EVE General Discussion

I was thinking of the retriever recently, and how it pulls in the same amount as a procurer, despite the fact that the retriever can do it afk. I don't think we should be rewarding afk gameplay - if someone is forced to be actively engaged on the keyboard, they should get more than people who are afking. Reducing the retriever/mackinaw strip miner yield would be a good thing, giving more reason to use the other barges. The Mack and Hulk could use less tank as well, they're so strong it's hardly worth using a skiff.

What ships usually are profitable to be ganked anyway? Lets say with a T2 fit since most exhumer probably fit T2 too for whatever they have fitted. Any point where we can start comparing?

The level of ganking going on when it was possible to make more ISK from the gank than it cost to perform the gank was far too high. I attribute the profitability of ganking ice harvesting ships down to the market value of Ice Harvester IIs, along with the value of salvage from an exhumer, along with the requirement for ships harvesting ice to be sat in space for tens of minutes at a time doing absolutely nothing.



We agree on that part. No need to complain to me that I don't understand your ganker rage.

I agree with CCP though: it should not be possible to make a living by ganking ships that are adequately set up for the task they are designed to do. Why is a T2 ice harvester worth 6M ISK? What other medium-sized weapon module is worth that much? Officer turrets maybe? What do we call people who fly officer-fitted battlecruisers into missions? Loot piñatas. Is a T2 fitted combat ship economically viable to suicide gank? Nope.

A correct rebalancing for mining barges and exhumers will require CCP to decide that they are cruiser or battle-cruiser sized ships (Procurer/Skiff is clearly cruiser-sized, Hulk is clearly battle-cruiser sized) and adjust their EHP and fittings appropriately.

Even better would be moving mining to grav sites exclusively, though I'd retain the basic mechanic of pointing a mining laser at a rock for a long time due to the niche of mining as a social or semi-AFK activity.

And to people who whinge that you shouldn't be able to play EVE while AFK, I don't care for your opinion: anyone who has a Jabber server that tells them when to log in doesn't get to lecture everyone else about playing EVE while AFK. Do you use login traps? Do you coordinate activities before logging in to the game? Do you participate in the metagame more than you particpate in the actual game? You are playing EVE AFK.

At least an AFK miner is providing "content" for gankers. Mining as an activity that requires mining sites to be "made safe" means that mining is an activity that can be made "unsafe". Without the logistics chain of industry being vulnerable, how do you interrupt the logistics chain?

So let's look at what opinion we share and don't share: We agree that the EHP buff was too much. We agree that the current Mackinaw is an abomination and an affront to sanity (35k m3 ore bay? more tank than a Hulk before even fitting tanking modules?). We agree that mining is too safe right now.

We don't agree on the appropriate level of "tankiness" for barges and exhumers. I wanted all the exhumers to have a little more tank than they used to have (10PG for the Hulk? Is that too much to ask?), you want the easy money from ganking endlessly.

Given the option to fit for tank or yield, many miners will opt for yield. That's where you the gankers come in: your role in the ecosystem was to find the lame, the sick, the slow, and be the visible hand of the evolutionary process.

Your role was not to bankroll your nullsec PvP activities selling Ice Harvester II modules back to the miners you stole them from.

First you need to appreciate that ganking of exhumers was at an historic high before the EHP buff.

To understand the cure, you must first understand the disease.

That is exactly what the discussion is about. That is exactly why ganking was so profligate leading up to the EHP buff. That is exactly why ganking fell off a cliff when the buff was introduced.

Since the EHP buff, I have lost exhumer(s) to gankers who had no interest in the economic benefits of blowing up someone else's stuff. Suicide ganking still happens, despite the loss of profitability.

Assuming your point of exhumer being supposed to equivalent to a cruiser tank, then thier naked all skill at 5 tank would be up to 3k EHP above T2 cruiser except recon ship (up to 6k). If cruiser is indeed the target level of tank, then now an argument could be made.

Similar packaged size, Similar Sig radius. Sounds like a Cruiser to me.

But the comparison's irrelevant. What matters is how their EHP is balanced compared to the options to destroy them in HS (as EHP largely doesn't matter elsewhere).
Should a miner who sacrifices something to keep themselves safer gain some significant safety benefit over one who does not? If you think they should, then Mackinaw EHP is far too high. If you don't, why not?

AFK, Untanked miners are only at a significant risk when it is profitable to gank them.

Directly from the devblog, mackniaws/hulks should be cruiser level EHP and procuror/skiff should be battleship level EHP.

Geesus H, jimmany crickets, why are so many concerned with f'ing miners and their barges, the only 2 with excellent tanks are the procurer and skiff, the mid size if not tanked die real easily, and the top die if you fart on them.

Seems to me that these...f...FFF..folks just want to fly around in the cheapest ship possible to gank paper thin ships so they can get lol's for nothing and have a segment of the eve universe pay for "their" good time.

I flew 2 industrial ships right into goon space "boom" just like that bet it was the best time those gate campers had all day.
I did it so you could have fun filled my Mexican pinatas with candy for you....nothing ever will satisfy boredom of this game except taking a break...just take a break.

The dev said they should have cruiser EHP. I think they should have cruiser EHP because of that.