These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Mining ships and EVE design philosophy.

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#301 - 2013-02-15 23:24:42 UTC
EI Digin wrote:
Looks like temporary emergent gameplay event to me.


It became temporary, after a while even if it was flagged as "never ending", people lost interest, before the tiericide.

That's why I was against making HG permanent, because when done as event it's fun, when it becomes routine, people get bored.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#302 - 2013-02-16 02:16:24 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:

Well I am specific, I looked up a pair of cruisers and their speed is much better than a Mack and their tank is like or below an old Mack. If you mention a cruiser then I assume you mean a cruiser.


So you're deliberately ignoring the "CCP knows better when it comes to specific numbers so I'm going to remain absract." Currently the mackinaw sits at, assuming all 5s, ~11k EHP if it were set at cruiser EHP it would be ~9k EHP. Speed, agility and such aren't a part of the argument or consideration so I'm not sure why you are bringing it up.

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
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#303 - 2013-02-16 03:59:31 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:

Well I am specific, I looked up a pair of cruisers and their speed is much better than a Mack and their tank is like or below an old Mack. If you mention a cruiser then I assume you mean a cruiser.

So you're deliberately ignoring the "CCP knows better when it comes to specific numbers so I'm going to remain absract." Currently the mackinaw sits at, assuming all 5s, ~11k EHP if it were set at cruiser EHP it would be ~9k EHP. Speed, agility and such aren't a part of the argument or consideration so I'm not sure why you are bringing it up.

Clearly they are orbiting the asteroid to make it harder to be ganked.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Calapine
Xeno Tech Corp
#304 - 2013-02-16 08:25:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Calapine
What is this thread about again?

Mackinaws are regulary ganked by destroyer-only gangs. Judging from the killmails it seems the gankers like to focus on all-yield macks (3x MLU/IHU + paper tank in the mid) so the high yield <> high risk tradeoff seems to work just fine.

Considering a 200m ship (+fit) can easily be killed by a bunch of -10 sec status throwaway alts in 1m a pop catalysts, what's the issue?

Pain is short, and joy is eternal.
Kate stark
#305 - 2013-02-16 09:21:02 UTC
Calapine wrote:
What is this thread about again?


the fact that the mining barge rebalance completely failed.

Yay, this account hasn't had its signature banned. or its account, if you're reading this.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#306 - 2013-02-16 13:43:09 UTC
Calapine wrote:
What is this thread about again?

Mackinaws are regulary ganked by destroyer-only gangs. Judging from the killmails it seems the gankers like to focus on all-yield macks (3x MLU/IHU + paper tank in the mid) so the high yield <> high risk tradeoff seems to work just fine.

Considering a 200m ship (+fit) can easily be killed by a bunch of -10 sec status throwaway alts in 1m a pop catalysts, what's the issue?


You really should read the OP before posting. I know its over 500 characters but I have confidence you can do it.

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
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#307 - 2013-02-16 14:05:15 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:

Well I am specific, I looked up a pair of cruisers and their speed is much better than a Mack and their tank is like or below an old Mack. If you mention a cruiser then I assume you mean a cruiser.


So you're deliberately ignoring the "CCP knows better when it comes to specific numbers so I'm going to remain absract." Currently the mackinaw sits at, assuming all 5s, ~11k EHP if it were set at cruiser EHP it would be ~9k EHP. Speed, agility and such aren't a part of the argument or consideration so I'm not sure why you are bringing it up.


I opened a random cruiser and with all 5 it's 6.7k.
I opened another and with all 5 it's 6.9k.

It's just a 25% difference.

As for speed agility etc. etc. I take it, you don't seem to ever have tried actively dodging gankers coming to you or keeping some transversal to them.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#308 - 2013-02-16 14:13:56 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:

Well I am specific, I looked up a pair of cruisers and their speed is much better than a Mack and their tank is like or below an old Mack. If you mention a cruiser then I assume you mean a cruiser.


So you're deliberately ignoring the "CCP knows better when it comes to specific numbers so I'm going to remain absract." Currently the mackinaw sits at, assuming all 5s, ~11k EHP if it were set at cruiser EHP it would be ~9k EHP. Speed, agility and such aren't a part of the argument or consideration so I'm not sure why you are bringing it up.


