|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Whitehound
27
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 19:15:00 -
[1] - Quote
A lot of good points here for why the Hulk should get improved. I, too, can fly one but I never bothered with buying just a single one when I can fly a much cheaper Covetor with a tank just as useless, but nearly the same mining yield as a Hulk. Everything about the Hulk speaks against the rule that says only to fly a ship one can afford to lose. These ORE ships were designed without ganking and Hulkageddon in mind. Ganking of Hulks is merely the proof of the imbalance, just like masses of Falcons were proof of it and the masses of Drakes are, too. The Hulk is currently not a ship worth 300m ISKs.
For comparison, a Noctis which is not a warship either and gets to see less pirates than a mining ship and has got a power grid of 250 PG and can fit an LSE next to a 10MN MWD. The Hulk has got 35 PG... |
Whitehound
27
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 19:46:00 -
[2] - Quote
Tippia wrote:GǪexcept that numbers shows this not to be true, since the Covetor is a deeply unpopular ship (so unpopular, in fact, that they're going to adjust it to improve its standing) whereas the Hulk is one of the most popular ships in the game. ... True. They were designed for far more adverse conditions, and then people cripple them with their bad decisions so they can't even survive very safe environments. I think people are simply smarter than this. They do not care if their Hulk gets ganked or if CCP gives them a better tank. I, and this is just me and not everyone, do not have fun with buying a Hulk. I then post here and voice my opinion. Most players do not do this either. Does this make us automatically wrong? No.
I do not understand your second point. Ganking does not make an environment safe or very safe. |
Whitehound
27
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 20:01:00 -
[3] - Quote
Darth Gustav wrote:Yet due to bellyaching high-sec gets seemingly safer every "expansion". Does it? The Tornado and the Boomrang manoeuvre were certainly proof of the opposite and it forced CCP to do something or to give up high-sec. Even with the recent safety change is the Tornado the new number one gank ship. |
Whitehound
27
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 20:10:00 -
[4] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Of course not, but as pointed out above, the whole line of reasoning that there is no reason to pick the Hulk over the Covetor kind of falls apart when you look at the numbers. ... Try not to look at the numbers then. |
Whitehound
27
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 20:17:00 -
[5] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Yes. Let's make changes to the game based on complete fabrications rather than the facts. Also, wohaGǪ did a whole bunch of posts just get nuked? People's quotes are all over the place and the posts they quote no longer exist. Jojo Jackson wrote:Proper Tank == 2 LSE + 2 INVUS + missing slots compared to other Tech 2 BC hulls. GǪexcept that the Exhumers are not T2 BCs, so you can stop with that nonsense comparison. They can already fit a proper tank. People just choose not to, and then complain that their untanked ships are weak. Quote:I compare Tech 2 BC hulls with Tech 2 BC hulls. No. You're comparing T2 BC hulls with T2 mining barge hulls. Mining barges Gëá BCs. Exhumers Gëá command ships. Looks like you lost one or two. |
Whitehound
27
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 21:07:00 -
[6] - Quote
Tippia wrote:1. Cost isn't a balancing factor. 2. No. People have chosen not to make use of its ability to tank, allowing it to be ganked from an overheated frigate. If people chose to actually make use of that ability, the frigate would no longer stand a chance. 3. The cost to tank ratio is anGǪ oddGǪ measure since, again, cost is not a balancing factor. Fitting a tank pretty much ensures that it will survive a cruiser/BC ship trying to gank it, and that makes the benefit pretty much infinite. 4. GǪso don't fly it during hulkageddon? 5. Interesting. A large number of people disagree with you, what with it being one of the most popular ships in the game. Be fair. ISK prices are a balancing factor. CCP has made changes to the balance by adjusting the bill of materials as well as to the source of materials a few times. They cannot adjust the price itself. How could they?
People then fly the Hulk often because they can skill for it after the Covetor for only a little bit of extra time and because Hulkageddon does not catch all Hulks. If gankers were putting more effort into it then how do you think would this affect the numbers?
|
Whitehound
27
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 21:13:00 -
[7] - Quote
Darth Gustav wrote:We'll find out in 17 days won't we? I will try to sit in a cloaked ship and stream it over Justin TV if I find the time. I do not want to miss it for anything. |
Whitehound
27
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 21:27:00 -
[8] - Quote
Tippia wrote:No. Cost is not a balancing factor as was shown very early in the thread. Cost is a result of supply and demand; it does not dictate performance GÇö if anything, it's the other way around because of how much in demand a high-performing ship is. However, due to that design principle of marginal improvement at ever increasing costs, the value you get for a higher price is somewhere between nil and completely unpredictable.
