These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Barge Fairy Tale

First post First post
Author
Noriko Satomi
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#41 - 2012-07-26 03:45:17 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
Marconus Orion wrote:
Oh he mad.


But is he wrong?

Nope.

Fitted properly, a Hulk cannot be profitably ganked.

Yes, he's completely wrong. They're not buffing the tank on the Hulk: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1481903#post1481903

They're just shrinking the cargo hold and adding an ore hold, which cargo expanders won't have an affect on.

If miners fit a hulk for max yield, they'll still have a wafer thin tank. The other mining vessels will be more tanky, so miners will have a bit more choice, but how is that a bad thing?

Gankers were already handed both the Tornado and a destroyer buff. This is just balance.
Roll Sizzle Beef
Space Mutiny
#42 - 2012-07-26 03:48:36 UTC
Noriko Satomi wrote:

Yes, he's completely wrong. They're not buffing the tank on the Hulk: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1481903#post1481903

They're just shrinking the cargo hold and adding an ore hold, which cargo expanders won't have an affect on.

If miners fit a hulk for max yield, they'll still have a wafer thin tank. The other mining vessels will be more tanky, so miners will have a bit more choice, but how is that a bad thing?

Gankers were already handed both the Tornado and a destroyer buff. This is just balance.

Actually its slightly buffed. Yet not to the extent of the other two hulls.

Hulk gets
keeps 2,500 hull.
1,300 more armor to 2.3k
1,200 more shield yet almost double the recharge time to 2.7k


mack gets
2,800 more hull to 4k
3,000 more armor to 3.7k
3,300 more shield but 3 times the recharge time to 4.3k

skiff get
5,400 more hull to 6k
4,150 more armor to 5.5k
5,900 more shield but almost 4 times the recharge to 6.5k

hulk is still a lot lighter compared to the other two.
Zagdul
Virtual Progression
#43 - 2012-07-26 03:49:10 UTC
Grats to miners on your reduced profits.

It's gonna be so easy now that everyone who does it will feel safe and do so with awesome yield, great cargo so they don't need to check as often and above all, in safety.

Gone are the days where EVE is a dangerous place.

Well, I guess ships will be cheap to produce.

Dual Pane idea: Click!

CCP Please Implement

Pipa Porto
#44 - 2012-07-26 03:50:19 UTC
Noriko Satomi wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
Marconus Orion wrote:
Oh he mad.


But is he wrong?

Nope.

Fitted properly, a Hulk cannot be profitably ganked.

Yes, he's completely wrong. They're not buffing the tank on the Hulk: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1481903#post1481903

They're just shrinking the cargo hold and adding an ore hold, which cargo expanders won't have an affect on.

If miners fit a hulk for max yield, they'll still have a wafer thin tank. The other mining vessels will be more tanky, so miners will have a bit more choice, but how is that a bad thing?

Gankers were already handed both the Tornado and a destroyer buff. This is just balance.


The balance to the Nado and Dessie Buff was the Insurance nerf.

The SISI numbers say you're wrong on the rest.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#45 - 2012-07-26 03:51:49 UTC
Zagdul wrote:
Gone are the days where EVE is a dangerous place.

I seem to have missed the part when they made all player ships immune to damage.
Zagdul
Virtual Progression
#46 - 2012-07-26 03:51:55 UTC
Roll Sizzle Beef wrote:
Noriko Satomi wrote:

Yes, he's completely wrong. They're not buffing the tank on the Hulk: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1481903#post1481903

They're just shrinking the cargo hold and adding an ore hold, which cargo expanders won't have an affect on.

If miners fit a hulk for max yield, they'll still have a wafer thin tank. The other mining vessels will be more tanky, so miners will have a bit more choice, but how is that a bad thing?

Gankers were already handed both the Tornado and a destroyer buff. This is just balance.

Actually its slightly buffed. Yet not to the extent of the other two hulls.

Hulk gets
keeps 2,500 hull.
1,300 more armor to 2.3k
1,200 more shield yet almost double the recharge time to 2.7k


mack gets
2,800 more hull to 4k
3,000 more armor to 3.7k
3,300 more shield but 3 times the recharge time to 4.3k

skiff get
5,400 more hull to 6k
4,150 more armor to 5.5k
5,900 more shield but almost 4 times the recharge to 6.5k

hulk is still a lot lighter compared to the other two.


Now, slap some tank on those raw numbers my friend.

Skiff gets some insane numbers like 70k ehp.

Dual Pane idea: Click!

CCP Please Implement

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#47 - 2012-07-26 03:55:07 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
The balance to the Nado and Dessie Buff was the Insurance nerf.

Kinda depends on how CCP looks at it. If insurance removal was designed to put ganking in the place that they thought it should probably have originally been when looking back, then that change doesn't need a counter as it was setting something strait that they decided shouldn't have been, leaving only the plus for gankers that is the improved ganking tools.
CCP Soundwave
C C P
C C P Alliance
#48 - 2012-07-26 03:56:39 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Zagdul wrote:
Gone are the days where EVE is a dangerous place.