I opened a random cruiser and with all 5 it's 6.7k.
I opened another and with all 5 it's 6.9k.

It's just a 25% difference.

As for speed agility etc. etc. I take it, you don't seem to ever have tried actively dodging gankers coming to you or keeping some transversal to them.


I've literally been the ganker so I know how much orbiting done well can screw up a gank. This is another trade-off you ignore too if the miner refuses to fit an AB, MWD, or some other speed influencing mod why should they be able to speed tank a ganker well? Also you are not looking at a T2 cruiser when referencing the mack, T1 is ~6k.

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
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#309 - 2013-02-16 18:16:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
La Nariz wrote:

I've literally been the ganker so I know how much orbiting done well can screw up a gank. This is another trade-off you ignore too if the miner refuses to fit an AB, MWD, or some other speed influencing mod why should they be able to speed tank a ganker well? Also you are not looking at a T2 cruiser when referencing the mack, T1 is ~6k.


Hmm please fill me in with the Mack fitting that includes a MWD please. Those damn miners totally refuse to use it. Spoiled brats!

Are you REALLY saying that you are cringing in terror if a mining ship could actually dodge-defend itself when the pilot is firmly attentive and at the keyboard? You only looking for auto-farm-easy-kills? Where's the stigma against botter if you don't want to reward those who chose to stay at the keyboard by giving them a chance?

Why do you want 18 wheels truck grade clumsy manouvrability and speed mining ships, but with the resilience of a bicycle? Pick one and stick to it even if it does not suit your immediate interest.

Also, is it me or your OP did not mention T2 cruisers? Why not specify "HAC" or similar when simple "cruiser" with no other context is assumed as T1 by default?

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Kate stark
#310 - 2013-02-16 19:38:20 UTC
it would be sensible to assume "cruiser" meant t2 cruiser by virtue of exhumers being t2 ships themselves, although not an obvious assumption.

Yay, this account hasn't had its signature banned. or its account, if you're reading this.
GetSirrus
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#311 - 2013-02-16 19:56:27 UTC
So the two arguments are:

1. there is general balancing philosophy. which drawn from a thread about modules, can be extended to ships in Eve as a ubiquitous compromise to fitting. OP believes mining barges have side stepped this law.

Well if you really believed in design philosophy we'd expect to you posting your support for the battlecruiser rebalance? Not seeing it OP.

2. not profitable to gank macks in their current state.

So it currently possible to gank - that's not been denied. When ships get killed in Null or Low or WH is it because there is ISK to be made from the salvaging the wreck or looting the mods? Making isk is an after thought. It is not nor ever has been the point of killing another ship in Eve. Which meets the qualification of Soundwave's statement that "ganking is not meant to be profitable". But you want to argue some special case or exception should exists for barge killing in high-sec?

Now that your arguments are refuted, I look forward to next train of thought to derail.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#312 - 2013-02-16 19:59:21 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:

Hmm please fill me in with the Mack fitting that includes a MWD please. Those damn miners totally refuse to use it. Spoiled brats!

Are you REALLY saying that you are cringing in terror if a mining ship could actually dodge-defend itself when the pilot is firmly attentive and at the keyboard? You only looking for auto-farm-easy-kills? Where's the stigma against botter if you don't want to reward those who chose to stay at the keyboard by giving them a chance?

Why do you want 18 wheels truck grade clumsy manouvrability and speed mining ships, but with the resilience of a bicycle? Pick one and stick to it even if it does not suit your immediate interest.

Also, is it me or your OP did not mention T2 cruisers? Why not specify "HAC" or similar when simple "cruiser" with no other context is assumed as T1 by default?


I listed speed/agility influencing mods; like I said before I'm deliberately remaining abstract because I'm leaving the specific numbers the hands of the people who have the data and know how to do it like CCP Fozzie. Like other ships the miners shouldn't expect their ship to move fast or be agile without devoting some fitting/training to it. So that means sure you can orbit that asteroid with your ship but you won't do it well unless you make a trade-off and fit for it. Does that mean sacrificing a mid slot for an AB or a low slot for an overdrive? Yes, it does if they want to use speed as a defense.

I can't help that you made a dumb assumption we aren't trying to balance the human condition here.

