40 Machariel35 Svipul30 Ishtar24 Broadsword15 Shock horror, the jita campers use station camping, over tanked ships. Moving the goalposts around like this doesn't change anything. An 80k-90k skiff is still on par with mission battleships which get plenty of EHP.
ChromeStriker Out of Focus Odin's Call 1049	Posted - 2016.08.23 12:22:06 - [411] - Quote baltec1 wrote: An 80k-90k skiff is still on par with mission battleships which get plenty of EHP. Il confirm that just to stop the stupid argument. why gank a T2 fit skiff when you can blap a deadspace fit mission runner lol No Worries
Dirty Forum Alt Forum Alts Anonymous 607	Posted - 2016.08.23 12:25:14 - [412] - Quote ChromeStriker wrote: baltec1 wrote: An 80k-90k skiff is still on par with mission battleships which get plenty of EHP. Il confirm that just to stop the stupid argument. why gank a T2 fit skiff when you can blap a deadspace fit mission runner lol Ah well that is a philosophical question, and you would have to ask the gankers involved... Be prepared for a sermon @ Baltec - I'm not the one moving goal posts around, I'm just throwing your own stupid examples back in your face. If you want the goal-posts to stop moving I'm afraid you will need to put them down and stop carrying them around with you.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17987	Posted - 2016.08.23 12:37:38 - [413] - Quote Dirty Forum Alt wrote: @ Baltec - I'm not the one moving goal posts around, I'm just throwing your own stupid examples back in your face. If you want the goal-posts to stop moving I'm afraid you will need to put them down and stop carrying them around with you. I say give the skiff 80-90k ehp with a t2 fit. Bears say thats not enough. I point out its the same as mission battleship have They say the marauder gets big reps I say you can get that by fleeting up and using the new logi mack. They say you cant do that in highsec because nasty people could then attack. I point out incursion fleets and pvp fleet get by just fine under these mechanics. You enter and start going on about station campers in max tank t3c. This is how the convo just went, me answering their concerns and them bringing up more pathetic excuses that everyone else has adapted to. In the end, these people are arguing that they are literally too stupid to fit the skiff for themselves, to cowardly to fly a ship with 80k EHP and too shallow minded to think outside of the fraction of barges that get killed by gankers.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2301	Posted - 2016.08.23 12:52:53 - [414] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dirty Forum Alt wrote: @ Baltec - I'm not the one moving goal posts around, I'm just throwing your own stupid examples back in your face. If you want the goal-posts to stop moving I'm afraid you will need to put them down and stop carrying them around with you. I say give the skiff 80-90k ehp with a t2 fit. Bears say thats not enough. I point out its the same as mission battleship have They say the marauder gets big reps I say you can get that by fleeting up and using the new logi mack. They say you cant do that in highsec because nasty people could then attack. I point out incursion fleets and pvp fleet get by just fine under these mechanics. You enter and start going on about station campers in max tank t3c. This is how the convo just went, me answering their concerns and them bringing up more pathetic excuses that everyone else has adapted to. In the end, these people are arguing that they are literally too stupid to fit the skiff for themselves, to cowardly to fly a ship with 80k EHP and too shallow minded to think outside of the fraction of barges that get killed by gankers. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Solecist Project 32341	Posted - 2016.08.23 13:16:26 - [415] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Dirty Forum Alt wrote: @ Baltec - I'm not the one moving goal posts around, I'm just throwing your own stupid examples back in your face. If you want the goal-posts to stop moving I'm afraid you will need to put them down and stop carrying them around with you. I say give the skiff 80-90k ehp with a t2 fit. Bears say thats not enough. I point out its the same as mission battleship have They say the marauder gets big reps I say you can get that by fleeting up and using the new logi mack. They say you cant do that in highsec because nasty people could then attack. I point out incursion fleets and pvp fleet get by just fine under these mechanics. You enter and start going on about station campers in max tank t3c. This is how the convo just went, me answering their concerns and them bringing up more pathetic excuses that everyone else has adapted to. In the end, these people are arguing that they are literally too stupid to fit the skiff for themselves, to cowardly to fly a ship with 80k EHP and too shallow minded to think outside of the fraction of barges that get killed by gankers. No. Wbat is happening is argueing over details ... ... to make you give up. Their goal is to make you give up, which to them feels like a win. The topic itself is completely irrelevant. Has been for a few pages already. As long as they distract you and keep you from making the proper thread in f&i ... ... they win. But i'm starting to think you don't even want to do that ... ... which makes the whole activity here a co plete waste of time. You need to up your troll-fu, you are falling for it for days now. You yourself will appreciate it later on when you just listen to me. Sorry. "That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia Typos. the curse of mobility.
Dirty Forum Alt Forum Alts Anonymous 610	Posted - 2016.08.23 13:22:00 - [416] - Quote Solecist Project wrote: No. Wbat is happening is argueing over details ... ... to make you give up. Their goal is to make you give up, which to them feels like a win. The topic itself is completely irrelevant. Has been for a few pages already. As long as they distract you and keep you from making the proper thread in f&i ... ... they win. But i'm starting to think you don't even want to do that ... ... which makes the whole activity here a co plete waste of time. You need to up your troll-fu, you are falling for it for days now. You yourself will appreciate it later on when you just listen to me. Sorry. You are describing both sides of the discussion sadly - just trolls trolling trolls for the most part at this point... Yes I shouldn't add to it I suppose... Sometimes it is hard to resist - and I figure a little mild trolling does less damage on threads like this that are already dead, zombified corpses shambling in circles... Good place to get it out of the system.
Khan Wrenth Ore Oppression Prevention and Salvation 658	Posted - 2016.08.23 13:25:13 - [417] - Quote Dirty Forum Alt wrote: Ah well that is a philosophical question, and you would have to ask the gankers involved... Be prepared for a sermon @ Baltec - I'm not the one moving goal posts around, I'm just throwing your own stupid examples back in your face. If you want the goal-posts to stop moving I'm afraid you will need to put them down and stop carrying them around with you. Baltec's examples are fine and on-target; there's nothing to throw back in his face. He (rightly) pointed out that multi-billion-isk ships, often carrying expensive modules, that provide very nice killmails, do just fine avoiding ganks with the EHP allotment they have. In an ironic twist, you yourself pointed out a massive active tank bonus and inferred that was a reason they don't get ganked as often, when that is not the case. For someone proclaiming stupid examples, you sure are living in a glass house methinks. But your post also reveals a profound misunderstanding at the issues at play here. Yourself and Dracvlad could do well to sit back and think about what is really going on because you both seemed to have missed the point to such an extent I have to quote Solecist Project's signature quoting Tippia. Tippia wrote: That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. . I hope I formatted that correctly. But I'm not here merely to be condescending, I also try to help so I don't have to witness another bout of posting the likes of which you and Dracvlad just subjected us to. The short and very simple version of a much longer point is this: EHP is the last resort of a miner who is is unaware. If you are aware, you can get away with almost no EHP and never have trouble. If you are unaware, no amount of EHP is ever going to be enough. You know why mission runners don't get ganked as often? Because they pay attention. It's not active tank, because a cheap batch of Tornadoes disagree with any assertion you thought you had about active tank. It's not even EHP as much as you think (keywords there), because it provides an obstacle you have to overcome, but it can easily be done if you wanted to. Mission runners are actively engaged with the game. That's literally the extent of it. It's not a mystery or a philosophical debate. It doesn't need a sermon (as you put it). It's just a difference in the way people interact with the game. I'm not even claiming one way or the other is right, "more" right, "correct", "the way devs intended", or somesuch nonsense. It's not even me advocating for Code philosophies, it's merely a fact of the game. Mining is boring. Miners simply want more EHP as a substitute for paying attention to the game. I don't blame them either. I used to mine. It is terminally boring. But you can't fix bad gameplay mechanics with a bandaid solution like padding EHP to prevent people from having consequences of not engaging with the game. If you can't pay even the most basic attention to the 200-million-isk vessel you field, you don't have any rights to complain about it getting blown up. Even some miners have asked on the forums for more interactive mining. If there were some way to grant their wish, most of their ganker troubles would literally vanish overnight. Because then they could justify staring at the screen for hours like mission runners or PvPers do, because the game is interacting back with them. And they would be aware. But mining in this game is quite like being a security guard who simply stares at video feed monitors. There's only so much people can take before their attention lapses. And I don't blame them. This wasn't their design. They didn't make this. This isn't their fault.. The blame here is squarely on the mechanics of mining, not on the miners, and not on the gankers either. Both are playing the game equally, and as equals. Mining needs to be balanced around the yields needed to fuel the economy. That's it. No skill or role bonus should ever substitute a pilot's responsibility to know how the game works or let him isolate himself in a vast, single-shard, fully-PvP MMORPG. So stop making claims about "moving goalposts". The goalposts aren't being moved. Baltec is pointing out the folly of the EHP argument. EHP isn't the problem; the game mechanics are the problem because they discourage being at the keyboard for stretches of time while your ship is out in space. EHP does, however, become a problem in a game like this if it helps prevent you from being interdictable while not even engaged with the game. Everyone has to be interdictable. What should separate the wheat from the chaff (am I using that axiom correct? I'm not completely familiar with it) is people's awareness, knowledge of the game & mechanics, and initiative. Having the Great Wall of China as EHP with Concord to cover you, circumvents that and allows behavior that is ultimately detrimental to yourself and your game experience. Let's discuss overhauling the way we get intel in EvE.