Put another way: just because a Hulk costs a lot doesn't mean it has to be made to perform better GÇö instead, the reason it costs a lot is because it already does perform better. If you don't think it's worth the cost, don't use it, and soon the price will match what you think its performance is. Problem solved. Yes, cost is a balancing factor. CCP did change the bill of materials in the past and did change production processes as well as the sources. They cannot balance the price because of the free market. CCP knows this just like you do. |
Whitehound
27
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 21:55:00 -
[9] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Ok, you're not reading what I'm writing. I do read what you write. It seems to me that you are trying to avoid my point, but why? Unless you want to tell me will I however not care why you do this. In the end is it irrelevant to the people who say that a ship of 300m ISKs is too expensive. It is an opinion one needs to respect. |
Whitehound
28
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 21:57:00 -
[10] - Quote
malcovas Henderson wrote:Unfortunately, you are incorrect. Read the devblogs. CCP has stated a few times that changes were made to address the prices of items. |
|
Whitehound
28
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 22:05:00 -
[11] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Then they can choose not to buy that ship and get something that fits their price/performance requirements betterGǪ which will eventually make that ship price come down to where they start to afford it again.
Alternatively, they'll notice that jumping ships will not let them earn as much as the new baseline for the economy, and realise that those 300M is actually not expensive any more compared to what you earn when flying it.
Either way, the price is not an argument for buffing or nerfing a ship, especially not when the price is subject to player control to such a large extent. This reads to me like you want to tell the players to go play some other game, because this is your game. I am sorry, but if you cannot respect players reasoning for why they make their decisions then you are pretty much out of the discussion.
Quote:GǪbut, again, not to affect their balance, since cost is not a factor for balance. What they've done in all those cases is the exact opposite. Yes, to change the cost of items. And no it is exactly what they have done. |
Whitehound
28
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 22:14:00 -
[12] - Quote
Tippia wrote:No. They changed the price to match the performance; they didn't change the performance to match the price or to balance the ship, because price is not a factor in determining performance and dictating balance.
You keep confusing cause and effect, factor and result. I am only repeating what CCP said. You need to talk to them when you think their reasoning was wrong. |
Whitehound
28
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 22:30:00 -
[13] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Whitehound wrote:I am only repeating what CCP said. You need to talk to them when you think their reasoning was wrong. Ok, you need to provide an actual example and reference now. No, if you do not read the devblogs on a regular basis then it is your loss and not mine. |
Whitehound
29
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 23:07:00 -
[14] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Because those changes had nothing to do with balance and everything to do with market efficiency GÇö specifically to remove unwanted bottlenecks in the entire T2 production line, which were then, inevitably, replaced by new bottlenecks.
So no, cost is not a factor in balance. Yes, those changes were made to reduce the costs of T2 ships. There was no other need to remove the bottleneck. Like you say, it is all only a matter of demand and offer. |
Whitehound
29
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 23:14:00 -
[15] - Quote
Kengutsi Akira wrote:Lady Spank wrote: High sec being a more dangerous place to mine than null sec .
which is funny cause 99% of the time you say that you get trolled/flamed to death FOR saying it That is because a forum is a dangerous place to post the truth. |
Whitehound
29
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 23:15:00 -
[16] - Quote
Tippia wrote:GǪwhich means it had nothing to do with balance, since the ships themselves did not change in any way. So still no, cost is not a factor in balance. It was one of many changes CCP did to address price balances. It was one of the greater ones I can remember. It is enough to proof that the price of an item is subject to game changes. QED. |
Whitehound
29
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 23:27:00 -
[17] - Quote
Tippia wrote:No, not QED, because that wasn't what was in question. What was in question was whether cost was a factor in balance. Hint: it isn't. They didn't adjust the moon goo to change the ship balance GÇö they adjusted it to remove bottlenecks and make the market more efficient. Yes, you did question it. Actually you denied it, but this is not the point. CCP did respond to the players' demand to do something about the prices and they changed it. |
Whitehound
29
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 23:55:00 -
[18] - Quote
Tippia wrote:No, I never questioned it. I questioned your assertion that CCP said that price was a balancing factor GÇö an assertion you have not been able to back up. This is something vastly different from prices being subject to game changes, which was never in question until you brought it up as GÇ£proofGÇ¥ for them affecting balance (never mind that you didn't in any way link those changes to any actual balance changes). You're begging the question. I did not need to back it up since you do remember it. And yes you denied someone else here in the thread to use the price of a ship as an argument for a change, but this is exactly what lead CCP to make the change. Like I said, CCP cannot change the price for an item directly. We all know it. |
Whitehound
29
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 00:17:00 -
[19] - Quote
Tippia wrote:No, I did not deny that they have adjusted prices. Thank you. |
Whitehound
29
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 00:33:00 -
[20] - Quote
Tippia wrote:So you agree, then, that price is not a factor in balance. Good. You're quite weird for tanking me for saying you were as wrong as you have always been. When CCP changed the prices for T2 ships did this certainly have an effect on the balance, because the prices for the T1 ships were not changed nor did none of the ships' abilities change. It just was not a question. |
|
Whitehound
29
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 00:54:00 -
[21] - Quote
Tippia wrote:If the T2 ships' abilities did not change, nor did the T1 ships' abilities change then guess what GÇö the balance didn't change. The balance did certainly change. People wanted T2 ships to be cheaper so they can fly them more often. It shifted the balance towards T2 ships and away from T1 ships. |
Whitehound
29
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 01:06:00 -
[22] - Quote
Tippia wrote:GǪexcept that, since nothing changed about the ships, the balance didn't change. Just because ships are used more or less from one moment to the next doesn't mean the balance is different GÇö it just means people are flying different ships. Preferences changed, that is all.
