These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Time to do something about locust swarms?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Gorinia Sanford
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#141 - 2014-08-17 08:23:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Gorinia Sanford
Faeana wrote:
Locust swarms, are the players who multibox ice anomalies in hi-sec with 10-20 accounts or more. Usually they contain a large number of Procurers or Skiffs, a Freighter, and an Orca. These players can make billions daily for just a few hours of play in hi-sec and they do it virtually risk free. That's because Procurers and Skiffs are too strong against gankers, they don't have to worry about losing ships. Even if they did occasionally lose one, it's nothing to the amount of isk they are earning. It also can't be much fun for the other players when many anomalies has one or two of these greedy players around.

Does anyone have a solution to this? I only have two suggestions, one would be to let the gankers sort it out. The ice fields are full of procurers and skiffs, I don't know what percentage they are but I would guess there is 85% procurers/skiffs, 10% rets/macks and 5% hulks/covetors across the ice fields in hi-sec on average. If that's the case, the solution would be to nerf the Skiff and Procurer a bit. It's far too strong, if determined gankers could target this type of player that could be the answer.

The other idea would be to stop isboxer, but I think that alone may not solve this problem. I like the first idea better.


Yeah, how about no. I usually hit ice belts solo, grab a few blocks for the corp in my off time to make fuel blocks to keep our POSes running. That and the those two mining ships are what I use in lowsec when we have a group op, as they can survive long enough for security to take out irritants trying to interrupt us while we mine.

Here's a better solution. Get in a corp, get some Orca support and go raid the ice belts for yourself. It's good money, with what I can grab when I mine ice.
Schmata Bastanold
In Boobiez We Trust
#142 - 2014-08-17 08:27:24 UTC
You complain about swarms being in NPC corp immune to wardecs while you are enjoying same privilege. And what is stopping you from subbing 10 more accounts and have your own swarm you could race against their swarms? Oh I know, forum whining is easier and solves all your pixel problems, right?

Invalid signature format
Lucrii Dei
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#143 - 2014-08-17 09:19:53 UTC
Faeana wrote:
Lucrii Dei wrote:
Wardecs! Then they'll either stop mining ice to fight you, stop mining ice to sit in dock or toddle off to the badger hole they came from!


Many are already in an NPC corp, the ones who are not, will leave their corp when you war declare them and form a new one. These are the most risk adverse players in EVE, and they are earning a fortune doing it.

Someone said a max yield hulk mines 30% more than a max yield skiff. Let me explain something to you, a max yield hulk will not last long in hi-sec, the ship is defenseless and requires a fleet to protect it. The max yield option is not viable for hi-sec, you have to fit a lot of tank, and then you end up with the same yield as the skiff, with only 25% of its tank, and smaller cargo bay. Also that 30% more yield is nothing compared to the 1000% more tank the skiff has. Yes a max yield skiff can get roughly 10 times higher effective HP vs catalysts than a max yield Hulk.


You need not explain anything to me. I am fully aware of the differences between max cargo, max yield and max tank across barge tiers. An attentive miners barge will last as long as they like in any system 0.5+ and it does not need a fleet to protect it regardless of which tier it is. as long you are paying attention to local and d-scan.

Paying zero attention while mining in a region with heavy aggression towards miners is a self-fulfilling prophecy, but that's not the argument here. The argument is using ISB for fleet mining, which in the great scheme of things, is no different to having a fleet of individual players mining the same belt.

Unless there is a specific reason they are causing you hindrance I.E. you have structures or production to manage with said ice, then your only problem is that you are aware of the fact that a fleet of barges is a single player.

╔═══ ♥ ═════════════╗

EVEcandy™; An EVE Gallery!

╚══════════════ ♥ ══╝
Carribean Queen
Vadimus Quarrier Works
#144 - 2014-08-17 09:25:56 UTC
Faeana wrote:
After reading a few miner posts, I see a second option to solving this issue without nerfing the skiff tank.

Reduce skiff mining yield a bit. Many miners use an Orca or other hauler and so the extra ore hold of the Mackinkaw is just useless, there's no reason to use a Mackinkaw over a Skiff. Reduce skiff yield 10% from current and we should see a few less Skiffs.


The Skiff is already the lowest. And nerfing the yield more won't prevent people from using them. They don't want to get ganked, so the fly max tanked Skiff instead. Flying anything else, it's a matter of when you will be ganked, not if.

End of story on that.

Don't like it? Bump them out of the belt, get your friends and some more friends and perform the ganks. Etc etc etc.

CCP gave the miners an option. Take less yield to not get ganked, or risk more yield and get ganked.

WORKING AS INTENDED.

I am now training up Tear Collection Level 5 just so I can buy a bin large enough to hold all of the delicious drops of stupidity.
Faeana
iD00M
#145 - 2014-08-17 09:35:24 UTC
Carribean Queen wrote:
Faeana wrote:
After reading a few miner posts, I see a second option to solving this issue without nerfing the skiff tank.

Reduce skiff mining yield a bit. Many miners use an Orca or other hauler and so the extra ore hold of the Mackinkaw is just useless, there's no reason to use a Mackinkaw over a Skiff. Reduce skiff yield 10% from current and we should see a few less Skiffs.


The Skiff is already the lowest. And nerfing the yield more won't prevent people from using them. They don't want to get ganked, so the fly max tanked Skiff instead. Flying anything else, it's a matter of when you will be ganked, not if.

End of story on that.

Don't like it? Bump them out of the belt, get your friends and some more friends and perform the ganks. Etc etc etc.

CCP gave the miners an option. Take less yield to not get ganked, or risk more yield and get ganked.

WORKING AS INTENDED.

I am now training up Tear Collection Level 5 just so I can buy a bin large enough to hold all of the delicious drops of stupidity.


Shows how much you know. The skiff is not the lowest, it has the same yield as the mackinkaw. If you factor in that it's stupid to mine in a mackinkaw without a damage control fitted, then the skiff has more yield than the mackinkaw.
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#146 - 2014-08-17 09:39:28 UTC
Gankers have been forever telling miners to stop whining and tank if they want to survive. Now they're all whining because the miners listened to them.

You just gotta love that irony.

Mr Epeen Cool
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#147 - 2014-08-17 09:42:26 UTC
Mr Epeen wrote:
Gankers have been forever telling miners to stop whining and tank if they want to survive. Now they're all whining because the miners listened to them.


The above poster did not even pretend to have read the thread.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Faeana
iD00M
#148 - 2014-08-17 09:44:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Faeana
Mr Epeen wrote:
Gankers have been forever telling miners to stop whining and tank if they want to survive. Now they're all whining because the miners listened to them.

You just gotta love that irony.

Mr Epeen Cool


Actually the miners didn't listen, they whined. Now almost all of them fit a max yield skif, not a tanked one. What happened is CCP gave them a ship that is not only a strong tank by default, regardless of how you choose to "tank" but also one with few downsides. 15k cargo is more than enough for any miner, and many miners you will have Orca support, negating that downside completely. The yield is better than the mackinkaw when you factor in the skiff can fit for max yield and not have to worry about how to tank.

The skiff should at least have required them to fit for tank if they truly wish to never lose the skiff to a ganker. As it stands now they all fit Skiff for max yield and still have a tank strong enough to ensure that they will likely never lose that ship.

All i'm saying is that if a miner wants to use a max yield skiff, he should have more of a chance to be ganked than current. The Skiff is the only barge that can fit max yield and a full T2 tank. The other exhumers would struggle to fit any tank at all if they fit for max yield.

They can fix this easily. Reduce Skiff HP so that a max yield skiff will be more gankable than it is now, while a damage control fitted skiff will still probably never be lost. Or reduce the CPU of the skiff, so it's impossible to fit a good tank if you fit for max yield. Probably a combination of both is best. End result is a skiff fitted for max yield will be ganked more easily than present, but if fitted with a damage control will be as it is now, never ganked. This also brings it into line with the Hulk and Mackinkaw, it is already like this with those ships, fit max yield, tank suffers greatly, increased risk. The max yield skiff will still be several times stronger than a max yield Hulk or Mackinkaw.
Barzai Mekhar
True Confusion
#149 - 2014-08-17 10:00:50 UTC
Faeana wrote:
Mr Epeen wrote:
Gankers have been forever telling miners to stop whining and tank if they want to survive. Now they're all whining because the miners listened to them.

You just gotta love that irony.

Mr Epeen Cool


Actually the miners didn't listen, they whined. Now almost all of them fit a max yield skif, not a tanked one. What happened is CCP gave them a ship that is not only a strong tank by default, regardless of how you choose to "tank" but also one with few downsides. 15k cargo is more than enough for any miner, and many miners you will have Orca support, negating that downside completely. The yield is better than the mackinkaw when you factor in the skiff can fit for max yield and not have to worry about how to tank.


Using your Orca to haul for 4+ ships is a bad idea, as it will ruin your boosts. For miners in small to medium sized operations (anything without dedicated hauler that isn't the fleet booster) the cargo difference between Mack and Skiff is significant, doubling the number of round trips required cuts badly into your profits.

If you have a dedicated hauler, the Mack should not be a valid alternative, because you set up your entire operation in a way that renders the Macks designated advantage void. The competition should be between Skiff and Hulk, and it is. If you pick a quiet system, you choose a Hulk, if you choose a dangerous system you pick a Skiff, according to their strengths. The imbalance in ship usage simply results from the much larger number of dangerous vs. quiet systems.
Faeana
iD00M
#150 - 2014-08-17 10:07:37 UTC
Barzai Mekhar wrote:
Faeana wrote:
Mr Epeen wrote:
Gankers have been forever telling miners to stop whining and tank if they want to survive. Now they're all whining because the miners listened to them.

You just gotta love that irony.

Mr Epeen Cool


Actually the miners didn't listen, they whined. Now almost all of them fit a max yield skif, not a tanked one. What happened is CCP gave them a ship that is not only a strong tank by default, regardless of how you choose to "tank" but also one with few downsides. 15k cargo is more than enough for any miner, and many miners you will have Orca support, negating that downside completely. The yield is better than the mackinkaw when you factor in the skiff can fit for max yield and not have to worry about how to tank.


Using your Orca to haul for 4+ ships is a bad idea, as it will ruin your boosts. For miners in small to medium sized operations (anything without dedicated hauler that isn't the fleet booster) the cargo difference between Mack and Skiff is significant, doubling the number of round trips required cuts badly into your profits.

If you have a dedicated hauler, the Mack should not be a valid alternative, because you set up your entire operation in a way that renders the Macks designated advantage void. The competition should be between Skiff and Hulk, and it is. If you pick a quiet system, you choose a Hulk, if you choose a dangerous system you pick a Skiff, according to their strengths. The imbalance in ship usage simply results from the much larger number of dangerous vs. quiet systems.


Actually the difference works out to be about 10% less ice in a skiff vs a mackinkaw if you mine solo without hauling support. 10% less is not significant or badly cutting into your profits.
Barzai Mekhar
True Confusion
#151 - 2014-08-17 10:14:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Barzai Mekhar
Faeana wrote:
Barzai Mekhar wrote:
Faeana wrote:
Mr Epeen wrote:
Gankers have been forever telling miners to stop whining and tank if they want to survive. Now they're all whining because the miners listened to them.

You just gotta love that irony.

Mr Epeen Cool


Actually the miners didn't listen, they whined. Now almost all of them fit a max yield skif, not a tanked one. What happened is CCP gave them a ship that is not only a strong tank by default, regardless of how you choose to "tank" but also one with few downsides. 15k cargo is more than enough for any miner, and many miners you will have Orca support, negating that downside completely. The yield is better than the mackinkaw when you factor in the skiff can fit for max yield and not have to worry about how to tank.


Using your Orca to haul for 4+ ships is a bad idea, as it will ruin your boosts. For miners in small to medium sized operations (anything without dedicated hauler that isn't the fleet booster) the cargo difference between Mack and Skiff is significant, doubling the number of round trips required cuts badly into your profits.

If you have a dedicated hauler, the Mack should not be a valid alternative, because you set up your entire operation in a way that renders the Macks designated advantage void. The competition should be between Skiff and Hulk, and it is. If you pick a quiet system, you choose a Hulk, if you choose a dangerous system you pick a Skiff, according to their strengths. The imbalance in ship usage simply results from the much larger number of dangerous vs. quiet systems.


Actually the difference works out to be about 10% less ice in a skiff vs a mackinkaw if you mine solo without hauling support. 10% less is not significant or badly cutting into your profits.


If that's the case then why are you crying over a single DCU that's not required for the Skiff and can be replaced by a MLU? Did MLU II's get buffed to provide more than 9% bonus while I wasn't looking?

In addition, twice the number of roundtrips = twice the number of interactions. Again, not relevant when you have to ISB 20 synchronous ships, but very relevant for people alt-tabbing through < 10 ships.
Kendra Coldera
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#152 - 2014-08-17 10:27:40 UTC
Can't believe it but I am actually posting in a "NERF MINING INCOME" Thread.

LOLOLOLOLOL LolLolLolLolRollRollRoll
Celthric Kanerian
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#153 - 2014-08-17 10:30:15 UTC
Call CODE. and see if they'll do something about it.. They're a bunch of moron gankers.
Dave Stark
#154 - 2014-08-17 10:35:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
Faeana wrote:
Reduce skiff mining yield a bit.

there isn't an exhumer with a lower yield, so, no.
Schmata Bastanold
In Boobiez We Trust
#155 - 2014-08-17 10:41:26 UTC
First it was 'reduce skiff tank' now it's 'reduce skiff yield'. How about 'reduce whine and HTFU'?

Invalid signature format
Space Therapist
Better Days Ahead
#156 - 2014-08-17 11:02:26 UTC
Mining used to be hard so wth.

See my bio for rates and services.
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
#157 - 2014-08-17 11:09:00 UTC
Lucrii Dei wrote:
The argument is using ISB for fleet mining, which in the great scheme of things, is no different to having a fleet of individual players mining the same belt.

Playing solo is the same as playing in a team? I don't agree, especially in the "great scheme of things".

Remove standings and insurance.
Space Therapist
Better Days Ahead
#158 - 2014-08-17 11:15:49 UTC
Kendra Coldera wrote:
Can't believe it but I am actually posting in a "NERF MINING INCOME" Thread.

LOLOLOLOLOL LolLolLolLolRollRollRoll




How does Chribba feel about this issue?

See my bio for rates and services.
Jegrey Dozer
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#159 - 2014-08-17 11:17:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Jegrey Dozer
Faeana wrote:

Normal players with one account, or a few accounts even, are not making billions from hi-sec ice fields. It's the guys who using a large number of Skiffs and Procurers orbiting an Orca and or Freighter. They never use retrievers or covetor hulls, because they would be targetted for ganks.

As it is, there is far too many Procurers and Skiffs being used in hi-sec anomalies, most players are using them, this shows that there is a balance issue. So the obvious thing to do is, is solve the balance issue by adjusting the Skiff and Procurer so people will actually start to gank them occasionally and the issue will sort itself out. Two birds killed with one stone.

These guys don't even need combat ships to defend their mining fleets while they earn billions in complete safety. They are using 10 or 20 industrial ships in a blob and require no combat ships for defense. It's a joke. Perhaps we'll see some of them start using some combat ships for defense if they actually needed to.


I get your frustration with multiboxers, but nerfing a single ship does not stop them from doing what they do. That is why your point makes no sense.

It would make more sense to direct your energy towards a solution that mainly inhibits multiboxers. I say "mainly" because any change you make will have repercussions for everyone else, not just multiboxers, so keep that in mind when you try to make everyone swallow the nerf pill.


Unfortunately, multiboxing does not seem to be looked down upon so I think that your struggle falls on deaf ears.
Jegrey Dozer
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#160 - 2014-08-17 11:18:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Jegrey Dozer
*accidental repost*