Gunrunner1775 Empire Hooligans 99	Posted - 2016.08.23 13:32:20 - [418] - Quote a few flaws in your argument about the skiff compared to battleships / marauders... the biggest flaw, is those ships have the ability to fight back..... my current skiff fit = 91k effective hitpoints vs omni tank (but i obviously set it up specific to hybrid tank, so that puts it at roughly 110 k effective hitpoints)..... this is by far less then the tank on my scorpion navy issue has (148k omni / 190k hybrid) in comparison,. my miner set up for the Rokh class battleship. cranks 83k effective hp omini tank ( 110k hybrid tank) and mines at about 66% of the rate of the skff .... but... it can fight back, and repair itself..... you can not just compare effective hit points of one ship vs another ship either.... you have to also consider the environment wich those shps will be used and how they will be used, and the offensive nature vs defensive nature of various ships yes, the rokh can mine... yes, it sucks at mineing... but, considering the hazards of the environment, that is a preferable option to a nurfed skiff combat shps / missions ships used offensive weapons and manuverability and various other methods that enhance their defense or offense.... tactics which can not be used in comparison to mineing operations be they solo or small fleet mining operations. the difference in tactis for both high sec and null sec must also be considered as well haveing logistics or other combat ships provide overwatch protection is not a viable tactic in high sec, and not a profitable one either to put it bluntly... no matter what you say or do, no matter how you change the miners in this pass, no matter how you try and phrase is Baltec1, no matter how you want to provide more "options" for the mining ships... quite a few miners out there... will ALWAYS choose tank over yield and profits - nurf the skiff.. and the miners will use battleships... period, its gonna happen, and not a damn thing the gankers can do about it other then wine and cry that they now can no longer gank miners with 1-2 catalysts anymore because the miners are now mining in batleships (hell, most of those T1 battleships are cheaper in price in the T2 Exhumers)
Dirty Forum Alt Forum Alts Anonymous 611	Posted - 2016.08.23 13:36:34 - [419] - Quote Khan Wrenth wrote: -Way too long to actually quote all that - I think you have missed many of the more subtle elements of the ongoing discussion. That is fair enough, as it has spanned many threads now, this is merely the latest one. There are more than 2 sides to this discussion, despite what you seem to think - and I'm a lot closer to Baltec's side on this issue than Dracvlad's (ironically enough)... However Baltec has a tendency to post examples which are either entirely unrelated to the points he is trying to make (as I said, apples and oranges may be the same size, but they aren't the same) - or he tends to simply make up statistics to favour his own viewpoint. And I dunno...I enjoy poking holes in such flimsy, ridiculous arguments - even if I agree with his core argument. I think the primary problem that most people are suffering from here is thinking that this argument is relevant to anything or has any hope of solving anything... None of the sides are even listening to the others, so there is no possible chance of changing anybody's minds here... And CCP isn't reading this **** - they might at best skim it briefly just to confirm it is the same old garbage being repeated yet again. While I do try to remain factually accurate, and unfortunately may have slipped across the line into trolling and used a few weak examples myself here...I think I did better than you give me credit for - if you actually read what I wrote, and pay attention. But ultimately this entire argument is, as Solecist stated, a pointless waste of time... The sooner you accept that, the happier you will be
Geronimo McVain McVain's Minning and Exploration Inc 182	Posted - 2016.08.23 13:48:32 - [420] - Quote baltec1 wrote: They are the same in terms of EHP. Frankly, if battleships are getting by just fine with 60-80k ehp then the is no reason at all why the skiff will also not get by with 80-90k ehp. You realise that a BS can shoot back to reduce incoming damage? I have some doubts about exhumers there. And you can show me the trick to find mission ships just using the D-Scan, which doesn't alert the target like combat probes.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2301	Posted - 2016.08.23 13:51:47 - [421] - Quote Khan Wrenth, baltec1 is just after setting the Skiff's tank so CODE and Miniluv can afford to gank them in terms of cost and manpower, it's lazy and entitled, but most of all they hate that some miners are able to thumb their noses at them. I think the current balance is fine, people have choices, lots of ships getting ganked and miners have a choice to up their game if they want to. I often hear people go on about miners doing such things as aligning, watching local and keeping an eye on D-scan, yeah right, but mission runners don't do that either. First of all aligning is not easy with a 15 km range, second issue is mining in busy systems or pipes with a lot of throughput and resident gankers, then we get onto using D-scan. I mine in a pipe system, and I watch local and I check D-scan, but the ship I use has less yield and a bigger tank and the gankers when they come in always gank someone else and is there anything wrong in them picking people who fit ships that they can gank and not have to get friends to gank me. I am always at the keyboard when I mine, hell I go for a pee I dock up, mainly because I don't like giving an easy kill, and for me the tank being reduced to 7 or 8 catalysts is in the easy to afford level for gankers and easy to do with their numbers. The difference between mission runners and miners is that miners tend to be sitting in easy to warp to locations where people can get a cloaky next to them to be able to warp in and blap. Doing that to a mission runner requires probes, then if they are in a gated mission they are on D-scan for longer and of course a clever mission runner uses that MJD to move out of range of the warp in. It is a much more difficult gank, however some Russians have perfected it. To say it is because they don't want to pay attention is utter bullshite, You correctly say mining is boring and it is, but what the hell is playing the game equally, that's like asking for a fair fight. You have an issue with the EHP because you are not good enough to get around it and a wall of text does not get around that point. HTFU and kill my Skiff, simple as that! When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Solecist Project 32342	Posted - 2016.08.23 13:59:36 - [422] - Quote i won't quote the long post above, yet agree with it entirely. Gunrunner1775 wrote: - nurf the skiff.. and the miners will use battleships... period, its gonna happen, and not a damn thing the gankers can do about it other then wine and cry that they now can no longer gank miners with 1-2 catalysts anymore because the miners are now mining in batleships (hell, most of those T1 battleships are cheaper in price in the T2 Exhumers) Well, they can be bumped off the belt. Without bonus to range that's easy. That serves enough purpose as punishment and will make them rethink that approach. Social interaction, omg, so horrible... And anyone who chooses tank is fine doing so ... ... but in the end does he deserve to be punished ... ... when his character's a sitting duck while he's not even actively play the game. Balancing ships around those who don't play ... ... shouldn't punish those who actually do. "That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia Typos. the curse of mobility.
Gunrunner1775 Empire Hooligans 100	Posted - 2016.08.23 14:12:42 - [423] - Quote i find it funny at so many of the ganks that do happen i personaly have suffered ONE (and only ONE gank and that was YEARS ago).. it was because i got up to grab a cold one from the fridge between cycles, meh, **** happens, i dont swet it... i play active, and i pay attention to local and intel ect... but the paranoia that this game brings out, i will always ALWAYS fly max tank possible and sacrifice yield
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2301	Posted - 2016.08.23 14:19:03 - [424] - Quote Gunrunner1775 wrote: i find it funny at so many of the ganks that do happen i personaly have suffered ONE (and only ONE gank and that was YEARS ago).. it was because i got up to grab a cold one from the fridge between cycles, meh, **** happens, i dont swet it... i play active, and i pay attention to local and intel ect... but the paranoia that this game brings out, i will always ALWAYS fly max tank possible and sacrifice yield You are the same as me, the funny one was one guy who came into the belt I was in and mined the same roid, the next day CODE came in and ganked his Hulk, I was rather grateful... The thing is that I get the impression that so many gankers are cry babies.. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Solecist Project 32342	Posted - 2016.08.23 14:22:57 - [425] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: The thing is that I get the impression that so many gankers are cry babies.. Please everyone pay attention to the master manipulator baiting for responses. Alternatively pay attention to the hurt ego that call gankers crybabies to feel better about himself. "That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds." -- Tippia Typos. the curse of mobility.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2301	Posted - 2016.08.23 14:42:09 - [426] - Quote Solecist Project wrote: Dracvlad wrote: The thing is that I get the impression that so many gankers are cry babies.. Please everyone pay attention to the master manipulator baiting for responses. Alternatively pay attention to the hurt ego that call gankers crybabies to feel better about himself. The idea that baltec1 is interesting for null sec, however it just does not work in hisec, he has been going on about the skiff being too heavily tanked over multiple threads, many of which happened while you were de-subbed. He has cried in another thread about it not being fair that he cannot make a profit out of ganking T2 fit ships. A couple of weeks back there was four separate threads whining about the Skiff's tank. At fanfest, some ganker players were bending the ear of a sympathetic dev over the tank of the Skiff, and my contact came away from that thinking that CCP would nerf the Skiff's tank, which thankfully does not seem to be happening. They gank plenty barges, frigates and exhumers, they have two ships that are tough to gank, they are just not prepared to up their game to do it. It is a whine. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 17989	Posted - 2016.08.23 16:24:07 - [427] - Quote Geronimo McVain wrote: baltec1 wrote: They are the same in terms of EHP. Frankly, if battleships are getting by just fine with 60-80k ehp then the is no reason at all why the skiff will also not get by with 80-90k ehp. You realise that a BS can shoot back to reduce incoming damage? I have some doubts about exhumers there. And you can show me the trick to find mission ships just using the D-Scan, which doesn't alert the target like combat probes. Kill them on the gate, catalysts orbiting at 500 will not be hit by turret ships and the missile ships can get enough vollies off to kill maybe one. Drones are not much of a concern unless the ship comes with a drone bonus in which case they might pick off one ganker. Chances are by the time you even lock them in a BS you are well on the way to being dead. Alternatively, alpha them with either tornadoes or a swarm of arty thrashers. The only difference between ganking an 80k ehp skiff and an 80k EHP mission battleship is the battleship has a larger sig. They say I want to support code but frankly ganking something with 80k omni resists and next to no worth in loot drops isn't something thats sustainable in large numbers.
Tau Cabalander Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs 6352	Posted - 2016.08.23 17:31:21 - [428] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: I mine in a pipe system, and I watch local and I check D-scan, but the ship I use has less yield and a bigger tank and the gankers when they come in always gank someone else and is there anything wrong in them picking people who fit ships that they can gank and not have to get friends to gank me. I am always at the keyboard when I mine, hell I go for a pee I dock up, mainly because I don't like giving an easy kill, and for me the tank being reduced to 7 or 8 catalysts is in the easy to afford level for gankers and easy to do with their numbers. I was in a hisec system last evening. Only me and my alts in local. If the number of people in local > asteroid betls, move to another system. "Space is big. Really big. You just wonGÇÖt believe how vastly hugely mindbogglingly big it is. I mean you may think itGÇÖs a long way down the road to the chemistGÇÖs, but thatGÇÖs just peanuts to space."