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
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#313 - 2013-02-16 19:59:56 UTC
GetSirrus wrote:
So the two arguments are:

1. there is general balancing philosophy. which drawn from a thread about modules, can be extended to ships in Eve as a ubiquitous compromise to fitting. OP believes mining barges have side stepped this law.

Well if you really believed in design philosophy we'd expect to you posting your support for the battlecruiser rebalance? Not seeing it OP.

2. not profitable to gank macks in their current state.

So it currently possible to gank - that's not been denied. When ships get killed in Null or Low or WH is it because there is ISK to be made from the salvaging the wreck or looting the mods? Making isk is an after thought. It is not nor ever has been the point of killing another ship in Eve. Which meets the qualification of Soundwave's statement that "ganking is not meant to be profitable". But you want to argue some special case or exception should exists for barge killing in high-sec?

Now that your arguments are refuted, I look forward to next train of thought to derail.


Your entire post is red herring, try again.

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
Kate stark
#314 - 2013-02-16 20:03:56 UTC
GetSirrus wrote:
When ships get killed in Null or Low or WH is it because there is ISK to be made from the salvaging the wreck or looting the mods? Making isk is an after thought.


that's because there's no cost associated with ganking outside of empire space. you're comparing apples to oranges.

Yay, this account hasn't had its signature banned. or its account, if you're reading this.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#315 - 2013-02-16 20:07:32 UTC
GetSirrus wrote:
So the two arguments are:

1. there is general balancing philosophy. which drawn from a thread about modules, can be extended to ships in Eve as a ubiquitous compromise to fitting. OP believes mining barges have side stepped this law.

Well if you really believed in design philosophy we'd expect to you posting your support for the battlecruiser rebalance? Not seeing it OP.

2. not profitable to gank macks in their current state.

So it currently possible to gank - that's not been denied. When ships get killed in Null or Low or WH is it because there is ISK to be made from the salvaging the wreck or looting the mods? Making isk is an after thought. It is not nor ever has been the point of killing another ship in Eve. Which meets the qualification of Soundwave's statement that "ganking is not meant to be profitable". But you want to argue some special case or exception should exists for barge killing in high-sec?

Now that your arguments are refuted, I look forward to next train of thought to derail.


1. The BC rebalance (which I happen to like) isn't relevant to this thread.

2. In Low/Null, the ganker isn't guaranteed the loss of their ship by omnipotent NPC super cops.
Arguing that "ganking isn't meant to be profitable" is arguing that Freighters with more ISK in their hold than their tank can protect shouldn't be profitable to gank (i.e. Freighters should get more EHP based on the value of their cargo). It was only ever profitable to kill poorly or untanked Exhumers who had more ISK in their fittings than their tank could protect.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#316 - 2013-02-16 20:09:43 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Why do you want 18 wheels truck grade clumsy manouvrability and speed mining ships, but with the resilience of a bicycle? Pick one and stick to it even if it does not suit your immediate interest.


Since you're bringing up RL comparisons, show me a normal, not designed to be super tanky (because that's the Skiff), 18 wheeler that can survive an RPG intact. RPGs are cheaper than an 18-wheeler's scrap value so, assuming laws equivalent to EVE's HS, an 18 wheeler would be profitable to gank.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
GreenSeed
#317 - 2013-02-16 20:23:54 UTC  |  Edited by: GreenSeed
La Nariz wrote:
Calapine wrote:
What is this thread about again?

Mackinaws are regulary ganked by destroyer-only gangs. Judging from the killmails it seems the gankers like to focus on all-yield macks (3x MLU/IHU + paper tank in the mid) so the high yield <> high risk tradeoff seems to work just fine.

Considering a 200m ship (+fit) can easily be killed by a bunch of -10 sec status throwaway alts in 1m a pop catalysts, what's the issue?