The fallacy you're committing here is GÇ£affirming the consequentGÇ¥ GÇö look it up.
So no, price is still not a factor in balance. How many players fly a certain ship or a ship class is important for the balance.
Why are we even discussing this? This should be basic stuff for you. |
Whitehound
30
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 01:28:00 -
[23] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Again, cause Gëá effect. No, the number of players that fly a certain ship or class does not determine the balance between those ships and classes. It's the other way around: the balance affects how many fly the ships.
Price is a different factor that affects how many fly the ships. Price is independent from balance GÇö just because both affect the same dependent variable doesn't mean they depend on each other.
So no, price is not a factor in balance. Yes, the numbers of players flying a ship or a ship class is very important for determining the balance. Ships do get changed when they are flown too often. CCP does not change a ship only because a few attributes do not work out. It has not stopped players from flying these ships either. Only when too many players choose one ship or a ship class over another do you have an imbalance.
PS: I am going to bed now. May someone else teach Tippia the world. |
Whitehound
32
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 07:43:00 -
[24] - Quote
Tippia wrote:GǪand it's still not the numbers that determine the balance. The numbers are an effect of the balance, and CCP (or more commonly the players) look at those numbers to infer that something is or isn't balanced about the ships. The imbalance is with the ships themselves. No matter how the numbers look, the balance is determined by the ships and their stats. No matter how the numbers change, unless the stats change, the balance isn't altered. Likewise, price does not determine balance GÇö if anything, balance determines price. High price is then also an effect of balance, not the other way around: balance is a factor in price; price is not a factor in balance. For you it is not about the numbers of players. It is not only obvious from what you write but also how you write. You have no love for the people on this forum and so you have no choice but to deny it. For CCP, who are the ones doing the changes, is EVE Online only a game and Internet space ships are just Internet space ships to them. The players mean the world to CCP and it will always be important to them what the players think of their game. To them do the numbers of players matter. |
Whitehound
32
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 09:48:00 -
[25] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:To not get blown up. A destroyer will kill said covetor while the hulk will keep on chugging rocks which makes the hulk a fair bit more isk efficient. You almost make it sound fun. |
Whitehound
32
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 11:08:00 -
[26] - Quote
Shadowsword wrote:baltec1 wrote:In order to kill a hulk like how I would fit them would require 4 t2 arty Tornadoes. Shouldn't the gankers have time for at least two arty salvoes before concord show up in a 0.5 or 0.6? Not only that, but you would use EMP L to pop his Hulk. Baltec1 will fit his Hulk with 3 Inv. Fields II and an SSE II. He will go mining like this for a few days until he realizes how boring mining is. So he will drop an Inv. Field and put a survey scanner back into his Hulk so that he can at least see which asteroids to pick. He then will continue mining for another few days until he gets sick of constantly docking up and because his cargohold just does not do it. He then puts cargo expanders into his low-slots so that he can stay in the belt a little longer.
Can one blame him for doing it? No. But one can slap him every single time he tries to get a bit more fun out of his mining ship.
I can laugh about it, but I cannot call it fair. |
Whitehound
32
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 13:16:00 -
[27] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Whitehound wrote:For you it is not about the numbers of players. It is not only obvious from what you write but also how you write. You have no love for the people on this forum and so you have no choice but to deny it. For CCP, who are the ones doing the changes, is EVE Online only a game and Internet space ships are just Internet space ships to them. The players mean the world to CCP and it will always be important to them what the players think of their game. To them do the numbers of players matter. Very passionate. Also ridiculously off-topic and very wrong in pretty much every way imaginable. It is how CCP are. They will not care about what you think is good for their game's balance. You can argue about it or deny it as long as you want. It is not going to change them. |
Whitehound
32
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 13:29:00 -
[28] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:... Hey look, 28k EHP, T2 Strips and a Survey Scanner, also ... 32+k EHP, yeah, clearly both ships are extremely pimped with there T2/Meta lvl Fittings The cynicism is nice, but it does not quite work when these ships still cost you 400m ISKs. |
Whitehound
33
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 14:08:00 -
[29] - Quote
Tippia wrote:No. It may have been how they were back when they invented Titans, but they have since learned that numbers (and cost) isn't a factor in balance for the reasons I described.
