These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123
 

Better tank for the Industrial ships?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#41 - 2012-05-03 22:42:45 UTC
Cardano Firesnake wrote:
Simi Kusoni wrote:
I would be fine buffing industrial ships tanks if you were willing to accept a considerable cargo hold / mining yield penalty for being in an NPC corp.

Suicide ganking and war decs are the only two valid tactics for attacking both types of ships in high sec, one is ridiculously easy to avoid. The other is, well, its still pretty easy to avoid.

What some people seem to want is to invalidate both methods of attack, whilst not receiving any penalty themselves. I might even be fine with that, if you are willing to accept high sec being nerfed so far into the ground that the only people to whom it is genuinely worth mining/care bearing there are genuine new players.

Currently high sec is used by risk averse older players who simply wish to avoid actually playing the game at any cost, you wish to take part in building ships yet are not willing to lose them and contribute to demand yourselves. You wish to supply low end minerals and modules for large corporations and alliances, but will not join them or seek their protection in leaving high sec.

Quite simply you are what is wrong with Eve. This kind of mentality is the reason mudflation almost always occurs within care bear friendly games, and you need to start dying more often.

Anyway, HTFU and get used to it, because judging from recent interviews and dev blogs it looks like CCP agree with me.


NPC corpo should take a percentage on all what you sell.
The other problem is Ghost Corpos of 1 to 3 characters...
I already post about this problem. But the solution is complex.

That is a nice idea, but as you said it would be complex to set up without allowing for giant loop holes. Just the simple work around of using an alt to sell everything would completely invalidate it.

[center]"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"  -MXZF[/center]
Jack Carrigan
Order of the Shadow
#42 - 2012-05-04 05:03:10 UTC
Maximilian Jenious wrote:
hi,

I don't understand how outlaw can go trought gate without probleme. With drugs and other illegal stuff you have problem and not as an outlaw?

High sec must be inaccessible for one personne who shoot an another in high sec.

Low / null sec would be his sentense, so that he can kill (and be killed that's the point) who he want.

++


No you ignorant twit.

You don't have it easy, as people shoot at you as an outlaw, just for entering a system. So tell me how that isn't a problem?

Find somewhere else to cry that people might listen to you, like in group therapy for carebears who were violenced by big, scary pirates.

I am the One who exists in Shadow. I am the Devil your parents warned you about.

||CEO: Order of the Shadow||Executor: The Revenant Order||Creator: Bowhead||
Cardano Firesnake
Fire Bullet Inc
#43 - 2012-05-04 07:45:02 UTC
Maximilian Jenious wrote:
Velicitia wrote:
Maximilian Jenious wrote:

High sec must be inaccessible for one personne who shoot an another in high sec.


Absolutely not.


I love you argument ah ah, absolutely inutile answer


Welcome to the sandbox. Here everything must be possible. Of course being an outlaw must be a difficult and ambushed way but with big rewards. And one of them seems to be all the tears of the carebears ;-)

But being a bad guy must have consequences. If not, that would have no sense.

Posted - 2010.07.01 11:24:00 - [4] Erase learning skills, remap all SP. That's all.
Colonel Xaven
Perkone
Caldari State
#44 - 2012-05-04 09:05:57 UTC
Cardano Firesnake wrote:
Instead of making ganking impossible in Highsec, why not giving a better tank to industrial ships ?


The answer is simple:

Cardano Firesnake wrote:
Concord could arrive in time.

www.facebook.com/RazorAlliance
Brom MkLeith
Epsilon Inc
#45 - 2012-05-04 15:17:42 UTC
Colonel Xaven wrote:
Cardano Firesnake wrote:
Instead of making ganking impossible in Highsec, why not giving a better tank to industrial ships ?


The answer is simple:

Cardano Firesnake wrote:
Concord could arrive in time.


False. The gankers would just have to spend more ISK to succeed. If someone wants to gank you and doesn't care about the consequences then nothing will save you.
Brom MkLeith
Epsilon Inc
#46 - 2012-05-04 15:56:46 UTC
Simi Kusoni wrote:
I would be fine buffing industrial ships tanks if you were willing to accept a considerable cargo hold / mining yield penalty for being in an NPC corp.


Too difficult to implement. But exorbitant fees on buying, selling and higher taxes could be implemented as a way to push more people out of the NPC corps. And yes there will always be loopholes but that's what "Continues to evolve" means. Find unbalancing loopholes and fix them.

Simi Kusoni wrote:
Suicide ganking and war decs are the only two valid tactics for attacking both types of ships in high sec, one is ridiculously easy to avoid. The other is, well, its still pretty easy to avoid.


False. Suicide ganking is only easy to avoid by staying docked or playing some other part of this great game. War dicks are sort of easy to avoid but high sec gankers are ruining the whole idea of War Deccs. Inferno promises to bring more value to war than just high sec griefing. I hope this is true. I'm sick of seeing elite PVP corps randomly war **** other corps for no other reason than to pad their KB.