Dirty Forum Alt Forum Alts Anonymous 615	Posted - 2016.08.23 17:36:01 - [429] - Quote Tau Cabalander wrote: "Space is big. Really big. You just wonGÇÖt believe how vastly hugely mindbogglingly big it is. I mean you may think itGÇÖs a long way down the road to the chemistGÇÖs, but thatGÇÖs just peanuts to space." Well since you've made it vaguely on topic... I believe the following excerpt from the legendary poet herself is just what we need to sum up this thread: The dead swans lay in the stagnant pool. They lay. They rotted. They turned Around occasionally. Bits of flesh dropped off them from Time to time. And sank into the pool's mire. They also smelt a great deal. --Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings (aka: Paul Neil Milne Johnstone)
Lawrence Lawton The Conference Elite CODE. 9	Posted - 2016.08.23 17:47:24 - [430] - Quote The changes will further differentiate the hulls by yield. Skiff/Proc is currently the only class that requires more than a few suicide gankers to take down, and is therefore considered the safest class. In exchange for that safety it will now yield 25-40% less than other classes. This is an indirect nerf to automated mining, since Skiff/Proc is the ship of choice for large multibox and bot mining operations. Human miners will have a much greater incentive to use Mack/Ret/Hulk/Cov to get the highest yield. Those who are attentive will be able to stay alive by watching local and dscan like responsible capsuleers, and those who are not will be farmed mercilessly as they should be. The New Order is looking foward to the upcoming changes. We expect to see a decrease in the use of Skiffs and Procurers and a resulting increase in the number of soft targets for small groups of gankers.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5108	Posted - 2016.08.23 17:57:20 - [431] - 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 - [432] - 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
Solecist Project 32346	Posted - 2016.08.23 18:15:21 - [433] - Quote 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. Unless there was a change I'm unaware of, the correct number is 700dps if you actually max out the potential. Just mentioning it for the next time. ... did you change your face? That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia 8 Golden Rules of EVE
Dirty Forum Alt Forum Alts Anonymous 617	Posted - 2016.08.23 18:21:16 - [434] - Quote 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. The dead swans lay in the stagnant pool. They lay. They rotted. They turned Around occasionally. Bits of flesh dropped off them from Time to time. And sank into the pool's mire. They also smelt a great deal. Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings (Sussex)
Solecist Project 32346	Posted - 2016.08.23 18:22:55 - [435] - 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. Well that's kind of unreasonable... That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia 8 Golden Rules of EVE
Dirty Forum Alt Forum Alts Anonymous 618	Posted - 2016.08.23 18:26:43 - [436] - Quote Solecist Project wrote: 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. Well that's kind of unreasonable... True - but I wanted to see if it was possible at all - as Teckos asked... Realistically @ 700 dps over 24 seconds you need 4.75 catalysts w/ full t2 fit, max skills, and 3% implants. That is doable to get 5 of them together. Kusion fields 10 ganking alts alone, as I recall - so he should be able to hit 160k ehp in a 0.5 system, in theory, just with catalysts. edit: It actually comes out to 16,800 ehp per catalyst - just for those who want an easy multiplier - 15k ehp per catalyst should be a reasonable amount to actually expect/ask for in general...though if you want to be "safe" you will of course bring extra. The dead swans lay in the stagnant pool. They lay. They rotted. They turned Around occasionally. Bits of flesh dropped off them from Time to time. And sank into the pool's mire. They also smelt a great deal. Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings (Sussex)
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5110	Posted - 2016.08.23 18:29:49 - [437] - 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
Dirty Forum Alt Forum Alts Anonymous 619	Posted - 2016.08.23 18:40:12 - [438] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: 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. Baltec was comparing them to marauders/missioners under current mechanics - under current mechanics you need tornados to kill those ships, as they have high active tanks that make them significantly harder to whittle down with catalysts. That is why it is a bad comparison. edit: In case anyone feels like whining that tornadoes or cats doesn't make a difference, I'll just point out for the record that 1 gank-fit tornado costs the same as 12 t2 fit catalysts, on average... So 8 tornados = 96 catalysts, by cost. 500k ehp is a brick proteus of course...with high-grade slaves + fleet boosts. Now I admit most high-sec pvpers don't fly quite that heavy - but I've seen them before. 150-250k is probably more "common" though, of course. Sometimes even less now that they are starting to realize nobody is fighting back anyway.... But again - it is a stupid comparison, so I don't know why baltec was trying to compare "high-sec PvP ships" to mining barges... (For the record, it used to be up around a million ehp before the t3 nerfs - yes, some of them are that afraid of dying) I never actually commented one way or another on the 80-90k ehp reference...So argue with the people who have on that one... And I've proposed several strategies for fighting ganking using current mechanics. In fact my first response after people complained about going suspect with Baltec's proposed RR was essentially "So what? Kill whoever attacks you..." - again, argue with the people who disagree with you... Anything else you'd like explained? The dead swans lay in the stagnant pool. They lay. They rotted. They turned Around occasionally. Bits of flesh dropped off them from Time to time. And sank into the pool's mire. They also smelt a great deal. Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings (Sussex)
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5110	Posted - 2016.08.23 18:40:45 - [439] - 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
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2302	Posted - 2016.08.23 18:44:01 - [440] - Quote 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. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2302	Posted - 2016.08.23 18:44:47 - [441] - Quote Lawrence Lawton wrote: The changes will further differentiate the hulls by yield. Skiff/Proc is currently the only class that requires more than a few suicide gankers to take down, and is therefore considered the safest class. In exchange for that safety it will now yield 25-40% less than other classes. This is an indirect nerf to automated mining, since Skiff/Proc is the ship of choice for large multibox and bot mining operations. Human miners will have a much greater incentive to use Mack/Ret/Hulk/Cov to get the highest yield. Those who are attentive will be able to stay alive by watching local and dscan like responsible capsuleers, and those who are not will be farmed mercilessly as they should be. The New Order is looking foward to the upcoming changes. We expect to see a decrease in the use of Skiffs and Procurers and a resulting increase in the number of soft targets for small groups of gankers. And this is perfectly fine as you said. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Dirty Forum Alt Forum Alts Anonymous 620	Posted - 2016.08.23 18:46:27 - [442] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: 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. Yeah yeah, see my follow-up post to Solecist The dead swans lay in the stagnant pool. They lay. They rotted. They turned Around occasionally. Bits of flesh dropped off them from Time to time. And sank into the pool's mire. They also smelt a great deal. Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings (Sussex)
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2302	Posted - 2016.08.23 18:47:11 - [443] - Quote 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. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5111	Posted - 2016.08.23 18:48:34 - [444] - 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
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2302	Posted - 2016.08.23 18:48:47 - [445] - Quote Dirty Forum Alt wrote: Solecist Project wrote: 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. Well that's kind of unreasonable... True - but I wanted to see if it was possible at all - as Teckos asked... Realistically @ 700 dps over 24 seconds you need 4.75 catalysts w/ full t2 fit, max skills, and 3% implants. That is doable to get 5 of them together. Kusion fields 10 ganking alts alone, as I recall - so he should be able to hit 160k ehp in a 0.5 system, in theory, just with catalysts. edit: It actually comes out to 16,800 ehp per catalyst - just for those who want an easy multiplier - 15k ehp per catalyst should be a reasonable amount to actually expect/ask for in general...though if you want to be "safe" you will of course bring extra. And that was my balance I want the tanky mining ship to be above a solo player, as Skiffs have been confirmed as staying at this level I am perfectly happy. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2302	Posted - 2016.08.23 18:49:35 - [446] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: 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. What the hell are you going on about, I never said 1-2 Catalysts could gank 80k, stop being a complete tool. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5111	Posted - 2016.08.23 18:49:50 - [447] - 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
Dirty Forum Alt Forum Alts Anonymous 620	Posted - 2016.08.23 18:49:57 - [448] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: And that was my balance I want the tanky mining ship to be above a solo player, as Skiffs have been confirmed as staying at this level I am perfectly happy. Well in terms of Kusion... Honestly he can probably gank any skiff being flown in a 0.5 system right now, with current EHP. Fortunately for you - he seems to prefer juicy, profitable freighters. The dead swans lay in the stagnant pool. They lay. They rotted. They turned Around occasionally. Bits of flesh dropped off them from Time to time. And sank into the pool's mire. They also smelt a great deal. Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings (Sussex)
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5111	Posted - 2016.08.23 18:51:10 - [449] - 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
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2302	Posted - 2016.08.23 18:51:20 - [450] - Quote Dirty Forum Alt wrote: Dracvlad wrote: And that was my balance I want the tanky mining ship to be above a solo player, as Skiffs have been confirmed as staying at this level I am perfectly happy. Well in terms of Kusion... Honestly he can probably gank any skiff being flown in a 0.5 system right now, with current EHP. Fortunately for you - he seems to prefer juicy, profitable freighters. Actually no, he has ganked poorly tanked skiffs in Otela a few times. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2302	Posted - 2016.08.23 18:53:31 - [451] - Quote 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. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Dirty Forum Alt Forum Alts Anonymous 621	Posted - 2016.08.23 18:55:49 - [452] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Dirty Forum Alt wrote: Dracvlad wrote: And that was my balance I want the tanky mining ship to be above a solo player, as Skiffs have been confirmed as staying at this level I am perfectly happy. Well in terms of Kusion... Honestly he can probably gank any skiff being flown in a 0.5 system right now, with current EHP. Fortunately for you - he seems to prefer juicy, profitable freighters. Actually no, he has ganked poorly tanked skiffs in Otela a few times. As seen here Even well-tanked skiffs can be killed. In this case they used 11 catalysts - but you will note that the top damage dealer did well over twice the damage of many of the other catalysts - meaning they had a lot of wasted dps they didn't get to use...so 11 cats was overkill. Just because Kusion doesn't kill well-fit skiffs, doesn't mean he can't... It is simple math. The dead swans lay in the stagnant pool. They lay. They rotted. They turned Around occasionally. Bits of flesh dropped off them from Time to time. And sank into the pool's mire. They also smelt a great deal. Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings (Sussex)
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2302	Posted - 2016.08.23 18:56:47 - [453] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: 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. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2302	Posted - 2016.08.23 19:00:55 - [454] - Quote Dirty Forum Alt wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Dirty Forum Alt wrote: Dracvlad wrote: And that was my balance I want the tanky mining ship to be above a solo player, as Skiffs have been confirmed as staying at this level I am perfectly happy. Well in terms of Kusion... Honestly he can probably gank any skiff being flown in a 0.5 system right now, with current EHP. Fortunately for you - he seems to prefer juicy, profitable freighters. Actually no, he has ganked poorly tanked skiffs in Otela a few times. As seen here Even well-tanked skiffs can be killed. In this case they used 11 catalysts - but you will note that the top damage dealer did well over twice the damage of many of the other catalysts - meaning they had a lot of wasted dps they didn't get to use...so 11 cats was overkill. Just because Kusion doesn't kill well-fit skiffs, doesn't mean he can't... It is simple math. I noticed a couple of multi boxer ganks carried out on skiffs at times, I keep an eye on this for obvious reasons, if he turned up in local with all his alts I would be docking fast even with my Skiff which is not quite max tanked, but close. I think he needs a couple more players multi boxing to enable him to kill my Skiff, something they could do if they really wanted to. My subjective assessment is that it has to be a stretch challenge not something they could do routinely. Actually that is Lawrence who did this, he posted above, the Skiff fit is sub-optimal. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Teckos Pech The Executives Executive Outcomes 5112	Posted - 2016.08.23 19:03:56 - [455] - 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
FT Cold R3d Fire Mouth Trumpet Cavalry 65	Posted - 2016.08.23 19:05:57 - [456] - 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. Just chiming in here, but with the following fit you can tank 180k ehp worth of kin/therm (read cata) damage without heat and 281 with heat: [Skiff, Kin therm tank] Damage Control II Mining Laser Upgrade II Mining Laser Upgrade II Gist C-Type Kinetic Deflection Field Gist C-Type Thermal Dissipation Field Gist C-Type Thermal Dissipation Field Gist C-Type Kinetic Deflection Field Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Modulated Strip Miner II, Pyroxeres Mining Crystal II Medium Core Defense Field Extender II Medium Core Defense Field Extender II Gist C-types are pretty cheap, if you're willing to spend a few more isk, the tank can go up significantly.
Shae Tadaruwa Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 859	Posted - 2016.08.23 19:07:25 - [457] - Quote Dirty Forum Alt wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Dirty Forum Alt wrote: Dracvlad wrote: And that was my balance I want the tanky mining ship to be above a solo player, as Skiffs have been confirmed as staying at this level I am perfectly happy. Well in terms of Kusion... Honestly he can probably gank any skiff being flown in a 0.5 system right now, with current EHP. Fortunately for you - he seems to prefer juicy, profitable freighters. Actually no, he has ganked poorly tanked skiffs in Otela a few times. As seen here Even well-tanked skiffs can be killed. In this case they used 11 catalysts - but you will note that the top damage dealer did well over twice the damage of many of the other catalysts - meaning they had a lot of wasted dps they didn't get to use...so 11 cats was overkill. Just because Kusion doesn't kill well-fit skiffs, doesn't mean he can't... It is simple math. Well over twice the damage of many of the other catalysts? If by many other, you mean none then that's a strange use of language. Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
Dirty Forum Alt Forum Alts Anonymous 624	Posted - 2016.08.23 19:10:53 - [458] - Quote Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Dirty Forum Alt wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Dirty Forum Alt wrote: Dracvlad wrote: And that was my balance I want the tanky mining ship to be above a solo player, as Skiffs have been confirmed as staying at this level I am perfectly happy. Well in terms of Kusion... Honestly he can probably gank any skiff being flown in a 0.5 system right now, with current EHP. Fortunately for you - he seems to prefer juicy, profitable freighters. Actually no, he has ganked poorly tanked skiffs in Otela a few times. As seen here Even well-tanked skiffs can be killed. In this case they used 11 catalysts - but you will note that the top damage dealer did well over twice the damage of many of the other catalysts - meaning they had a lot of wasted dps they didn't get to use...so 11 cats was overkill. Just because Kusion doesn't kill well-fit skiffs, doesn't mean he can't... It is simple math. Well over twice the damage of many of the other catalysts? If by many other, you mean none then that's a strange use of language. Touche - only nearly twice the damage of the lowest damage catalyst. I exaggerated, and I deserved that. o7 It did deal significantly more damage however - or if you prefer the lower half of catalysts did significantly less damage - so there was wasted dps on field. The dead swans lay in the stagnant pool. They lay. They rotted. They turned Around occasionally. Bits of flesh dropped off them from Time to time. And sank into the pool's mire. They also smelt a great deal. Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings (Sussex)
Shae Tadaruwa Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 859	Posted - 2016.08.23 19:22:19 - [459] - Quote Dirty Forum Alt wrote: Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Dirty Forum Alt wrote: As seen here Even well-tanked skiffs can be killed. In this case they used 11 catalysts - but you will note that the top damage dealer did well over twice the damage of many of the other catalysts - meaning they had a lot of wasted dps they didn't get to use...so 11 cats was overkill. Just because Kusion doesn't kill well-fit skiffs, doesn't mean he can't... It is simple math. Well over twice the damage of many of the other catalysts? If by many other, you mean none then that's a strange use of language. Touche - only nearly twice the damage of the lowest damage catalyst. I exaggerated, and I deserved that. o7 It did deal significantly more damage however - or if you prefer the lower half of catalysts did significantly less damage - so there was wasted dps on field. edit: I also included the guristas rats as a ganker - it was only 10 - so already in kusion range as is, even though it wasn't kusion. also, if we divide the damage done by the damage of the top catalyst - only 7.75 catalysts (yes, 8 of them) were required - they had at least 2 spare catalysts on the field. So NPCs are gankers now? **** me, this debate is even crazier than it reads. I expect that sort of manipulation of the truth from Dracvlad, but you are normally much more reasonable in your posts. Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2302	Posted - 2016.08.23 19:23:12 - [460] - Quote Teckos Pech wrote: 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 killed 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. Trying to recover from your catastrophic level of stupidity earlier. For null sec its an interesting idea and I think CCP should have a look at it. 7 is a sweet spot for gankers, it is not for people who want to be difficult to kill, it is not a stretch target and I say this having kept an eye on Skiffs being ganked I have found a number of Skiffs that have been ganked, Dirty Forum Alt linked one I was aware of. So while you in your ignorance dismiss that, I don't you are ignorant on this subject. This is not a miniscule increase in risk, it changes the threat level significantly. The majority of people who mine in hisec are solo miners with one or two ships, not fleets, people do fleets when ice mining and if we ignore hisec mechanics and the issues there it would be of interest to multi boxer fleet miners in ice belts. But not for the majority of hisec miners. So for making it better for what are likely to be bot aspirants in ice belts you want to screw it up for real active solo miners in hisec. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Dirty Forum Alt Forum Alts Anonymous 625	Posted - 2016.08.23 19:25:30 - [461] - Quote Shae Tadaruwa wrote: So NPCs are gankers now? **** me, this debate is even crazier than it reads. I expect that sort of manipulation of the truth from Dracvlad, but you are normally much more reasonable in your posts. I think you mis-read my edit there - I meant it was another mistake I made, when I claimed there were 11 gankers. Just saving you the effort of finding it yourself to point out You are correct though, I'm not in top form today - perhaps I'll withdraw and leave the debating battlefield to the rest of you for the time being o7 The dead swans lay in the stagnant pool. They lay. They rotted. They turned Around occasionally. Bits of flesh dropped off them from Time to time. And sank into the pool's mire. They also smelt a great deal. Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings (Sussex)
Shae Tadaruwa Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 860	Posted - 2016.08.23 19:25:45 - [462] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Teckos Pech wrote: 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 killed 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. Trying to recover from your catastrophic level of stupidity earlier. For null sec its an interesting idea and I think CCP should have a look at it. 7 is a sweet spot for gankers, it is not for people who want to be difficult to kill, it is not a stretch target and I say this having kept an eye on Skiffs being ganked I have found a number of Skiffs that have been ganked, Dirty Forum Alt linked one I was aware of. So while you in your ignorance dismiss that, I don't you are ignorant on this subject. This is not a miniscule increase in risk, it changes the threat level significantly. The majority of people who mine in hisec are solo miners with one or two ships, not fleets, people do fleets when ice mining and if we ignore hisec mechanics and the issues there it would be of interest to multi boxer fleet miners in ice belts. But not for the majority of hisec miners. So for making it better for what are likely to be bot aspirants in ice belts you want to screw it up for real active solo miners in hisec. What do you mean by 7 is a sweet spot for gankers; and based on what? Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
Drago Shouna Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 551	Posted - 2016.08.23 19:29:36 - [463] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Khan Wrenth, baltec1 is just after setting the Skiff's tank so CODE and Miniluv can afford to gank them in terms of cost and manpower, it's lazy and entitled, but most of all they hate that some miners are able to thumb their noses at them. I think the current balance is fine, people have choices, lots of ships getting ganked and miners have a choice to up their game if they want to. I often hear people go on about miners doing such things as aligning, watching local and keeping an eye on D-scan, yeah right, but mission runners don't do that either. First of all aligning is not easy with a 15 km range, second issue is mining in busy systems or pipes with a lot of throughput and resident gankers, then we get onto using D-scan. I mine in a pipe system, and I watch local and I check D-scan, but the ship I use has less yield and a bigger tank and the gankers when they come in always gank someone else and is there anything wrong in them picking people who fit ships that they can gank and not have to get friends to gank me. I am always at the keyboard when I mine, hell I go for a pee I dock up, mainly because I don't like giving an easy kill, and for me the tank being reduced to 7 or 8 catalysts is in the easy to afford level for gankers and easy to do with their numbers. The difference between mission runners and miners is that miners tend to be sitting in easy to warp to locations where people can get a cloaky next to them to be able to warp in and blap. Doing that to a mission runner requires probes, then if they are in a gated mission they are on D-scan for longer and of course a clever mission runner uses that MJD to move out of range of the warp in. It is a much more difficult gank, however some Russians have perfected it. To say it is because they don't want to pay attention is utter bullshite, You correctly say mining is boring and it is, but what the hell is playing the game equally, that's like asking for a fair fight. You have an issue with the EHP because you are not good enough to get around it and a wall of text does not get around that point. HTFU and kill my Skiff, simple as that! EDIT: And I repeat for the cretins who do not get it, mining AFK is not possible, I get one and a half cycle per roid, AFK mining is not possible. If you can only get 1.5 cycles mining then you're in the wrong system, mining the wrong ore, or just crap at mining. Before I moved I was based for well over 2 years in a system 4 jumps from Dixie. I could always go mine Plagio and get 5 or 6 cycles using a Mack, or Hulk or whatever, any day of the week. I let the drones grab Veld or Scordite. Mining afk is entirely possible if you wanted to so stop with the bull, some of what you post makes sense, this is just a pile of crap. Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..." " They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want." Welcome to EVE.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2302	Posted - 2016.08.23 19:36:21 - [464] - Quote Dirty Forum Alt wrote: Shae Tadaruwa wrote: So NPCs are gankers now? **** me, this debate is even crazier than it reads. I expect that sort of manipulation of the truth from Dracvlad, but you are normally much more reasonable in your posts. I think you mis-read my edit there - I meant it was another mistake I made, when I claimed there were 11 gankers. Just saving you the effort of finding it yourself to point out You are correct though, I'm not in top form today - perhaps I'll withdraw and leave the debating battlefield to the rest of you for the time being o7 So you missed a NPC with 248 damage and they say what you said is wrong, you are in fact correct that Catalyst was doing a lot of damage, I get to 1152 DPS on my fit but I think it was not a great fit so nearer 750 to 800. Impressive DPS however. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2302	Posted - 2016.08.23 19:39:19 - [465] - Quote Drago Shouna wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Khan Wrenth, baltec1 is just after setting the Skiff's tank so CODE and Miniluv can afford to gank them in terms of cost and manpower, it's lazy and entitled, but most of all they hate that some miners are able to thumb their noses at them. I think the current balance is fine, people have choices, lots of ships getting ganked and miners have a choice to up their game if they want to. I often hear people go on about miners doing such things as aligning, watching local and keeping an eye on D-scan, yeah right, but mission runners don't do that either. First of all aligning is not easy with a 15 km range, second issue is mining in busy systems or pipes with a lot of throughput and resident gankers, then we get onto using D-scan. I mine in a pipe system, and I watch local and I check D-scan, but the ship I use has less yield and a bigger tank and the gankers when they come in always gank someone else and is there anything wrong in them picking people who fit ships that they can gank and not have to get friends to gank me. I am always at the keyboard when I mine, hell I go for a pee I dock up, mainly because I don't like giving an easy kill, and for me the tank being reduced to 7 or 8 catalysts is in the easy to afford level for gankers and easy to do with their numbers. The difference between mission runners and miners is that miners tend to be sitting in easy to warp to locations where people can get a cloaky next to them to be able to warp in and blap. Doing that to a mission runner requires probes, then if they are in a gated mission they are on D-scan for longer and of course a clever mission runner uses that MJD to move out of range of the warp in. It is a much more difficult gank, however some Russians have perfected it. To say it is because they don't want to pay attention is utter bullshite, You correctly say mining is boring and it is, but what the hell is playing the game equally, that's like asking for a fair fight. You have an issue with the EHP because you are not good enough to get around it and a wall of text does not get around that point. HTFU and kill my Skiff, simple as that! EDIT: And I repeat for the cretins who do not get it, mining AFK is not possible, I get one and a half cycle per roid, AFK mining is not possible. If you can only get 1.5 cycles mining then you're in the wrong system, mining the wrong ore, or just crap at mining. Before I moved I was based for well over 2 years in a system 4 jumps from Dixie. I could always go mine Plagio and get 5 or 6 cycles using a Mack, or Hulk or whatever, any day of the week. I let the drones grab Veld or Scordite. Mining afk is entirely possible if you wanted to so stop with the bull, some of what you post makes sense, this is just a pile of crap. Well I just mined again today and got one and a half cycles in my Skiff. Next you will be telling me black is white, one and a half cycle is not AFK. Luminous Kernite by the way. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Shae Tadaruwa Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 860	Posted - 2016.08.23 19:40:37 - [466] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Dirty Forum Alt wrote: Shae Tadaruwa wrote: So NPCs are gankers now? **** me, this debate is even crazier than it reads. I expect that sort of manipulation of the truth from Dracvlad, but you are normally much more reasonable in your posts. I think you mis-read my edit there - I meant it was another mistake I made, when I claimed there were 11 gankers. Just saving you the effort of finding it yourself to point out You are correct though, I'm not in top form today - perhaps I'll withdraw and leave the debating battlefield to the rest of you for the time being o7 So you missed a NPC with 248 damage and they say what you said is wrong, you are in fact correct that Catalyst was doing a lot of damage, I get to 1152 DPS on my fit but I think it was not a great fit so nearer 750 to 800. Impressive DPS however. That's not why I said she was wrong. I didn't consider the NPC as one of the gankers anyway, and DFA clarified that she had included it as the 11th by mistake. Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
Solecist Project 32351	Posted - 2016.08.23 19:42:02 - [467] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Well I just mined again today and got one and a half cycles in my Skiff. Next you will be telling me black is white, one and a half cycle is not AFK. Preciselyy speaking you are, or are equivalent to being afk as soon as you tab out... ... and can't see any important part of the client anymore. But that's nitpicking and I do admit that it is. That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia 8 Golden Rules of EVE
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2302	Posted - 2016.08.23 19:47:13 - [468] - Quote Solecist Project wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Well I just mined again today and got one and a half cycles in my Skiff. Next you will be telling me black is white, one and a half cycle is not AFK. Preciselyy speaking you are, or are equivalent to being afk as soon as you tab out... ... and can't see any important part of the client anymore. But that's nitpicking and I do admit that it is. If I tab out I make sure that I can see local on one of my clients and can get to D-Scan fast and I don't like watching something when mining, at most a couple of minutes. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Shae Tadaruwa Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 860	Posted - 2016.08.23 19:47:43 - [469] - Quote Solecist Project wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Well I just mined again today and got one and a half cycles in my Skiff. Next you will be telling me black is white, one and a half cycle is not AFK. Preciselyy speaking you are, or are equivalent to being afk as soon as you tab out... ... and can't see any important part of the client anymore. But that's nitpicking and I do admit that it is. The bigger tragedy is only getting 1.5 cycles. Survey scanners are helpful in avoiding that, though AFK kind of implies something I've never been able to achieve when mining. Semi-AFK is kind of the best I do, because even with 3-4 cycles between changes, filling ore hold and watching local, there's not much AFK I ever manage when mining (though I do hate mining, so I might not be all that good at it). Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2302	Posted - 2016.08.23 19:51:02 - [470] - Quote Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Solecist Project wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Well I just mined again today and got one and a half cycles in my Skiff. Next you will be telling me black is white, one and a half cycle is not AFK. Preciselyy speaking you are, or are equivalent to being afk as soon as you tab out... ... and can't see any important part of the client anymore. But that's nitpicking and I do admit that it is. The bigger tragedy is only getting 1.5 cycles. Survey scanners are helpful in avoiding that, though AFK kind of implies something I've never been able to achieve when mining. Semi-AFK is kind of the best I do, because even with 3-4 cycles between changes, filling ore hold and watching local, there's not much AFK I ever manage when mining (though I do hate mining, so I might not be all that good at it). In truth I am not really a very effective miner, just do it when I cannot be bothered to do anything else and I don't fit a survey scanner either as it reduces the tank. But I mine with two Skiffs so I am quite active when mining. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Solecist Project 32360	Posted - 2016.08.23 21:43:26 - [471] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: In truth I am not really a very effective miner, just do it when I cannot be bothered to do anything else and I don't fit a survey scanner either as it reduces the tank. But I mine with two Skiffs so I am quite active when mining. how do you handle a situation when someone comes and outmines you? Imagine i warp in with two covetors and always mine your rocks. Full yield setup, of course. Highsec, in case it wasn't obvious. What do? That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia 8 Golden Rules of EVE
Soel Reit Dambusters 617 Sq 89	Posted - 2016.08.23 21:49:03 - [472] - Quote bump him off with a machariel while mining in my full tank procurer! or call code
Drago Shouna Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 551	Posted - 2016.08.23 23:48:05 - [473] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Solecist Project wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Well I just mined again today and got one and a half cycles in my Skiff. Next you will be telling me black is white, one and a half cycle is not AFK. Preciselyy speaking you are, or are equivalent to being afk as soon as you tab out... ... and can't see any important part of the client anymore. But that's nitpicking and I do admit that it is. The bigger tragedy is only getting 1.5 cycles. Survey scanners are helpful in avoiding that, though AFK kind of implies something I've never been able to achieve when mining. Semi-AFK is kind of the best I do, because even with 3-4 cycles between changes, filling ore hold and watching local, there's not much AFK I ever manage when mining (though I do hate mining, so I might not be all that good at it). In truth I am not really a very effective miner, just do it when I cannot be bothered to do anything else and I don't fit a survey scanner either as it reduces the tank. But I mine with two Skiffs so I am quite active when mining. Try fitting a survey scanner and find the man size rocks then come back because you're right, you're not very effective. Nor are you in a position to post about mining, you really need to get over this paranoia about tank as well, if it's that bad where you are then move. Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..." " They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want." Welcome to EVE.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2311	Posted - 2016.08.24 06:20:13 - [474] - Quote Drago Shouna wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Solecist Project wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Well I just mined again today and got one and a half cycles in my Skiff. Next you will be telling me black is white, one and a half cycle is not AFK. Preciselyy speaking you are, or are equivalent to being afk as soon as you tab out... ... and can't see any important part of the client anymore. But that's nitpicking and I do admit that it is. The bigger tragedy is only getting 1.5 cycles. Survey scanners are helpful in avoiding that, though AFK kind of implies something I've never been able to achieve when mining. Semi-AFK is kind of the best I do, because even with 3-4 cycles between changes, filling ore hold and watching local, there's not much AFK I ever manage when mining (though I do hate mining, so I might not be all that good at it). In truth I am not really a very effective miner, just do it when I cannot be bothered to do anything else and I don't fit a survey scanner either as it reduces the tank. But I mine with two Skiffs so I am quite active when mining. Try fitting a survey scanner and find the man size rocks then come back because you're right, you're not very effective. Nor are you in a position to post about mining, you really need to get over this paranoia about tank as well, if it's that bad where you are then move. Nope I don't fit a survey scanner because I want a maximum tank and the belt is carefully selected for safety and I take specific ore. But this attitude of yours confuses me, I get one and a half cycles as a definition of paying attention to mining, in other words that after two cycles I have to switch rocks, defining that being AFK is just not possible and you start bleating about me not being a miner, are you suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. Yes I am in a position to post about mining, I am not a min/max miner, those people fit for yield, I am a tank miner and the Skiff is my baby and is the ship that players like me use because it can be tanked. It is not bad at all where I am, hardly any ganks, but the best defence for a mining ship is a tank, if you are assuming that I don't do other things to protect myself then you are wrong, I just put a lot of value in being in a ship that is a challenge to kill. The few times that CODE come in I wait and see if they come near me, they never do, and there are a number of reasons for that. For example both of the toons I use to mine are top skilled logi pilots with rep drones to the max, I could go on. I had a Mackinaw in belt with me on one occasion when CODE came in and he had two flights of medium shield rep drones on him. If you are a yield player in a Retreiver then that is fair enough, I am not going to criticise you for that strategy, each to their own as it's a perfectly valid one, on the other hand as I do PvP and ganking is a perfectly legitamite gameplay I work on the basis of defending myself and that includs making a noice about keeping the option to have a meaningful tank if I see it threatened by gankers whining about the Skiff, which some have. Now one of the gankers here in this thread was quite reasonable about it, which I respect him for. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2311	Posted - 2016.08.24 06:29:56 - [475] - Quote Solecist Project wrote: Dracvlad wrote: In truth I am not really a very effective miner, just do it when I cannot be bothered to do anything else and I don't fit a survey scanner either as it reduces the tank. But I mine with two Skiffs so I am quite active when mining. how do you handle a situation when someone comes and outmines you? Imagine i warp in with two covetors and always mine your rocks. Full yield setup, of course. Highsec, in case it wasn't obvious. What do? There are a number of ways, I just keep nibbling away at the rocks anyway, I have done that for hours in the past, one bot did that to me and I followed him around all day reducing his yield, he never bothered me again. You see most bot players would look at the low yield and think what the hell and then move elsewhere, which is what happened. If it was someone who was doing that to annoy me, I would do two things, the first would be to let him get on with it, I don't get annoyed easily, but an option would be to gank him, I do have a trained ganker toon. Ganking a competing miner who crosses a line in bad behaviour is a perfectly acceptable attitude in my book and I could do it easily, that would be a dispute over resources and if I felt like it I would just do it, however in my experience most people have the attention span of a gnat, so I would get bothered for one or two days, I would just go something else for a couple of days or a week and then that person would have got bored. But if he was more persistent that I would gank him. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Lawrence Lawton The Conference Elite CODE. 13	Posted - 2016.08.24 08:07:38 - [476] - Quote To gank that sweet kin/therm Skiff I would exploit its EM hole and hit it with about 10 Coercers, just for being too clever. That Miss Sveta kill took 10 pilots with good skills in T2 Catalysts in a 0.6 with CONCORD pulled, a perfect warp-in, and a stationary target. The target was estimated to have 100k EHP by itself and likely had somewhat more due to passive boosts from the Orca in system. As for the spread in damage, there were some late shooters, but everybody should have been doing a minimum of 600 DPS. Some cats will land outside their optimal range and not apply full damage until they approach the target. The top damage pilot likely had implants and max skills, as well as being one of the first to shoot. We considered it a close gank because we didn't even have time to catch the pod before getting jammed out. 10 cats * 600 DPS * 20s = 120k EHP theoretical max damage output. That one was the white whale. It had survived two gank attempts on other days before we finally succeeded.