Would you like to actually address the point or just invent more nonsense claims about CCP? ... I see you having hopes and opinions and that you are now turning ugly towards CCP, yet I still do not see you having a point.
|
Whitehound
33
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 14:24:00 -
[30] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Whitehound wrote:I see you having hopes and opinions and that you are now turning ugly towards CCP No, I have high opinions of their balancing effort because I know they don't foolishly believe that numbers or cost are factors in balance. I'm turning ugly towards you because you keep on lying and making a fool of yourself with your endless stream of unproven claims, nonsensical statements, idiocy and fallacies. Quote:yet I still do not see you having a point. Try reading. Argue the points made there, which explain why cost and numbers are not factors in balance. Any attempt avoidance on your part will mean that you cannot because you know full well that I'm right and you're just trolling. The facts remains: no, cost is not a factor in balance; no, numbers is not a factor in balance; no, CCP are not using either in their balancing effort; and no, you cannot provide any proof that they do. I do not need to read what you write, Tippia. I do know you have your opinions. |
|
Whitehound
34
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 14:50:00 -
[31] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Whitehound wrote:I do not need to read what you write Thank you. That means you agree with what I said and you're just trolling. That's all we needed to know. So yes, as Whitehound have just confirmed: cost and numbers are indeed not factors in balance for the reasons I previously explained, and CCP are intelligent enough to know this. Thank you for your support, even if it was hard to squeeze out of you. I know you hate to agree with me, but I also know that you have to, because, after all, even you can't argue against hard facts. No, it does not mean that I agree with you. It means that I will not read any more of your ugly comments. |
Whitehound
36
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 15:35:00 -
[32] - Quote
Kengutsi Akira wrote:well yeah... you have a game with essentially unlimited resources at your hands, all you have to worry about is time to make it (and in 0.0 tech moon terms just unlimited funds) cost as a balancing factor becomes moot Every single factor can become moot when you give it enough time. It is because time itself is a part of the balance and when you allow time to grow limitless then it will unbalance any other factor.
Cost remains a factor in balance. If it was not then we could change all bills of materials into 1 Tritanium. This is not going to work. To believe cost alone can solve any issues was the mistake. CCP keeps working on caps and not because they did not set the prices high enough, but because many of factors still need to be balanced. You would not want CCP to fix a balance issue by removing 99% of a ship's hull or by adding 10 times more DPS either. The risk for a change to throw the balance off the other end is too high. |
Whitehound
37
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 16:27:00 -
[33] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:You will have a case for needing to buff the Hulk when sales drop off sharply in favor of cheaper alternatives, not before. I think this is where you are wrong. I am not saying that it needs a buff (or that it does not). All I ever said was that if it needs a change then it would need a better tank for all mining ships. The high cost of a Hulk do I see as the reason for the ganks. Players will gank a Freki when they see one for the same reason. |
Whitehound
39
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 17:03:00 -
[34] - Quote
Lanasak wrote:The same way it's not a combat ship, and the same way no other ship can mine anywhere near the amount of ore that it is capable of. In EVE is every ship exposed to combat if you want to or not. To have ships that are particularly weak at it is what makes this a joke. |
Whitehound
39
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 17:26:00 -
[35] - Quote
Lanasak wrote:You're claiming that the Hulk needs to be a combat-capable ship simply because of its cost, or because it is "exposed" to an environment where combat can happen at any time. I'm saying that this is blatantly false. Why? |
Whitehound
39
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 17:40:00 -
[36] - Quote
Lanasak wrote:Because it's a ship that can mine 3000 m3 of ore per minute. It's ridiculously powerful for mining - that power comes at the expense of any real combat capability. Not all mining ships can mine 3000m3/min. Only two can where one of them costs 300m ISKs. It is not ridiculously powerful for mining. |
Whitehound
39
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 18:01:00 -
[37] - Quote
Lanasak wrote:https://twitter.com/#!/CCP_Diagoras/status/179947277178241025
When Hulks are the most popular shiptype in the game, I see little need for a buff. And it is followed closely by the pod.
But seriously, we are not talking about buffs here. We are talking about the reasons for why it needs ships to be as weak as they are while EVE is a PvP game. Who likes to flying a mining ship? I know I do not. You can talk about how the game needs to be, but one needs to be fair and talk about it. No one cares for people who just say that it has to be like this without having a good reason for it. For example, rookies should start in weak ships, because they need to learn a lot about EVE and its players, its organizations and how to fit in. You cannot give them a strong ship at start or else you have them rampaging all over the place. So if you can then give reasons why miners need to be the designated victims in EVE.
I think we have many victims every day for plenty of reasons and I see no demand to create a ship class only to have some more. I see the weak tanks of the mining ships as a design flaw in the concept of EVE as being a PvP game. It does not ships for victims. |
Whitehound
41
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 18:47:00 -
[38] - Quote
Darth Gustav wrote:Tell me how strong they should be then. I am not going to tell you anything other than you being on my ignore list for spamming this thread. Next time when you know how to behave might I care more about what you have to say.
Tippia wrote:Because that weakness (which isn't nearly as huge as some want to claim GÇö the thing can outtank a fair number of actual combat ships) is what you'd expect from a resource extraction vehicle ... No, I do not expect it. You do and you probably only do it, because this is how you know EVE. I am then not looking for some narcissist to explain to me how EVE is. I want a discussion where people can talk openly about their views on PvP, the ships and so on without having to bow to another forum member out of a false understanding of respect. I am adult.
I thought I should let you two know. I do keep checking on some of your comments once in a while to see if you are really interested in a discussion or if you only want to "own" a thread. |
Whitehound
42
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 20:49:00 -
[39] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Even the insta cane only gets around 27k EHP buffer. The tank on a hulk is good. Those 25k-32k figures for a Hulk that people have mentioned can only be had at all level 5 and by using every available slot including rigs for its tank. It is about as dull as the one mid-slot of a Covetor, which can only be used for a scanner. At least a Hurricane can be fitted in many different ways for what it is designed to do. The Hulk fits presented here are only a necessity. With the Hulk being the most popular ship, which is a questionable position for any ship in terms of game diversity, could easily get buffed to 50k eHP and it would not change a thing about its role. You are not going to see any alliances suddenly fighting in fleets of Hulks or fielding Hulks in the tournaments any time soon. Nor are you going to change the Hulks popularity by reducing its tank to 10k eHP. The Hulk's tank is not good, its price is not good and its popularity is not good. The Mackinaw is just as bad and the T1 mining ships are not helping either. So what if the Hulk had 50k eHP? Would it be too scary when some Hulk pilots now get all brave, fit warp core stabs and dare mining in low-sec? |
Whitehound
42
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 21:52:00 -
[40] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:There are ships in much greater need of help. Hulks can tank, they can mine and they can do it well. And you also need those level V skills to fly exhumers in the first place so from the moment you can fly a hulk you get that resist bonus. I use every single slot on haulers for tanking too, These things are civilians ships not warships. Let us not talk about other ships. Mining ships including the Hulk cannot tank well. They align badly and have no speed nor do their drones hold much off. And as I said do you need to use every available slot for your tank just to protect your +300m ISK investment within high-sec.
Is it too unthinkable for you to let players enter low-sec with mining ships that have been designed with proper survivability in mind? You know they can get killed even if they had 100k eHP, right? With the tanks they have now are you not giving anyone a chance here. You are forced to go into 0.5 systems and gank them in order to teach them a lesson and to take their stuff.
Players take frigates into low-sec for PvP and while these are weak ships do they have a chance to escape. The mining ships do not. They were designed by carebears for carebears who think they must be weak and cannot be strong so other carebears can hero protect them. Do we really need this? |
|
Whitehound
42
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 22:03:00 -
[41] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:The problem with your argument is that they CAN get a hefty tank on them and they have been in low sec and 0.0 for years. They are however only as popular as straws are to a drowning man. |
Whitehound
42
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 22:16:00 -
[42] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Whitehound wrote: They are however only as popular as straws are to a drowning man.
Then we must have a lot of drowning men. This we do. |
Whitehound
42
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 22:24:00 -
[43] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Who else is to blaim for their ship not being able to tank a destroyer? Let us not talk about blame. It is CCP's job to look after the balance.
Do you believe it is right when a ship, which costs more than 300m ISKs and is in such a need to have become the most popular ship, should only allow for two options, either to tank or to get ganked?
|
Whitehound
42
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 22:44:00 -
[44] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Considering it only has one job I would say yes. Then you did not consider all options, which is what happens when you try to discuss a topic with several people at once while trying to hold off arguments.
I say Good Night, because it is time for me to go to bed. o7 |
Whitehound
42
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 08:47:00 -
[45] - Quote
To say the mining ships need an escort to survive is not a good argument. Any ship that is badly out of balance will need a fleet to fix it. The question is if we want to have more or less ships depending on the presence of a fleet as well as how strong the dependence needs to be. For example, a command ship still functions as a battleship without a fleet. A logistics ship is of little use without a fleet, but it still has got its survivability. I do not know where super-caps currently stand, but I think they, too, do not necessarily need a fleet to survive.
The mining yield of a mining ship is no direct threat to any combat ship. The ore still needs to be moved around and processed before it turns into a new ship, which means that it is still exposed to combat long after the mining ship has done its job. The ore will also not posses the properties of the mining ships but it requires skill, time and all other game mechanics until it becomes a new ship and can be flown into combat. One could increase the mining yield of all mining ships by a factor of 10 and its effect on combat will still be little. It just does not change anything about the balance of the combat ships. Of course some would make more ISKs after such a change, but only until the markets compensate for it and the prices fall. Anyone would be free to make ISKs in that time through market speculations and as a secondary effect could the popularity of the Hulk drop, which is not a bad thing. However, to argue the mining yield of the mining ships does somehow balance their tank is simply not true. |
Whitehound
42
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 09:24:00 -
[46] - Quote
Ai Shun wrote:Then why can't you fit Stripminers to a Rohk and mine as effectively with that? Do not ask me, ask CCP. I can only guess why. If you could fit 8 strip miners onto a Rohk then it would be the "shot to the head" for all mining ships. You would then only need to carry their corpses out. |
Whitehound
42
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 13:02:00 -
[47] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Tanya Powers wrote:And yes Hulk should be able to fit at least 80k EHP without pimp or sacrifice cargo/mining upgrades, align faster than a shield Brutix but it doesn't. No, it really shouldn't. Yes, it should. It does not change much, but only stops a few gankers. |
Whitehound
42
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 13:26:00 -
[48] - Quote
Tippia wrote:No, because then you have an industrial resource ship that outtanks and outflies pretty much everything else of a similar size ... Wrong. A tank alone does not decide over victory or defeat. |
Whitehound
42
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 13:34:00 -
[49] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Maybe you should ... No. I just put you back on ignore for another day. I will not take advise from you after you posted another false assumption of what should and should not be. I am not going to tell you either what you should or should not do. |
Whitehound
42
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 14:00:00 -
[50] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Then there's zero argument for giving a hulk 80k ehp like you're defending. And neither against it.
What is it you are defending by the way? To whom or what are mining ships a threat? |
|
Whitehound
42
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 14:25:00 -
[51] - Quote
Tanya Powers wrote:Hey guys stop that 80K ehp argument, It is a number as good as any. The decision on what to change exactly, if it needs a change, falls to CCP. |
Whitehound
42
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 14:31:00 -
[52] - Quote
Ildryn wrote:Hulks are made for 0.0. If the player is paying attention and gets to a pos when a neutral enters local then he will be fine. In high sec use a covetor or a rokh. It is not a good argument. The Hulk pilot will want to get to the POS with or without his Hulk and to switch into a combat ship.
Why should a Hulk then not be able to tank enough until someone comes to the belt for support?
Would a stronger tank on mining ships lead to bigger fleet fights in 0.0 when one had to bring more DPS to kill them? |
Whitehound
46
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 15:20:00 -
[53] - Quote
Ildryn wrote:Fleet fights are pretty big in 0.0..... That is what I am thinking, too.
If one had to bring actually some DPS to bother a mining fleet then it could lead to pretty nasty fights and more than just POS bashing.
By the way, a Hulk should not be able to tank more than a T2 transporter or it becomes a competitor to their role. |
Whitehound
46
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 15:57:00 -
[54] - Quote
Mark Androcius wrote:Maybe i'm ********, but you could just align your ship to station, then ctrl-space and when the baddy comes, almost instant warp. The problem is that it is not always going to help, nor is it a good argument to suggest to run away. You only need to take a destroyer and fly innocently around between the asteriods. Some miners not only dock, but they leave the system. The "fun balance" is far too much on the side of the gankers. |
Whitehound
46
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 16:07:00 -
[55] - Quote
Ildryn wrote:The ehp on a hulk is fine. Small ships should be able to take it out in gangs. Providing it is properly fit....with tank. Hulks are not worth what they are being sold for....they are just sold that high because people can get away with it. I used a 14million isk frig to take out a 100million isk t2 fit raven before.....does that mean that the raven needs a buff? No it means people need to play smarter and tank their **** or use something that does tank. It really is simple as that. No, the eHP is not fine. One should only need to use the mid-slots and not every available option to get a decent tank out of it. And the eHP fits given here are only useful against a particular gank, but in general is the tank just weak.
One can take out a cap with a frigate, if you let it. It is not a smart argument. Maybe when you want people to be smarter, then start with yourself. |
Whitehound
47
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 16:23:00 -
[56] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:You need at least 4 nados to kill a supertank hulk in 0.7 space. How exactly is this not enough ehp? As I said before is the fit bad. Since when do we need more than the mid- or the low-slots to tank a ship?
You are holding on to the supertank Hulk like a drowning man holds on to a straw. Does this not make you nervous? |
Whitehound
48
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 16:59:00 -
[57] - Quote
Another number example, this time with the two shield-tanking T2 transporters Mastodon and Bustard:
Both transporters have more low- (5) than mid-slots (3), yet, when you fit them only for shield tanking and with 2x LSE II and 1x AIF II do both get 50k eHP. Their signatures are however larger - 200 and 215 - whereas the Hulk's signature is only 150. Scaling down the eHP proportionally to the signatures should a Hulk still have 35k-40k eHP and only by using its mid-slots. However, it is currently only half as much. Mainly because of the huge difference in PG (Hulk: 35 PG, T2 Transporter: 245-268 PG).
The ships have similar align times (16.7 vs 17.4). This does not account for the different prices / bills of materials of these ships or their different speeds or roles. |
Whitehound
52
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 17:52:00 -
[58] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Whitehound wrote:This does not account for the different prices / bills of materials of these ships or their different speeds or roles. GǪand that is your problem right there. You're comparing the Hulk to a ship class whose entire purpose is to take one hell of a beating. It's really surprising that they can tank a bit thenGǪ You might as well compare the Hulk to a carrier at that point. Quote:No, the eHP is not fine. One should only need to use the mid-slots and not every available option to get a decent tank out of it. Good news: you don't have to either. So that's that GǣproblemGǥ solved, then. The Hulk is a transport ship just like the T2 transporters. PvP takes place everywhere and cannot be restricted to a certain area. The T2 transporters' designation is supported by more than just a tank and a cargo bay. They get active tanking bonuses as well as +2 warp scramble strength. The Hulk can fit strip miners and gets bonuses to mining yield for its role.
It is simply a lack of PG on the side of the mining ships. Newer industrials like the Noctis (250PG) or the Primea (175PG) do come with a proper amount now. |
Whitehound
53
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 18:30:00 -
[59] - Quote
Nylith Empyreal wrote:Confirming the growth of the thread is accelerated when you feed the trolls. It would appear as the troll is fed a post the thread gains yet another post from the troll itself, the trolls post however goads other trolls to retort and throw out their own post that in turns goads the initial troll, gaining more and more trolls as the size of the thread peaks the interest of onlookers to join, so you can say. So the laws of trolling are; For every reply to the initial post of a troll, there is a response in reaction to said replies from the troll itself, Trolls attract trolls, ????, What's this thread about again? See the page number.
42
\o/ |
Whitehound
53
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 20:04:00 -
[60] - Quote
Ildryn wrote:I know my killboard isn't pretty.... http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=Whitehound#lossesBut Whitehound....damn Kills Losses 1 Lifetime 9 0.14 bill ISK 0.68 bill 6.96 Points 55.52 3,788.00 Damage 201,325.00 You lost a freighter to a lone Vagabond....do you want freighter ehp buffed too? Or your fail fit thorax? Should it have more ehp so you can continue with the fail? You have a very short history of fail....do you really think that any advice you can provide is worth anyone's time? You mad? The fail fit Thorax killed the Vaga. |
|
Whitehound
53
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 20:10:00 -
[61] - Quote
This is how EVE is. Some tackle, others bait, someone else brings the DPS. And, no, I am not mad. |
Whitehound
53
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 20:22:00 -
[62] - Quote
Ildryn wrote:Why are you worried about 60 man fleets? At a month old you should be worried about core skills. You should be worried about finding the topic of this thread. |
Whitehound
53
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 20:43:00 -
[63] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:There is nothing extream about fitting a T2 tank. Fit your T2s the way you like. If this is how you fit them then I know a desperate man. |
Whitehound
53
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 20:49:00 -
[64] - Quote
Ildryn wrote:A lot of shield/armor tanks on combat ships utilize both mids and lows. Armor tank with cap booster. Shield tank with shield power relays. So why should a hulk be any different for tank? Firstly, because the Hulk does not have a decent tank and secondly do you fit webs and scrams and damage mods on combat ships. |
Whitehound
53
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 20:51:00 -
[65] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:No, its called being smart. Desperate is crying to CCP to change a perfectly fine ship because you want the tank without making any sacrifices to your isk flow. No, desperate is when you do not know what the other one is saying and your brain runs off into dreamland where all people cry and do not talk. |
Whitehound
53
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 20:58:00 -
[66] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:So wake up and stop crying about the hulk not having a tank when it clearly does. Again, you are just desperate. No one said the mining ships have no tank. Your head is still far away in dreamland ... maybe you should take a break from posting. |
Whitehound
53
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 21:03:00 -
[67] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:No matter how many times you say something vague about being desperate, the fact still is the hulk does just fine. No, and you have been given many arguments. |
Whitehound
53
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 21:08:00 -
[68] - Quote
Ildryn wrote:Why would you reduce the ehp of all ships? We are talking about exhumers here. Ships known to favor mining yield over tank in lore and common sense, Get on topic muppet. Lead the way, troll. |
Whitehound
53
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 21:12:00 -
[69] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:No, and we shouldn't increase the tank of ships that don't need it. They should not give forum access to people who cannot argue and yet they do. Truth is, you cannot argue and you do not like it. Come back when you have a point. |
Whitehound
53
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 21:13:00 -
[70] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:All of which have been proven to be wrong. In your dreamland, I am sure. |
|
Whitehound
53
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 21:28:00 -
[71] - Quote
Ildryn wrote:Mockery is a form of ridicule/contempt. Way to miss my intended meaning. So I guess it is good that you are explaining it to us then, right? |
Whitehound
53
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 21:34:00 -
[72] - Quote
Ildryn wrote:Before i got into this friendly debate i should have remembered that hulks are fine and they wont be changed anytime soon. And just continue ganking them. And I will continue loving you. |
Whitehound
53
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 21:36:00 -
[73] - Quote
lanyaie wrote:You're probably saying thats bs ... 0/10
Your comment is lacking the balls to be BS. You are only off topic. |
Whitehound
54
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 22:58:00 -
[74] - Quote
July Oumis wrote:So as a highsec carebear I demand to buff the 17 k ehp of a Tengu, or the 48 k ehp of a Machariel, when fitted for max damage. A Tengu can be soloed by one Tornado and costs between 650 and 2000 mil. I don't see the missionrunners whining, because they know they sacrifice security over efficiency.
Some Miners actually don't get it. No, you do not get it. Mission runners do not whine, because they use the offence as their defence. Mining ships are ships designed to be victims and this is what we do not need in EVE. Everyone can and shall become a victim and it does not need 300m ISK coffins to artificially shift the balance onto the miners. Players have been ganking mining ships for years, mostly for fun, but they also do it because the game designers created this "profession of being a victim". CCP is slowly letting go off it as you can see with ships like the Noctis and the Primea. Even the Primea (the little PI ship) features 175 PG. |
Whitehound
54
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 23:20:00 -
[75] - Quote
Plus 1 wrote:Defense against what? Mission runners almost never avoid ganks by killing potential gankers. I meant for mission runners doing what they are doing. My statement is also true for most combat ships and I am not talking about ganking in general, because my understanding is that every ship can get ganked.
The only need for a change I see currently is the one regarding the power grid and to get mining ships out of their pathetic state. What people do with the extra power grid is their business.
Do you agree with me or do you say we need ships designed for victims? |
Whitehound
54
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 00:01:00 -
[76] - Quote
Plus 1 wrote:If "designed to be victims" means they should continue being non-combat ships, then yeah, they could stay that way. Thank you. I would not dream of giving them gunnery bonuses. The mining ships should only have the ability to reach eHP values close to those of the T1 and T2 industrial ships without exceeding them or copying any of their bonuses like cloaks or warp scramble strength or just their active tanking bonuses. The Hulk already comes with a bonus to passive tanking, but can at best only reach half the eHP of a much cheaper T2 transporter fitted with a primitive shield tank (i.e. 2x LSE II, 1x AIF II gives about 50k eHP on a Mastodon). A supertanked T2 transporter can easily reach 80k eHP and more. The game designers' argument was that T2 transporters shall operate in harsh environments, but we all know that this can only mean in all of EVE. Nor does there a save zone exist where mining ships can operate in for the same reason. |
Whitehound
54
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 00:09:00 -
[77] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Look, ...
Rant ...
In the meantime, I have to play with the cards I'm dealt. No, you look. When you quote a question then this is a card you got dealt. Answer it and do not rant about. |
Whitehound
54
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 00:17:00 -
[78] - Quote
Tippia wrote:He did answer it: the design is not where the victimisation happens. If you think it did then why can you not shut up? When I think I was not given a proper response do I keep posting, too. |
Whitehound
54
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 00:30:00 -
[79] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Fail to disagree ... More rant ... The current design of a Hulk allows you to produce much higher yields than any other mining ship. The expense of the hull makes it a popular target for killboard stuffers. As a Hulk pilot, you cannot afford to be complacent. Stop looking at the problem as "CCP needs to fix this" and look at it from the point of view of "what can I do to fix this?" The reason for why the Hulk can produce much higher yields than any other mining ship is simple. It is the top of its class. However, any pilot should be able to be complacent or else the pilot is a victim. Not being complacent and not being able to be complacent is a definition of a victim. The moment you put yourself into a mining ship do you victimise yourself. It is the reason for most players to avoid mining like hell. But I do have very little hope that this is something you will be able to understand. |
Whitehound
54
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 00:49:00 -
[80] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Because you obviously misread his post and need to be pointed in the right direction. No, because you cannot ever shut up and I have to put you on ignore again.
Quote:Why should pilots be able to be complacent without it making them victims? After all, that's how self-created victimsGǪ wellGǪ create themselves. Do not flatter yourself. You are only dumb but not a victim. |
|
Whitehound
54
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 00:51:00 -
[81] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:There is no facepalm great enough to express the culture of failure embodied within that statement.
No matter what ship you fly, the moment you start becoming complacent you may as well stick a huge "please shoot me" sign on your ship. Even leaving your empty hauler idle off a gate because you didn't set the autopilot to the station is being complacent. Eventually someone is going to get bored and gank you just because it's been too long since the last explosion. This is what you tell yourself to keep motivated. The moment you do do you become complacent. |
Whitehound
54
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 00:59:00 -
[82] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Whitehound wrote:No, because you cannot ever shut up and I have to put you on ignore again. Why would I shut up when there's still so much that needs to be explained to you? Quote:Do not flatter yourself. You are only dumb but not a victim. Why can't you answer the question? Why shouldn't complacency create victims? You want an explanation from me? You shall have one!
No one said that you shall not become a victim. The point was that if you cannot become complacent then you already are a victim.
Going to bed, talk to you tomorrow, Tippitappi. |
Whitehound
65
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 18:40:00 -
[83] - Quote
July Oumis wrote:[Hulk, totally reasonable] ... ... I guess that will satisfy every one I would buy one. |
Whitehound
96
|
Posted - 2012.04.16 10:19:00 -
[84] - Quote
Azemar wrote:I don't understand. There are plenty of fits that work for tanking (while mining and killing them) null sec rats.
When it comes to getting ganked in high sec i agree. But no excuses for null sec. An increase in PG would do it. Maybe an extra slot or two.
If CCP is going to put a stress on mining (which they are), make it easier/more efficient One squad of miners can easily mine down several belts. I think it is efficient or else we would need more asteroids. I have not seen anyone complaining yet that one has to mine an entire week to get the materials needed for a battleship in. So if no one is complaining then there is no need to do anything about it. |
Whitehound
161
|
Posted - 2012.04.21 19:08:00 -
[85] - Quote
I'd rather have hates than likes. Likes are gay. No more crappy expansions! - Raise A Little Hell |
|
|
|