Simi Kusoni wrote:
What some people seem to want is to invalidate both methods of attack, whilst not receiving any penalty themselves. I might even be fine with that, if you are willing to accept high sec being nerfed so far into the ground that the only people to whom it is genuinely worth mining/care bearing there are genuine new players.


False. Most of us don't want to "invalidate" any method of attack. Simply make it so you need a real reason for it besides to be a douchebag. Many high sec people don't want to deal with the constant null-sec politics and back stabbing. As it stands, Null sec seems to be full of douchebags. I said "Seems" before someone gets their panties in a wad. The cyber bully mentality needs to stop for this game to grow.
Brom MkLeith
Epsilon Inc
#47 - 2012-05-04 15:57:20 UTC
Simi Kusoni wrote:
Currently high sec is used by risk averse older players who simply wish to avoid actually playing the game at any cost, you wish to take part in building ships yet are not willing to lose them and contribute to demand yourselves. You wish to supply low end minerals and modules for large corporations and alliances, but will not join them or seek their protection in leaving high sec.


False. We wish to avoid dealing with douchebags. We love playing this game and do so every day. If you think that the only way to play this game is to run around blowing each other up then you are truly limited in your thinking. This game offers sooooo much for everyone. If you make being a high sec industrialist into some seriously gimped profession then we will all be reduced to paying cash for our PLEX so we can afford to PVP. Do you think that real world arms dealers build their weapons in the middle of the warzone they sell them in?

Simi Kusoni wrote:
Quite simply you are what is wrong with Eve. This kind of mentality is the reason mudflation almost always occurs within care bear friendly games, and you need to start dying more often.


False. Narrow minded players who cling to the idea that everyone needs to PFP (Players F-ing Players) is what's wrong with this game. That mentality causes stagnation and gold buying by any other name.

Simi Kusoni wrote:
Anyway, HTFU and get used to it, because judging from recent interviews and dev blogs it looks like CCP agree with me.


Then they need to eliminate ALL industrial play. Eliminate high sec all together and see what happens to their precious player base. I still have a hard time understanding how people foam at the mouth when they talk about other people making money without blowing other people up. I enjoy a "good" fight myself. I just don't want to sell PLEX or rely on the benevolence of an all powerful alliance to pay for my ships.
hungrymanbreakfast
Fixers Corporation
Pillars of Liberty
#48 - 2012-05-04 16:13:58 UTC
Colonel Xaven wrote:
Cardano Firesnake wrote:
Instead of making ganking impossible in Highsec, why not giving a better tank to industrial ships ?


The answer is simple:

Cardano Firesnake wrote:
Concord could arrive in time.




Don't want concord to arrive in time. That would mean that the only ships people want to use is once again winmatar ships. Arty is one volley then death for the ganker and the gankee. Ganking needs to be a part of a game like this, but I just don't like the ratio of ISK invested vs lost. Its horribly unbalanced as 2 tornados firing one volley will take out the best tank a hulk can fit. thats 150 mil isk. A hulk costs 300 right now.

4000 hull points isnt gonna change much unless they stick a DCU2 onto the tank fit then it becomes 6400 hp. That makes a difference. Thats 3 nados to gank and means someone really wants you dead to find 3 pilots willing to hit you and lose their ships. I'm fine with that even if the ISK is still a bit lower because that's 3 ships. No dcu means thats 4000 unresisted points. Doesn't do much when it comes to an alpha strike. If were gonna bring more cheap glass cannons into the game like the tier 3's then we really should be looking at the expensive ships that have no tank and rebalancing them accordingly.

If we change the armor/shield balance or the slot layout the whole ship needs to be revisited and balanced. Thats alot of work and has the potential to really screw things up. The armor idea mentioned earlier has some potential though as it really does mean the stupid people will be fitting cargo and mlu's and dying in a fire when someone scans their fit. Also means that people wont be able to tank belt rats for any length of time before needing expensive armor repairs.
Dark Router
SASART Corporation
#49 - 2012-05-11 22:28:09 UTC
Cardano Firesnake wrote:
Instead of making ganking impossible in Highsec, why not giving a better tank to industrial ships ?
Concord could arrive in time.
For example If the Hulk had an additional low slot and an additional med slot and 1000 HP more it would tank enough time with a damage controller and a large shield extender or an invulenerability shield...
Of course some miners would add a Mining upgrade more instead of a damage controller but they would know that the loss is their fault...

In 0.0 The hulk would become an interestening bait also...

It is just an idea... But it would be easy for CCP to try things like that to balanced risk/gain.


Yes, thank you. Getting ganked in under 15 seconds by a ship that costs 1/10th of what yours does is lame. There is no challenge for the gankers any more and zero survivability for T2 mining ships. Mackinaws melt with barely a whiff of smoke.

Rather than extra slots, why not give their mining mods reduced CPU/PG cost based on Exhumers Skill? As they stand now, we can't even fill the mid slots we already have thanks to a gimped CPU/PG. I'm talking about Mackinaws BTW. Still an expensive T2 ship that build of rice paper.

Nobody is looking for immunity in High Sec. Just balance. Bring the cost up for the gankers and you will see better tactics and people can still take each other out because of grudges.
Previous page123