Drago Shouna Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 551	Posted - 2016.08.24 08:41:03 - [477] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: The bigger tragedy is only getting 1.5 cycles. Survey scanners are helpful in avoiding that, though AFK kind of implies something I've never been able to achieve when mining. Semi-AFK is kind of the best I do, because even with 3-4 cycles between changes, filling ore hold and watching local, there's not much AFK I ever manage when mining (though I do hate mining, so I might not be all that good at it). In truth I am not really a very effective miner, just do it when I cannot be bothered to do anything else and I don't fit a survey scanner either as it reduces the tank. But I mine with two Skiffs so I am quite active when mining.[/quote] Try fitting a survey scanner and find the man size rocks then come back because you're right, you're not very effective. Nor are you in a position to post about mining, you really need to get over this paranoia about tank as well, if it's that bad where you are then move.[/quote] Nope I don't fit a survey scanner because I want a maximum tank and the belt is carefully selected for safety and I take specific ore. But this attitude of yours confuses me, I get one and a half cycles as a definition of paying attention to mining, in other words that after two cycles I have to switch rocks, defining that being AFK is just not possible and you start bleating about me not being a miner, are you suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. Yes I am in a position to post about mining, I am not a min/max miner, those people fit for yield, I am a tank miner and the Skiff is my baby and is the ship that players like me use because it can be tanked. It is not bad at all where I am, hardly any ganks, but the best defence for a mining ship is a tank, if you are assuming that I don't do other things to protect myself then you are wrong, I just put a lot of value in being in a ship that is a challenge to kill. The few times that CODE come in I wait and see if they come near me, they never do, and there are a number of reasons for that. For example both of the toons I use to mine are top skilled logi pilots with rep drones to the max, I could go on. I had a Mackinaw in belt with me on one occasion when CODE came in and he had two flights of medium shield rep drones on him. If you are a yield player in a Retreiver then that is fair enough, I am not going to criticise you for that strategy, each to their own as it's a perfectly valid one, on the other hand as I do PvP and ganking is a perfectly legitamite gameplay I work on the basis of defending myself and that includes making a noise about keeping the option to have a meaningful tank if I see it threatened by gankers whining about the Skiff, which some have. Now one of the gankers here in this thread was quite reasonable about it, which I respect him for.[/quote] You're not paying attention at all, that's the problem. You're obsessed with tank, nothing else... By fitting a survey scanner you'd pick out better and larger rocks and get a lot more cycles, so please stop whining about a lack of cycles until you're prepared to actually do something about it. Where I mined I have NEVER seen code, ever. You're in the wrong place, simple. In over 4 years of play I have lost 3 mining ships, 1 to a gank very early in my career, 1 mining frigate in a wh, and 1 skiff in a low sec gate battle, a battle that lasted around 8 mins before I died btw. In hs I mainly used macks fitted for yield, when I had my mini fleet of 2 hulks and orca out, they were fitted for yield and every single barge or exhumer has a survey scanner fitted, you simply cannot mine effectively without one, it's just pure guess work otherwise. Where I am now mining with skiffs in null, they are fitted for yield apart from a token tank in the mids against belt rats, they're also fitted with survey scanners...... I used to think Lucas Kell could drone on and on, but you have him beat, all this repetitious posting about the meta game over and over is boring now, as is your constant griping about ganking, which rarely happens by what I've seen in game. I'm out of this thread until I don't have to read the same thing over and over and over and over from a single player. Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..." " They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want." Welcome to EVE.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2311	Posted - 2016.08.24 09:17:31 - [478] - Quote Drago Shouna, That post is a mess. It is a sandbox, if I want to mine at a less efficient level due to putting more emphasis on tank rather than yield that is my choice. My comment was that you cannot mine AFK because the asteroids get depleted fast is valid. I have not lost a mining ship to a gank either, I also pick my systems and my belts carefully. Your choice to use Mack's fitted for yield is valid, I just prefer to go for tank. Well if certain people could stop trying to get the Skiff nerfed because its too tough then I would not post on why that is a bad idea, for me its the option to get into something really tough which has an impact on yield, its fair. And above your post there is a ganker who has effectively ganked Skiffs as they are now, which is perfectly fine. Ganking needs a balance pass in a few areas in my opinion, bumping is one, second is the loot scoop and I think the consequences could be beefed up by loss of docking rights in NPC stations, but I would leave it alone apart from that. Those are pretty clear statements. I also have a lot of respect for Lucas Kell, he knows his stuff. Anyway o7 When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Solecist Project 32385	Posted - 2016.08.24 10:40:41 - [479] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Solecist Project wrote: Dracvlad wrote: In truth I am not really a very effective miner, just do it when I cannot be bothered to do anything else and I don't fit a survey scanner either as it reduces the tank. But I mine with two Skiffs so I am quite active when mining. how do you handle a situation when someone comes and outmines you? Imagine i warp in with two covetors and always mine your rocks. Full yield setup, of course. Highsec, in case it wasn't obvious. What do? There are a number of ways, I just keep nibbling away at the rocks anyway, I have done that for hours in the past, one bot did that to me and I followed him around all day reducing his yield, he never bothered me again. You see most bot players would look at the low yield and think what the hell and then move elsewhere, which is what happened. If it was someone who was doing that to annoy me, I would do two things, the first would be to let him get on with it, I don't get annoyed easily, but an option would be to gank him, I do have a trained ganker toon. Ganking a competing miner who crosses a line in bad behaviour is a perfectly acceptable attitude in my book and I could do it easily, that would be a dispute over resources and if I felt like it I would just do it, however in my experience most people have the attention span of a gnat, so I would get bothered for one or two days, I would just go something else for a couple of days or a week and then that person would have got bored. But if he was more persistent I would gank him. Hold on a second. It's me who warps in. :) I'll adress your mentioned options. Everything we talk about here, like kost things i mention, i did already btw. Great fun, in a weird and interesting way. You would let me get on with it. I will up with mining drones to reduce your yield to a level where you constantly have to change roids and don't really get well paid for the amount of effort. My covetors outmine you by a wide margin and as i don't cafe about the ore, i just drop it into cans and pop them. My attention span is huOH A BUTTERFLY! ;) You can't gank me at all unless you are specialized about it. I warp out within the second of a potential thread coming. So i continuously pest you and deny you mini g income, rightfully, especially because you intentionally cripple your mining with a skiff. What do? The regular options don't work against me. That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia 8 Golden Rules of EVE
Shae Tadaruwa Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 869	Posted - 2016.08.24 11:13:20 - [480] - Quote Solecist Project wrote: What do? The regular options don't work against me. Report you for harassment, because whining to CCP is the fallback position of Carebears. Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
Dirty Forum Alt Forum Alts Anonymous 629	Posted - 2016.08.24 11:22:32 - [481] - Quote @Solecist: Soel's idea of the bumping machariel would still work against you - though it would require an alt. Alternatively his backup plan of calling CODE might work - though I've noticed they rarely come when called lol @Lawrence: That makes sense - and I do realize that between imperfect skills, lack of implants, and coordination issues trying to get 10 different people to all gank at the same instant you need to bring extra catalysts because it isn't going to go perfectly to hit the maximum theoretical DPS every time. I only brought it up because Jason Kusion specifically has been referenced as the metric against which we should measure the skiff - with people saying they don't want skiff tanks nerfed to be "Within 1 Kusion". And I was just using that kill to point out that even a high-tank skiff like that is already within Jason Kusion's power to gank just with his own alts, no special coordination. I'm also assuming that since he doesn't need to talk to anybody for coordination and has his shortcuts set up he can achieve closer to the theoretical maximum dps from his ganking ships than 10 separate pilots could - though I could be wrong about that, i haven't looked into it much. The dead swans lay in the stagnant pool. They lay. They rotted. They turned Around occasionally. Bits of flesh dropped off them from Time to time. And sank into the pool's mire. They also smelt a great deal. Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings (Sussex)
Solecist Project 32389	Posted - 2016.08.24 11:24:29 - [482] - Quote Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Solecist Project wrote: What do? The regular options don't work against me. Report you for harassment, because whining to CCP is the fallback position of Carebears. i know where you're going, but actually that's covered. I know the rules, there are public words from GMs what i am allowed, and not allowed, to do. i won't mention anything not to give any ideas, though. :P That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia 8 Golden Rules of EVE
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2311	Posted - 2016.08.24 12:11:50 - [483] - Quote Solecist Project wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Solecist Project wrote: Dracvlad wrote: In truth I am not really a very effective miner, just do it when I cannot be bothered to do anything else and I don't fit a survey scanner either as it reduces the tank. But I mine with two Skiffs so I am quite active when mining. how do you handle a situation when someone comes and outmines you? Imagine i warp in with two covetors and always mine your rocks. Full yield setup, of course. Highsec, in case it wasn't obvious. What do? There are a number of ways, I just keep nibbling away at the rocks anyway, I have done that for hours in the past, one bot did that to me and I followed him around all day reducing his yield, he never bothered me again. You see most bot players would look at the low yield and think what the hell and then move elsewhere, which is what happened. If it was someone who was doing that to annoy me, I would do two things, the first would be to let him get on with it, I don't get annoyed easily, but an option would be to gank him, I do have a trained ganker toon. Ganking a competing miner who crosses a line in bad behaviour is a perfectly acceptable attitude in my book and I could do it easily, that would be a dispute over resources and if I felt like it I would just do it, however in my experience most people have the attention span of a gnat, so I would get bothered for one or two days, I would just go something else for a couple of days or a week and then that person would have got bored. But if he was more persistent I would gank him. Hold on a second. It's me who warps in. :) I'll adress your mentioned options. Everything we talk about here, like kost things i mention, i did already btw. Great fun, in a weird and interesting way. You would let me get on with it. I will up with mining drones to reduce your yield to a level where you constantly have to change roids and don't really get well paid for the amount of effort. My covetors outmine you by a wide margin and as i don't cafe about the ore, i just drop it into cans and pop them. My attention span is huOH A BUTTERFLY! ;) You can't gank me at all unless you are specialized about it. I warp out within the second of a potential thread coming. So i continuously pest you and deny you mini g income, rightfully, especially because you intentionally cripple your mining with a skiff. What do? The regular options don't work against me. Well I can go and blow mission runners up in Stain easily enough, because I am not a carebear. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2311	Posted - 2016.08.24 12:12:37 - [484] - Quote Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Solecist Project wrote: What do? The regular options don't work against me. Report you for harassment, because whining to CCP is the fallback position of Carebears. Sad, why would I do that, there is enough stuff in game I can do. When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Solecist Project 32393	Posted - 2016.08.24 12:19:01 - [485] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Well I can go and blow mission runners up in Stain easily enough, because I am not a carebear. That's a valid response. Thanks! That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia 8 Golden Rules of EVE
Shae Tadaruwa Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 874	Posted - 2016.08.24 15:09:32 - [486] - Quote Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Dracvlad wrote: 7 is a sweet spot for gankers, it is not for people who want to be difficult to kill, it is not a stretch target and I say this having kept an eye on Skiffs being ganked I have found a number of Skiffs that have been ganked, Dirty Forum Alt linked one I was aware of. So while you in your ignorance dismiss that, I don't you are ignorant on this subject. This is not a miniscule increase in risk, it changes the threat level significantly. What do you mean by 7 is a sweet spot for gankers; and based on what? Plot of the number of gank ships for ganks contained in 5000 killmails for the highsec systems of The Forge, Domain, The Citadel and Sinq Laison from peak EU time last night: https://puu.sh/qMLAu/067c46f623.png Source files: https://www.dropbox.com/s/osrxzznllycy9zw/ganks.zip?dl=0 Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 658	Posted - 2016.08.24 15:23:52 - [487] - Quote This data does not conform to visual inspection per ZKill. I can easily find anywhere from 3-18 on the killmail; I assume the "ganked" includes pods, noobships and such baloney, where "gankship" is not in fact "any non-NPC" ?
Shae Tadaruwa Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 876	Posted - 2016.08.24 15:30:33 - [488] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: This data does not conform to visual inspection per ZKill. I can easily find anywhere from 3-18 on the killmail; I assume the "ganked" includes pods, noobships and such baloney, where "gankship" is not in fact "any non-NPC" ? Edit: I think that alleged sweet spot of 7 comes from (a) number of people you can keep busy or humanly multibox, and (b) catalyst cost vs killmail value. Don't think Drac meant anything beyond that. Source files are provided. Go run the analysis yourself and update the data that was downloaded. Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
Dirty Forum Alt Forum Alts Anonymous 635	Posted - 2016.08.24 15:32:38 - [489] - Quote Brokk Witgenstein wrote: This data does not conform to visual inspection per ZKill. I can easily find anywhere from 3-18 on the killmail; I assume the "ganked" includes pods, noobships and such baloney, where "gankship" is not in fact "any non-NPC" ? Edit: I think that alleged sweet spot of 7 comes from (a) number of people you can keep busy or humanly multibox, and (b) catalyst cost vs killmail value. Don't think Drac meant anything beyond that. Well it is only data for a part of a single day - whereas your visual inspection of zkill most likely traces back multiple days for any given ship type without much effort. I'd be interested in a larger sample size (a month or so?) - but I realize it is an extremely large volume of data to go through. All in all I actually like the chart - and despite the small sample size the trend is still pretty accurate - most ganks happen with 1-3 gankers on the mail. The "7 as a sweet spot" thing is based on what Drac believes CODE. can field on a regular basis without needing to ask people to play outside their normal times/areas I presume. Whether it is accurate or not feel free to argue away edit: The chart even has the (presumably jump freighter?) outliers w/ 29 people on the ganks in there - which does indicate that people are capable of fielding a lot more ships if they are motivated to do so. The dead swans lay in the stagnant pool. They lay. They rotted. They turned Around occasionally. Bits of flesh dropped off them from Time to time. And sank into the pool's mire. They also smelt a great deal. Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings (Sussex)
Shae Tadaruwa Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 876	Posted - 2016.08.24 15:58:33 - [490] - Quote Dirty Forum Alt wrote: Brokk Witgenstein wrote: This data does not conform to visual inspection per ZKill. I can easily find anywhere from 3-18 on the killmail; I assume the "ganked" includes pods, noobships and such baloney, where "gankship" is not in fact "any non-NPC" ? Edit: I think that alleged sweet spot of 7 comes from (a) number of people you can keep busy or humanly multibox, and (b) catalyst cost vs killmail value. Don't think Drac meant anything beyond that. Well it is only data for a part of a single day - whereas your visual inspection of zkill most likely traces back multiple days for any given ship type without much effort. Yes, exactly. I'm not claiming anything more about it than what I wrote above. It's an analysis conducted in the period immediately after Drac was calling people ignorant of the subject of ganking because his observations indicate 7 as the sweet spot for gankers. When asked to clarify what he meant, he ignored that request, but the data doesn't lie. As to what is included in the 'ganked', the included source files show it. There are 20,000 killmails included there, so there's a much larger pool of data from that period to download, but the additional source files are provided to go download more base data. From the base data, each kill is looked at and if the kill was by a player, the next 2 minutes of killdata for the attackers is downloaded and checked to see if they were subsequently killed by CONCORD or a Sentry Gun (indicating they were criminal at the time). If the attackers were killed as criminals, then the number of attackers on the original killmail is calculated and added to the totals. It's similar to the way CCP do the same thing. So, even without downloading additional base data, it's possible to go and analyse a further 15,000 killmails across the highsec systems in those 4 regions, but the analysis will take many hours as it requires downloading further data from zkill. To analyse the 5000 following Drac's claims of ignorance took close to 4 hours, but that's also with terrible internet. It might be quicker for others. Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
Soel Reit Dambusters 617 Sq 112	Posted - 2016.08.24 16:09:59 - [491] - Quote i've finished my popcorns since page 3. can someone provide some supply? bated breath
Brokk Witgenstein Extreme Agony The Wraithguard. 658	Posted - 2016.08.24 17:16:02 - [492] - Quote Shae Tadaruwa wrote: Dirty Forum Alt wrote: ... Roger that- as long as we're aware of what the sample represents, the trend is definitely there. I tend to see 'em in groups of three (gankers- excluding the loot truck/"inspection agent") but it really depends on where you look. They're pretty territorial- and why wouldn't they. Every single day somebody flies something with no tank through their space. ;-) Thanks ladies.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 2312	Posted - 2016.08.24 17:36:22 - [493] - Quote Not to get into a big debate, but it is what I would say from my long term observation is the number of characters that CODE / Miniluv could get together to gank miners without killing themselves cost wise and having to move people around in order to gank Skiffs. This would enable them to routinely gank Skiffs, you might disagree with this assessment or you might not, but I have looked at CODE / Miniluv ganker over an extended period and have a good idea what they can routinely do. The current level of max tanked Skiff is a stretch for them and to be blunt I think it is about right. For example my Skiff in a 0.6 system is about 14 Catalysts which I know they could do if they really wanted to. Would be less if going for the EM hole as Lawrence indicated earlier. Does that help? When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Solecist Project 32422	Posted - 2016.08.24 19:03:01 - [494] - Quote Soel Reit wrote: i've finished my popcorns since page 3. can someone provide some supply? bated breath I give you a pitty-Like. You disrupted my reading for this noble cause of mine. That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia 8 Golden Rules of EVE
Soel Reit Dambusters 617 Sq 114	Posted - 2016.08.24 21:43:44 - [495] - Quote that's what i'm here for asking myself if it's edible a "pitty-Like"... chomp... puahhhh!
Lawrence Lawton The Conference Elite CODE. 16	Posted - 2016.08.25 08:12:40 - [496] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: Not to get into a big debate, but it is what I would say from my long term observation is the number of characters that CODE / Miniluv could get together to gank miners without killing themselves cost wise and having to move people around in order to gank Skiffs. This would enable them to routinely gank Skiffs, you might disagree with this assessment or you might not, but I have looked at CODE / Miniluv ganker over an extended period and have a good idea what they can routinely do. The current level of max tanked Skiff is a stretch for them and to be blunt I think it is about right. For example my Skiff in a 0.6 system is about 14 Catalysts which I know they could do if they really wanted to. Would be less if going for the EM hole as Lawrence indicated earlier. Does that help? You're very observant. Traditionally, we have not attacked Skiffs and Procurers. There are a few reasons: - The wealth of softer targets available to the solo Agent or pair of Agents - By tanking their ships (by choosing tanky ones) they are following the Code to some extent - When you have a fleet big enough to take down Skiffs, you could gank juicy freighters instead Lately we have decided that Skiff pilots need some attention, since there are so many of them who feel immune to the Code and publicly flaunt their non-compliance. We feel that by attacking their last bastion of perceived safety, we will further demoralize the non-compliant miners.
Drago Shouna Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 553	Posted - 2016.08.25 08:25:30 - [497] - Quote Lawrence Lawton wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Not to get into a big debate, but it is what I would say from my long term observation is the number of characters that CODE / Miniluv could get together to gank miners without killing themselves cost wise and having to move people around in order to gank Skiffs. This would enable them to routinely gank Skiffs, you might disagree with this assessment or you might not, but I have looked at CODE / Miniluv ganker over an extended period and have a good idea what they can routinely do. The current level of max tanked Skiff is a stretch for them and to be blunt I think it is about right. For example my Skiff in a 0.6 system is about 14 Catalysts which I know they could do if they really wanted to. Would be less if going for the EM hole as Lawrence indicated earlier. Does that help? You're very observant. Traditionally, we have not attacked Skiffs and Procurers. There are a few reasons: - The wealth of softer targets available to the solo Agent or pair of Agents - By tanking their ships (by choosing tanky ones) they are following the Code to some extent - When you have a fleet big enough to take down Skiffs, you could gank juicy freighters instead Lately we have decided that Skiff pilots need some attention, since there are so many of them who feel immune to the Code and publicly flaunt their non-compliance. We feel that by attacking their last bastion of perceived safety, we will further demoralize the non-compliant miners. You need to get a life. Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..." " They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want." Welcome to EVE.
Dirty Forum Alt Forum Alts Anonymous 645	Posted - 2016.08.25 10:27:40 - [498] - Quote Drago Shouna wrote: You need to get a life. Says the guy insulting him on an internet video-game forum... The dead swans lay in the stagnant pool. They lay. They rotted. They turned Around occasionally. Bits of flesh dropped off them from Time to time. And sank into the pool's mire. They also smelt a great deal. Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings (Sussex)
Solecist Project 32458	Posted - 2016.08.25 10:35:26 - [499] - Quote Dirty Forum Alt wrote: Drago Shouna wrote: You need to get a life. Says the guy insulting him on an internet video-game forum... You're so dirty... That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia 8 Golden Rules of EVE
Soel Reit Dambusters 617 Sq 123	Posted - 2016.08.25 10:36:45 - [500] - Quote Solecist Project wrote: Dirty Forum Alt wrote: Drago Shouna wrote: You need to get a life. Says the guy insulting him on an internet video-game forum... You're so dirty... inb4 a shower!
baltec1 Bat Country Pandemic Legion 18002	Posted - 2016.08.25 10:52:25 - [501] - Quote Soel Reit wrote: Solecist Project wrote: Dirty Forum Alt wrote: Drago Shouna wrote: You need to get a life. Says the guy insulting him on an internet video-game forum... You're so dirty... inb4 a shower! Moist...
Solecist Project 32462	Posted - 2016.08.25 11:14:31 - [502] - Quote Reminds me of Alpha... We hijacked some long thread, just like this one ... ... and even devs started to comment on our epic innuendos which went on for pages. We were sooooo gooooood ... ... and sucked everyone in so deep ... ... into our conversation, that they didn't even moderate it. Good times.. That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia 8 Golden Rules of EVE
Soel Reit Dambusters 617 Sq 127	Posted - 2016.08.25 11:17:07 - [503] - Quote sadly it's all over, eve is dying jk
Solecist Project 32466	Posted - 2016.08.25 12:35:09 - [504] - Quote Soel Reit wrote: sadly it's all over, eve is dying jk Nah. It'll live, but it'll be a mere shadow of its former glory. That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia 8 Golden Rules of EVE
Soel Reit Dambusters 617 Sq 128	Posted - 2016.08.25 12:55:59 - [505] - Quote even in the darkest soul there is a bright light... ...nothing will stay forever... and nothing will begone forever... EVE will rise again... the phoenix is not a legend!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 2705	Posted - 2016.08.25 16:04:55 - [506] - Quote The Proc has such an insane tank already on the hull and you can just use all the mids for utility it has become my favorite scout and loot ship by far. The only thing that I am missing is a second Highslot and the cpu/power to fit an expanded probe launcher. Looks like it may even get that second high slot, so I am looking forward to this patch. the Code ALWAYS wins Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
Solecist Project 32483	Posted - 2016.08.25 16:20:17 - [507] - Quote Ima Wreckyou wrote: The Proc has such an insane tank already on the hull and you can just use all the mids for utility it has become my favorite scout and loot ship by far. The only thing that I am missing is a second Highslot and the cpu/power to fit an expanded probe launcher. Looks like it may even get that second high slot, so I am looking forward to this patch. Have you considered using a cap booster for instant onlining of several modules? I used this on an speedy tacklint interceptor back before there were cpu rigs and it worked greatly. That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia 8 Golden Rules of EVE
Ima Wreckyou The Conference Elite CODE. 2705	Posted - 2016.08.25 16:24:06 - [508] - Quote Solecist Project wrote: Ima Wreckyou wrote: The Proc has such an insane tank already on the hull and you can just use all the mids for utility it has become my favorite scout and loot ship by far. The only thing that I am missing is a second Highslot and the cpu/power to fit an expanded probe launcher. Looks like it may even get that second high slot, so I am looking forward to this patch. Have you considered using a cap booster for instant onlining of several modules? I used this on an speedy tacklint interceptor back before there were cpu rigs and it worked greatly. Never even thought about that. What a nice idea thx sol the Code ALWAYS wins Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
Dirty Forum Alt Forum Alts Anonymous 655	Posted - 2016.08.25 16:27:13 - [509] - Quote Can also just dump out a depot for infinite refitting - only down-side is the 60 second delay. And you can always hope somebody will shoot it and go suspect... The dead swans lay in the stagnant pool. They lay. They rotted. They turned Around occasionally. Bits of flesh dropped off them from Time to time. And sank into the pool's mire. They also smelt a great deal. Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings (Sussex)
Lawrence Lawton The Conference Elite CODE. 17	Posted - 2016.08.25 16:59:17 - [510] - Quote Drago Shouna wrote: Lawrence Lawton wrote: Dracvlad wrote: Not to get into a big debate, but it is what I would say from my long term observation is the number of characters that CODE / Miniluv could get together to gank miners without killing themselves cost wise and having to move people around in order to gank Skiffs. This would enable them to routinely gank Skiffs, you might disagree with this assessment or you might not, but I have looked at CODE / Miniluv ganker over an extended period and have a good idea what they can routinely do. The current level of max tanked Skiff is a stretch for them and to be blunt I think it is about right. For example my Skiff in a 0.6 system is about 14 Catalysts which I know they could do if they really wanted to. Would be less if going for the EM hole as Lawrence indicated earlier. Does that help? You're very observant. Traditionally, we have not attacked Skiffs and Procurers. There are a few reasons: - The wealth of softer targets available to the solo Agent or pair of Agents - By tanking their ships (by choosing tanky ones) they are following the Code to some extent - When you have a fleet big enough to take down Skiffs, you could gank juicy freighters instead Lately we have decided that Skiff pilots need some attention, since there are so many of them who feel immune to the Code and publicly flaunt their non-compliance. We feel that by attacking their last bastion of perceived safety, we will further demoralize the non-compliant miners. You need to get a life. You need to get a Permit. Mining indulgences may be purchased for 10 million isk per character, and are good for one year, subject to forfeiture. Highsec is worth saving. Support us in our cause of saving highsec from bots and bot aspirants.
Brigadine Ferathine The Valiant Vanguard The Volition Cult 110	Posted - 2016.08.30 05:04:55 - [511] - Quote Dirty Forum Alt wrote: Drago Shouna wrote: You need to get a life. Says the guy insulting him on an internet video-game forum... says the person who cares enough to comment on a comment on a video game forum.
Dirty Forum Alt Forum Alts Anonymous 689	Posted - 2016.08.30 11:53:52 - [512] - Quote Brigadine Ferathine wrote: Dirty Forum Alt wrote: Drago Shouna wrote: You need to get a life. Says the guy insulting him on an internet video-game forum... says the person who cares enough to comment on a comment on a video game forum. Well there is commenting... Then there is insulting... And then there is telling someone to "get a life" while demonstrating that you have none yourself... I try to limit myself to the first 2. If you can't tell the difference, that is your own problem. The dead swans lay in the stagnant pool. They lay. They rotted. They turned Around occasionally. Bits of flesh dropped off them from Time to time. And sank into the pool's mire. They also smelt a great deal. Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings (Sussex)
Solecist Project 32671	Posted - 2016.08.30 12:02:48 - [513] - Quote y'all done now? Could we please start doing something effective against idiots and their abuse of free speech? That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia 8 Golden Rules of EVE
Brigadine Ferathine The Valiant Vanguard The Volition Cult 111	Posted - 2016.08.30 16:24:13 - [514] - Quote Solecist Project wrote: y'all done now? Could we please start doing something effective against idiots and their abuse of free speech? Abuse of free speech? There is no such thing.
Andrea Cemenotar Elena Minasse Operations 12	Posted - 2016.08.30 17:17:30 - [515] - Quote Solecist Project wrote: y'all done now? Could we please start doing something effective against idiots and their abuse of free speech? "abuse of free speech" it sounds so weird I like that statement lol
Lisbeth Riraille Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 72	Posted - 2016.09.01 18:14:00 - [516] - Quote Sheesh, it took me all day to wade through Balsac's thread! Are they nerfing the base EHP of Skiffs and Procs soon? I'm a miner, and I choose tank over yield when I'm fitting my pod. My second bit of fitting is to wrap my pod in a Skiff or a Proc. Then I know I'm well on my way to being gank-resistant. Thirdly, I fit modules and whatnot that increase my tank and ability to align quicker, maybe, anything that doesn't interfere with my tank. The first thing I do to avoid getting ganked though is to wrap my pod in null. Hisec's rubbish.
Arcelian Metentis 181	Posted - 2016.09.02 01:40:28 - [517] - Quote One thing that always bugged me was that the Hulk, even though it required far more attention and support than the Skiff/Mackinaw. only performed marginally better. It at least it had one more miner so it was less likely to over mine. Now it still only marginally performs better than the mackinaw, but does seriously do better than a skiff. But, it's not enough. You will still rarely ever see Hulks, because a whopping extra 3.5m3 per second is not enough to make someone choose a Hulk over a Mackinaw. Especially now that it is reduced to only two miners. Overall, not real happy over these changes. Hulk still sucks.
Ded Akara Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2016.09.03 15:04:07 - [518] - Quote I inspected the new exhumer changes on the test server. So the mackinkaw no longer has a role bonus? It looks very odd. Hulk and Skiff both have the role bonus attribute and the mackinkaw does not, like it's out of place and missing something. So, Hulk gets extra mining range, extra addiitional mining yield from basic bonuses and 25% yield boost from role bonus. Skiff gets shield HP and small yield bonus from basic bonuses and 50% drone damage/hp from role bonus. (not to mention BS level hitpoints). Mackinaw gets ore hold capacity and small yield bonus from basic bonuses and NO ROLE BONUS. This only highlights how much the Mackinkaw sucks. Hulk now mines 30% faster than the Mack whist the Skiff mines faster than the Mackinkaw because the Skiff is free to fit 3x harvester/mining upgrades and still able to fit a sick T2 tank and not worry about ganking. The mackinkaw can only achieve this yield the skiff has if the mackinkaw fits 3x harvester/mining upgrades, but to do this, the mackinkaw has virtually no CPU left to fit some tank to the mid slots. The triple mining upgrade fit mackinkaw with a 3% cpu implant has only 51.9 cpu left with all mid slots empty. That's enough CPU to fit 1 T2 harder and leave the other 3 slots empty. It's not even enough CPU for 2 faction hardeners, still leaving 2 slots empty. Meanwhile the triple mining upgrade fit skiff can fit a full T2 tank, using all of its midslots. When you consider the skiff also has 3 times more shield, armor and structure hitpoints than the Mackinkaw and is also able to fit a full tank on a yield fit you can see why the Skiff is the far superior ship. (imbalanced). Solution? Well the obvious solution is to give the Mackinkaw a good CPU boost so it can actually use it's slots without having to fit a co-processor. Alternatively you can decrease the CPU on the Skiff. Or a bit of both. I hear the Hulk suffers from the same CPU issues as the mackinkaw, so perhaps both of these ships need a CPU boost.
Arcelian Metentis 181	Posted - 2016.09.03 15:36:51 - [519] - Quote Ded Akara wrote: I inspected the new exhumer changes on the test server. So the mackinkaw no longer has a role bonus? It looks very odd. Hulk and Skiff both have the role bonus attribute and the mackinkaw does not, like it's out of place and missing something. So, Hulk gets extra mining range, extra addiitional mining yield from basic bonuses and 25% yield boost from role bonus. Skiff gets shield HP and small yield bonus from basic bonuses and 50% drone damage/hp from role bonus. (not to mention BS level hitpoints). Mackinaw gets ore hold capacity and small yield bonus from basic bonuses and NO ROLE BONUS. This only highlights how much the Mackinkaw sucks. Hulk now mines 30% faster than the Mack whist the Skiff mines faster than the Mackinkaw because the Skiff is free to fit 3x harvester/mining upgrades and still able to fit a sick T2 tank and not worry about ganking. The mackinkaw can only achieve this yield the skiff has if the mackinkaw fits 3x harvester/mining upgrades, but to do this, the mackinkaw has virtually no CPU left to fit some tank to the mid slots. The triple mining upgrade fit mackinkaw with a 3% cpu implant has only 51.9 cpu left with all mid slots empty. That's enough CPU to fit 1 T2 harder and leave the other 3 slots empty. It's not even enough CPU for 2 faction hardeners, still leaving 2 slots empty. Meanwhile the triple mining upgrade fit skiff can fit a full T2 tank, using all of its midslots. When you consider the skiff also has 3 times more shield, armor and structure hitpoints than the Mackinkaw and is also able to fit a full tank on a yield fit you can see why the Skiff is the far superior ship. (imbalanced). Solution? Well the obvious solution is to give the Mackinkaw a good CPU boost so it can actually use it's slots without having to fit a co-processor. Alternatively you can decrease the CPU on the Skiff. Or a bit of both. I hear the Hulk suffers from the same CPU issues as the mackinkaw, so perhaps both of these ships need a CPU boost. Where are you seeing that the Hulk mines 30% faster than the Mack? Would have to find the thread, but the changes have made the Mack closer to Hulks yield than ever before, unless I'm ******** and misunderstanding something. It was literally only a 3.5m3 per second difference.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .. 18 :: [one page]

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.