I seem to have missed the part when they made all player ships immune to damage.


That won't happen as long as I'm around, btw.

Suicide ganking wasn't designed to be profitable, it's meant to be an option that let's you punish someone else at your expense. The money you paid for a ship to gank with compared to the money lost by your target was completely off and this change should bring that to a better spot. That said, the numbers can still be adjusted.
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#49 - 2012-07-26 04:00:37 UTC
^ Like how their faces, should be adjusted.

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne

Herr Hammer Draken
#50 - 2012-07-26 04:01:15 UTC
Eh and there it is.

Herr Hammer Draken "The Amarr Prophet"

Malphilos
State War Academy
Caldari State
#51 - 2012-07-26 04:05:45 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Suicide ganking wasn't designed to be profitable, it's meant to be an option that let's you punish someone else at your expense.


There's a whole bunch of interesting in this bit.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
#52 - 2012-07-26 04:06:43 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Suicide ganking wasn't designed to be profitable, it's meant to be an option that let's you punish someone else at your expense. The money you paid for a ship to gank with compared to the money lost by your target was completely off and this change should bring that to a better spot. That said, the numbers can still be adjusted.

Tell that to the triple-digit billions I've made from ganking haulers and freighters carrying ungodly amounts of crap without a second though given to defense. I can safely say that I've caused many of those people to quit in anger. But go ahead, "adjust the numbers" if you need help with your mortgage payments.

The point is, we're not going to stop ganking until you remove aggression in high-sec, which I'm sure you'll do within the next couple of years (it's the only logical conclusion to the gradual progression that's been going on). Until that happens, we'll continue doing what we do, either by using more people, or using different, valid game mechanics. All your actions are reactionary, and are only responses to the need for short-term subscription increases. Face the facts: we know more about this game than a whole lot of people currently in charge of maintaining it, and you guys are really regretting the whole "non-consensual pvp" thing in this here year 2012. If you really want that sub spike, stop beating around the bush with these gradual let-downs, and change the game in one fell swoop. At least that way you'll leave with a bang, and a nice bonus in the bank.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted

rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#53 - 2012-07-26 04:12:29 UTC
^ I wish I made that much money, from dieing in missions.

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne

Abdiel Kavash
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#54 - 2012-07-26 04:13:42 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Suicide ganking wasn't designed to be profitable


And I'm already laughing at the hordes of carebears who will quote you out of context for the next year at least.
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#55 - 2012-07-26 04:14:00 UTC
Yeah CCP I was suiciding that drone outpost. It should definetly have modules inside, worthy of my domi dieing to take it out. My death was totally on purpose and your ruining this game saying it meant nothing. Well it meant something to ME.

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne

rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#56 - 2012-07-26 04:17:25 UTC
Abdiel Kavash wrote:
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Suicide ganking wasn't designed to be profitable

And I'm already laughing at the hordes of carebears who will quote you out of context for the next year at least.


CCP Soundwave wrote:
Suicide ganking wasn't designed to be profitable


Ah finally a dev, with the carebear at heart. Can you put that on the soundwave soundboard, so I can listen to that, while going to bed. Yeah out of context as well. Like how predictable money making from suicide ganks is the same thing as hunting a place and studying the prey for a random occurence to make billions. Totally the same. Out of context, its so fun

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne

La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#57 - 2012-07-26 04:19:19 UTC
Roll Sizzle Beef wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
Instead of giving mining ships a unique role and letting the miner determine which tool is the best for the job we're just going to make them all the same and let the trisomy 32 miners fly the 500mill isk ship that is clearly the best because it costs 500mill isk.


so "mercoxit ship", "ice ship", "everything else ship" is letting miners determine which tool is better for the job? Well fancy that.


That's not what I'm getting at. The new rigs are a good thing. What I was getting at was selecting the ship and fitting properly for the task you want to accomplish. Like picking the ship with the biggest ore bay for solo mining, the ship with the highest yield for group operations, and the ship with the best tank for dangerous operations.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133

Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
#58 - 2012-07-26 04:21:11 UTC
Something tells me that unless this thread is locked soon, it will reach fifty pages in half a day. A dev slinging a comment like that is nothing less than the **** storm of the season.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted

Implying Implications
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#59 - 2012-07-26 04:21:52 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Suicide ganking wasn't designed to be profitable

wat
Hypercake Mix
#60 - 2012-07-26 04:23:36 UTC
WELL.

1. Get stuff
2. FIGHT!

I think CCP wants us to experience more of 2 and less of 1. ALL of us. Not just the guys that went and grabbed the Happy-Fun-Forever passes.

Jeez. -.- What's with you all trying to stop people from having fun?

And, I guess you guys overlooked the sig radius changes to the Procurer/Skiff and Retriever/Mackinaw too.