You really should read the OP before posting. I know its over 500 characters but I have confidence you can do it.



your OP is baseless, people are telling you that macks die just as easily as before, except now they cost a good 60m extra at wholesale. and they drop better salvage...

the only anomaly is the ungankable, unbumpable 1mn perma mwd skiff, but that has to exist because of events like hulkgeddon, that kill supply and hurt the market, on an economy like the current one, where minerals are no longer "cheap"; both because of reduction of extraction (drone poo nerf) and because of a MASSIVE increase in consumption (the tiercide has been the best stealth nerf to highsec in years, and most people are still oblivious to it.) in this current market, any disruption can and will be harmful. CCP knows the eve market cant be a "lol free market" anymore, so they intervened in it and set a regulation, that regulation is the Skiff. the skiff is the "minimum yield" the market can expect.


if your thread were about how having a "minimum yield" is the equivalent of having a "maximum price" is an economy, and how that could in the long run be harmful, then we could have a conversation.

as it is, your arguments are not even clever.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#318 - 2013-02-16 21:21:47 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Why do you want 18 wheels truck grade clumsy manouvrability and speed mining ships, but with the resilience of a bicycle? Pick one and stick to it even if it does not suit your immediate interest.


Since you're bringing up RL comparisons, show me a normal, not designed to be super tanky (because that's the Skiff), 18 wheeler that can survive an RPG intact. RPGs are cheaper than an 18-wheeler's scrap value so, assuming laws equivalent to EVE's HS, an 18 wheeler would be profitable to gank.


18 wheelers are not engineered with the concept that when once they "undock" they are meant to be hit by a RPG.
Ships are, since shooting is the way they "interact". Mining ships, incredibly enough, are ships.

If you make a point about AFKers should lose ships,
if you make a point about botters should lose ships,
if you make a point about bad players / fitters should lose ships,
if you make a point those ships should even be profitable to farm,

then you HAVE to accept that players who don't AFK, don't bot, fit the ship well should stand more than a chance to survive. If not due to tank (which you want to nerf) then due to manouvers.

But no, you have never enough, they should ALSO be immovable, fragile crystal bricks.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#319 - 2013-02-16 21:28:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
La Nariz wrote:

I listed speed/agility influencing mods;


If not a MWD, then try nano fitting a Mack then and see how agile it becomes Cool


La Nariz wrote:

like I said before I'm deliberately remaining abstract because I'm leaving the specific numbers the hands of the people who have the data and know how to do it like CCP Fozzie.


CCP had the specific numbers, have the data and how do you know it was not CCP Fozzie who tiericided mining ships?

You want to leave the numbers and data. Yet when CCP did it, you did not like those numbers and data so you want a re-patch made to suit you. That's all.
Incidentally, it's now 3 days I am checking my The Forge system (I remote trade from there) and 3 days out of 3, there was Concord at the ice belt. Clearly no gank is getting done any more!

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#320 - 2013-02-16 21:53:50 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
18 wheelers are not engineered with the concept that when once they "undock" they are meant to be hit by a RPG.
Ships are, since shooting is the way they "interact". Mining ships, incredibly enough, are ships.

If you make a point about AFKers should lose ships,
if you make a point about botters should lose ships,
if you make a point about bad players / fitters should lose ships,
if you make a point those ships should even be profitable to farm,

then you HAVE to accept that players who don't AFK, don't bot, fit the ship well should stand more than a chance to survive. If not due to tank (which you want to nerf) then due to manouvers.

But no, you have never enough, they should ALSO be immovable, fragile crystal bricks.


You brought up the comparison. And you, as usual, keep trying to shove words in my mouth.
Where did I say they should be immovable. Where did I say all Exhumers should be fragile? The Mack and the Hulk should be because otherwise there is no reason in the world to use a Skiff.


The Skiff is meant to provide you safety through tank. The Mackinaw is not. You should not be expecting one Hull to do every job well because different ships having different primary strengths is the entire idea behind tiericide.

Manuvers also work great. You can fit webs on your mining ship (and a friends) and both be fully aligned while moving no more than 7m/s (which takes about half an hour to cover 10km). You can be in warp long before a cloaked ship can bump you if you're paying attention.

The Hulk was always able to tank enough that it was absolutely unprofitable to gank (and thus not ganked) before the buff. It could even be done in most situations with 1 MLU.

You're the one claiming that Miners should have enormous cargoholds, great tank, and great yield all at once.


I'm saying (and have always been saying) that people who fly a Mack or Hulk should be profitable to gank if the ganker can catch them*. Someone AFK in a Skiff should not be profitable to gank, regardless of fit. Do you agree or disagree?

*If you can tank the Mack such that it is unprofitable to gank, it will always be strictly better than the Skiff. So it has to be possible to profitably gank a tanked Mack or the Skiff is worthless, going against the entire goal of tiericide.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon