These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Buff mining Ship Defences?

Author
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#141 - 2012-03-18 19:56:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
Xavier Thorm wrote:
Buzzy Warstl wrote:

In nullsec you have perfect intel from local, as well as from alliance security channels so you know if someone likely to shoot you is even *close*.

No such luck in highsec, even the quietest highsec system will have people you don't know flitting through on a regular basis. If you dock everytime you see someone suspicious while mining in my old home of Nakugard you'd never undock to begin with.

That's a good point. I'm not against the way that works, because I feel like game mechanics should somewhat push people toward nullsec, but I guess I can't give miners' level of caution all the credit.

No it's a crappy point because if mining was 'safer' in nullsec all the miners would be doing it already.
In reality the vast majority of miners will happily eat all the suicide ganks in the world in their untanked hulks rather then step into 0.0 and mine because the costs and risks of mining in nullsec are that high.
Kusum Fawn
Perkone
Caldari State
#142 - 2012-03-18 20:33:56 UTC
Fredfredbug4 wrote:
Kusum Fawn wrote:


I had a lot more to say, breaking down your post line by line, but then i realized i dont care that much

you exaggerate the desires of the op and the rest of the posters in this thread



You still wrote quite a bit for not caring that much. At least the OP actually appeared to not care about what I said, probably because it renders everything she said invalid.


fred, the object of that sentence you quoted is "breaking down your post {line by line}" but whatever.

Quote:

And have you ever even tried to mine in low or null? It's suicide by yourself. Don't believe me? Take a fairly cheap ships with similar align times and speed to a hulk. A tier one racial hauler or something, then go through at least 5 jumps of lowsec and 5 jumps of nullsec during peak server times (no scouting). Then pull into an asteroid belt and wait. You'll probably be dead before you can even get to the last step.


actually if you look the tier one haulers have better align and speed then hulks. i couldnt find anything that would have the same acceleration that a hulk has, the align on a hulk is pretty good, but its got a crap acceleration. im not sure on the eve math for this, but im sure it has something to do with the mass vs inertia modifier.

the hulk is 40 million kg mass and 0.446 inertia mod 70 m/s

Iteron is 10.25 million kg mass and 1.0 inertia 125 m/s
sigil is 11m / 1 / 155
Badger mk 1 is 12.75m / 0.79 / 120
Wreathe is 10 m / 1 / 125

battlecruisers sit in the same mass to inertia brackets.

I cant find anything with that sort of ratio or stats to match it cept, of course, the covetor.

im not sure what your "jump into low 5 jumps/null 5" is supposed to prove/achieve. one doesn't even begin to mine that way in low or null to begin with. nor would most uncloaked ships survive such a trip much less a barge of t1 or t2.

however,
if that is the bar by which a ship should be judged, then by all means tank the hulk to survive the gatecamps. Id love to be able to tank pvp fit battleships/battlecruisers for the 3 minutes that it takes a hulk to travel the ~12500 m back to a gate.
but i feel that this would be game breaking.

oh and i thought of another example, hisec mining is actually a lot more like mining in afganistan, you can get attacked at any time, you cant just shoot everyone around you, if you do get attacked you cant just go and wipe out villages. cause the UN is watching you, 15 minutes later they are civilians. Mining in lowsec is more like mining in china. The alliance says you can mine in an area, and they will remove or try to remove threats, they can kill anyone who enters the area, because every one else who enters is a saboteur or spy. Low sec is like east africa, you can make agreements with the locals, but roaming bands can still ruin your day, and sometimes the local warlords get overthrown.

Quote:

Plus it's far from cheap, you are guaranteed to lose a ship everytime you press F1 or your preferred turret hotkey.

saying you are guaranteed to lose a ship,and its far from cheap is two very different things. when the average drop pays for the ship you lose, how can it be called expensive? isnt ganking a profession because its profitability?

Quote:

Ship price vs ship price has nothing to do with on this end of the spectrum. One ship is meant for combat the other ship is meant to shoot rocks. Why should a ship that is meant to be no where near the front lines be able to easily withstand attacks by cruisers?


why is isk not a factor? if it wasn't you wouldn't be so against having to use a bc or something to do it, nor would this conversation be happening if there wasn't some sort of "isk factor" happening.

and id love for my hulk to be able to withstand everything up to a cruiser, if the damage was linear to ship classes. but a gank fit thorax, has approx the same amount of dps as a fit thrasher, (though the gank thrashers in aggregate cost about the same as the thorax gank fitting but you get three/four of them) spread with alts you get the same alpha for every thrasher as you would for one thorax and not limited to the same damage types either.

it is still a wonder to me why hicsec should be the front lines for a hulk, it is where it is the most vulnerable and supposedly supposed to be the safest place in game at the same time.

after much thought, it does seem that the hulk needs a rebalance, but it would seem to me to be the heavier tank lower cargo, fleet oriented mining ship and not the solo machine that it is currently. i do not support all the ganking and as much as i hate to admit it, the goons have illustrated a valid point of solo players in an mmo, asking for a solo game. however that does not mean that the game mechanics are fine the way they stand. i know many nullsec operators who would love for more people to get into the mmo part of the game but recognize that many people dont have the time for full sov war lifestyles.

coupled with a hulk buff i would suggest a hisec belt nerf. reduce the total amount of ore spawn in all hisec and a minor nerf to loot drops. making nullsec more attractive to industralists. but many other changes must be made before this is viable. pos configurtion, hanger security changes, lab space sharing changes, roles, roles, roles, afk cloaker etc, before nullsec becomes attractive to those who would exploit it to the fullest.

Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.

Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#143 - 2012-03-18 20:43:16 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Xavier Thorm wrote:
Buzzy Warstl wrote:

In nullsec you have perfect intel from local, as well as from alliance security channels so you know if someone likely to shoot you is even *close*.

No such luck in highsec, even the quietest highsec system will have people you don't know flitting through on a regular basis. If you dock everytime you see someone suspicious while mining in my old home of Nakugard you'd never undock to begin with.

That's a good point. I'm not against the way that works, because I feel like game mechanics should somewhat push people toward nullsec, but I guess I can't give miners' level of caution all the credit.

No it's a crappy point because if mining was 'safer' in nullsec all the miners would be doing it already.
In reality the vast majority of miners will happily eat all the suicide ganks in the world in their untanked hulks rather then step into 0.0 and mine because the costs and risks of mining in nullsec are that high.

It's not the costs and risks, it's the people you have to deal with that don't understand that "industrial character" means "probably useless for and definitely not inclined to burning 8 hours of their 4 hours of play time every day running around in PvP fleets chasing ghosts".

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs

Kusum Fawn
Perkone
Caldari State
#144 - 2012-03-18 20:52:47 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Other way around

High-sec protections should be lowered to the point where taking non-CONCORD based protection is the standard, not a competitive disadvantage for miners. Then highsec will be full of guys who can either tank ti3 bc volleys and those who either defend their mining fleets actively, or flatout lose money.


isnt this the abstract reasoning of lowsec? better ores/belt amounts vs risk of roaming gangs interviening, and you can actively defend mining fleets by shooting everything that comes close to you? its a wonder why with this mechanic in place you dont see more activity in lowsecs across eve.

Nicolo da'vicenza wrote:

No it's a crappy point because if mining was 'safer' in nullsec all the miners would be doing it already.
In reality the vast majority of miners will happily eat all the suicide ganks in the world in their untanked hulks rather then step into 0.0 and mine because the costs and risks of mining in nullsec are that high.


difficulties of finding nullsec corps who arent out to just gank your hulk, scale of investment over time, transit to market problems, solo player issues, sovereignty changeovers, amount of attention required, traversing lowsec

there are many issues as to why small industralists dont want to go to nullsec, logistical chains being one of the most cited (to me) reasons of why they arent in nullsec, the second being trust issues. its difficult enough in a corp pos to keep your things in stock, but the chance of theft is extremely high when you begin to scale your operation. tighter controls would allow for more people and expansion, but corp roles are woefully inadequate. NPC nullsec deals with many of the problems that miners want faced (billions of isk in ships/bpos/minerals sitting around while you do logistics) but has most if not all of the issues that lowsec has, (in space security)

When you get out to nullsec, macros operate far behind alliance lines but since there is no one but other alliance members to see them they never get reported. hence why macros in hisec are seemingly such a problem. and why the fortunes of a few alliances changed dramaticaly when CCP introduced the latest (or second to last) in macro banhammers.

improve how you can secure a space and you will see many many miners move out to nullsec.

Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.

Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#145 - 2012-03-18 20:54:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
Buzzy Warstl wrote:

It's not the costs and risks, it's the people you have to deal with that don't understand that "industrial character" means "probably useless for and definitely not inclined to burning 8 hours of their 4 hours of play time every day running around in PvP fleets chasing ghosts".
I thought you were saying that nullsec mining was easier then highsec, now it turns out that there's an significant amount of effort to ensure that there is in fact safe space to mine in.

In reality, nullsec miners tank their hulks just to be able to survive the belt rats.
Highsec miners still cram their hulks full of scanner mods, cargo rigs and expanders; despite all the 'terrible threat' that suicide gankers pose, they refuse to set their hulks up to withstand one tornado volley, and often even one thrasher volley.

Judging by the precautions players bother to take, the belt rats alone in nullsec literally pose more of a threat then suicide ganking in highsec, hth.
Crucis Cassiopeiae
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#146 - 2012-03-18 21:08:00 UTC
Mining ships need HP buff.

I am for one deal:
HP buff them and make them that they can not fit active shield recharges (or have penalty)
This way they can survive ganks but they can not be completely afk in belt and botts will have problems with all rats.
Player will need to kill rats and not forget them - player must be more active.

Vote Issler Dainze for CSM7! http://community.eveonline.com/council/voting/Vote.asp?c=470 

Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#147 - 2012-03-18 21:53:01 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Buzzy Warstl wrote:

It's not the costs and risks, it's the people you have to deal with that don't understand that "industrial character" means "probably useless for and definitely not inclined to burning 8 hours of their 4 hours of play time every day running around in PvP fleets chasing ghosts".
I thought you were saying that nullsec mining was easier then highsec, now it turns out that there's an significant amount of effort to ensure that there is in fact safe space to mine in.

In reality, nullsec miners tank their hulks just to be able to survive the belt rats.
Highsec miners still cram their hulks full of scanner mods, cargo rigs and expanders; despite all the 'terrible threat' that suicide gankers pose, they refuse to set their hulks up to withstand one tornado volley, and often even one thrasher volley.

Judging by the precautions players bother to take, the belt rats alone in nullsec literally pose more of a threat then suicide ganking in highsec, hth.

Do people actually mine solo in nullsec these days? I wouldn't unless I had someone in a combat ship along to grab aggro and clear out the belt rats.

Players are not so easily swayed from their targets, so guard ships are useless against ganks unless they are willing to draw CONCORD themselves.

This means that even though the apparent risks of mining in nullsec are greater, most of them have effective counters making the real risk lower.

The apparent risks of mining in highsec are less, but they are more challenging to counter, bringing up the real risk.

This makes it pretty much a wash and results in pointless whines that Exhumers are underpowered by people who suddenly discover the risks that were there the whole time that they couldn't see before.

That, and even though there are some really great nullsec alliances with active and well supported industrial divisions, they are the exception rather than the rule. This means that lots of people dip their toes in the nullsec pool, get burned or otherwise have an unpleasant experience, and find someplace else to get their game on.

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs

Xavier Thorm
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#148 - 2012-03-18 23:10:58 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Buzzy Warstl wrote:

It's not the costs and risks, it's the people you have to deal with that don't understand that "industrial character" means "probably useless for and definitely not inclined to burning 8 hours of their 4 hours of play time every day running around in PvP fleets chasing ghosts".
I thought you were saying that nullsec mining was easier then highsec, now it turns out that there's an significant amount of effort to ensure that there is in fact safe space to mine in.

In reality, nullsec miners tank their hulks just to be able to survive the belt rats.
Highsec miners still cram their hulks full of scanner mods, cargo rigs and expanders; despite all the 'terrible threat' that suicide gankers pose, they refuse to set their hulks up to withstand one tornado volley, and often even one thrasher volley.

Judging by the precautions players bother to take, the belt rats alone in nullsec literally pose more of a threat then suicide ganking in highsec, hth.


No one belt mines in nullsec.*

Nullsec grav site mining is "safer" than hisec mining because it is treated as a risky venture, and thus pilots go in to it with the proper mindset.

*Yes, I'm sure some people do, this is a hyperbolic statement meant to suggest that this is done infrequently.
Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy
#149 - 2012-03-19 03:13:24 UTC
Zombo Brian wrote:
no, hulks in high should be very gankable,...



"Very gankable"? How gankable is "very gankable"? Are miners less gankable in null sec? Do their shields get stronger out there? Since null sec is presumed to be "end game" why is it you feel ships should be more gankable in high sec?

I believe there should be a tougher miner.. not necessarily a hulk and not necessarily with the exact mining ablility of a hulk - but with better than battle ship mining and a larger cargo hold than a battle ships.

As far as ganking in high sec, concord is **** poor defense.. and the penalty for ganking is less than a slap on the hand. It needs some adjusting. I'm not saying stupid events like hulkapocalypse should be stopped.. but right now the gank is too easy - period.

  - remove the cloaked from local; free intel is the real problem, not  "afk" cloaking -

[IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG]

Adunh Slavy
#150 - 2012-03-19 11:25:03 UTC
Eve looses customers because barges, industrials and freighters are too easily destroyed by bored high sec gankbears. The bottom line will solve the issue sooner or later.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt

Asuka Solo
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#151 - 2012-03-19 16:48:14 UTC
Barbara Nichole wrote:
Zombo Brian wrote:
no, hulks in high should be very gankable,...



"Very gankable"? How gankable is "very gankable"? Are miners less gankable in null sec? Do their shields get stronger out there? Since null sec is presumed to be "end game" why is it you feel ships should be more gankable in high sec?

I believe there should be a tougher miner.. not necessarily a hulk and not necessarily with the exact mining ablility of a hulk - but with better than battle ship mining and a larger cargo hold than a battle ships.

As far as ganking in high sec, concord is **** poor defense.. and the penalty for ganking is less than a slap on the hand. It needs some adjusting. I'm not saying stupid events like hulkapocalypse should be stopped.. but right now the gank is too easy - period.



Concord is not a defense. Its a punishment.

A very poor punishment. One that given circumstances of jihadding at time of post, is inconsequential to the profit made from looting the wreck, if a gang of 5 destroyers with hulls and fits worth no more than 3 mil isk drop a single Hulk worth 300 mil.

Quite frankly, in hi-sec, the reward is way more than the risk for gankbears. This needs changing.

If hisec incursions deserve the nerfbat, so does jihadding.





I'm all for buffing the EHP, powergrid and CPU of industrial ships. But I am a firm believer in the bottom line.

CCP should instead force Concord to "sue" the isk of the loss from the wallets of everybody who made the killmail, if they have it or not. This gets paid back to the victim. Insurance becomes void, but this will promote PvP, since carebears will be actively encouraged to get ganked by gankbears. I say encouraged, but what I really mean is they wont care now since they no longer lose isk in the process. It becomes a minor inconvenience to just reship with the isk you didn't have to re-grind just to replace a ship you were using to grind to begin with because somebody wanted a lolgank.

This way, jihaddists still get their killmails, carebears still get owned in hi-sec space, isk gets redistributed so the commies are happy, the capitalists sell their wears so they can't complain and everyone else is happy.

Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!

Nick Bison
Bison Industrial Inc
#152 - 2012-03-19 17:12:04 UTC
Just to be clear.
I would favor a HP etc buff to the T2 Exhumers and T2 transports but not their T1 base ships.
Those need to remain relatively weak and vulnerable.

Nothing clever at this time.

Xavier Thorm
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#153 - 2012-03-19 18:16:51 UTC
Asuka Solo wrote:
Barbara Nichole wrote:
Zombo Brian wrote:
no, hulks in high should be very gankable,...



"Very gankable"? How gankable is "very gankable"? Are miners less gankable in null sec? Do their shields get stronger out there? Since null sec is presumed to be "end game" why is it you feel ships should be more gankable in high sec?

I believe there should be a tougher miner.. not necessarily a hulk and not necessarily with the exact mining ablility of a hulk - but with better than battle ship mining and a larger cargo hold than a battle ships.

As far as ganking in high sec, concord is **** poor defense.. and the penalty for ganking is less than a slap on the hand. It needs some adjusting. I'm not saying stupid events like hulkapocalypse should be stopped.. but right now the gank is too easy - period.



Concord is not a defense. Its a punishment.

A very poor punishment. One that given circumstances of jihadding at time of post, is inconsequential to the profit made from looting the wreck, if a gang of 5 destroyers with hulls and fits worth no more than 3 mil isk drop a single Hulk worth 300 mil.

Quite frankly, in hi-sec, the reward is way more than the risk for gankbears. This needs changing.

If hisec incursions deserve the nerfbat, so does jihadding.





I'm all for buffing the EHP, powergrid and CPU of industrial ships. But I am a firm believer in the bottom line.

CCP should instead force Concord to "sue" the isk of the loss from the wallets of everybody who made the killmail, if they have it or not. This gets paid back to the victim. Insurance becomes void, but this will promote PvP, since carebears will be actively encouraged to get ganked by gankbears. I say encouraged, but what I really mean is they wont care now since they no longer lose isk in the process. It becomes a minor inconvenience to just reship with the isk you didn't have to re-grind just to replace a ship you were using to grind to begin with because somebody wanted a lolgank.

This way, jihaddists still get their killmails, carebears still get owned in hi-sec space, isk gets redistributed so the commies are happy, the capitalists sell their wears so they can't complain and everyone else is happy.


Yes, we should reward people for losing their ships.
Asuka Solo
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#154 - 2012-03-19 18:32:22 UTC
Xavier Thorm wrote:
Asuka Solo wrote:
Barbara Nichole wrote:
Zombo Brian wrote:
no, hulks in high should be very gankable,...



"Very gankable"? How gankable is "very gankable"? Are miners less gankable in null sec? Do their shields get stronger out there? Since null sec is presumed to be "end game" why is it you feel ships should be more gankable in high sec?

I believe there should be a tougher miner.. not necessarily a hulk and not necessarily with the exact mining ablility of a hulk - but with better than battle ship mining and a larger cargo hold than a battle ships.

As far as ganking in high sec, concord is **** poor defense.. and the penalty for ganking is less than a slap on the hand. It needs some adjusting. I'm not saying stupid events like hulkapocalypse should be stopped.. but right now the gank is too easy - period.



Concord is not a defense. Its a punishment.

A very poor punishment. One that given circumstances of jihadding at time of post, is inconsequential to the profit made from looting the wreck, if a gang of 5 destroyers with hulls and fits worth no more than 3 mil isk drop a single Hulk worth 300 mil.

Quite frankly, in hi-sec, the reward is way more than the risk for gankbears. This needs changing.

If hisec incursions deserve the nerfbat, so does jihadding.





I'm all for buffing the EHP, powergrid and CPU of industrial ships. But I am a firm believer in the bottom line.

CCP should instead force Concord to "sue" the isk of the loss from the wallets of everybody who made the killmail, if they have it or not. This gets paid back to the victim. Insurance becomes void, but this will promote PvP, since carebears will be actively encouraged to get ganked by gankbears. I say encouraged, but what I really mean is they wont care now since they no longer lose isk in the process. It becomes a minor inconvenience to just reship with the isk you didn't have to re-grind just to replace a ship you were using to grind to begin with because somebody wanted a lolgank.

This way, jihaddists still get their killmails, carebears still get owned in hi-sec space, isk gets redistributed so the commies are happy, the capitalists sell their wears so they can't complain and everyone else is happy.


Yes, we should reward people for losing their ships.


Indeed. We should compensate them for helping them lose their ships.

Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!

tankus2
HeartVenom Inc.
Twilight Military Industrial Complex Alliance
#155 - 2012-03-19 19:30:23 UTC
I'd prefer if CONCORD would salvage/destroy all wreaks made in the local area. This way gankers don't even have their own wreaks to refit with and all potential of payment is lost with the destroyed ship.

Then again, people would be ganking ships just to perform denial tactics.

Where the science gets done

Avila Cracko
#156 - 2012-03-29 21:38:03 UTC
bump for mining revival.

truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#157 - 2012-03-29 22:26:45 UTC
Danny John-Peter wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
I want a mining Drake.

And with that I give up on seeing any sensible conclusion of this thread.

You want a mining drake, get a Rokh, I hear they can mine more than a retriever while having the tank of a, well, Rohk.

You want more yield than that, guess what, you use a Hulk, with its more than respectable tank it has a much higher yield, you just have to RISK more to get that greater REWARD.

Ya gotta love people who just skimmed over posts. Judging by the response, he only actually read that one line.

In detail, I went over how a 40 million isk ship outclassed a 200 million isk ship.

The hulk is like a 1940's pickup truck trying to compete on highways 70 years after. It is no longer filling the role in the manner it did when it was first introduced.

Heck, outside of the ability to mount strip miners and the 8km3 cargo, it is obsolete. The game needs something to bring it back into balance.
tankus2
HeartVenom Inc.
Twilight Military Industrial Complex Alliance
#158 - 2012-03-30 00:56:00 UTC
I still say give the hulk an additional module slot with cpu and powergrid, so it can still remain broken in dumb hands but be a lot better off in smart ones.

Where the science gets done

Aidan Patrick
Aldebaran Foundation
#159 - 2012-03-30 03:22:47 UTC
Buzzy Warstl wrote:

That, and even though there are some really great nullsec alliances with active and well supported industrial divisions, they are the exception rather than the rule. This means that lots of people dip their toes in the nullsec pool, get burned or otherwise have an unpleasant experience, and find someplace else to get their game on.

This statement from Buzzy Warstl could not be any more true. I am in fact one such victim. Not of scam, but more of getting into a corporation that was part of a pet alliance that wasn't prepared to support and industrial backbone. I'll spare you to long story but it essentially resulted in my departure from the corporation because they could not live up to their promises of logistical support. This was especially important to me because I was an extremely active miner capable of filling an entire POS hangar by myself in a single 4 hour play session with ore to spare.

Since the topic of miners choosing high sec over null sec is relevant to the topic at hand, these are some of the reasons why I choose to mine in high sec instead of taking the null sec route (starting with the biggest reasons, ending with the smallest ones):

  1. Logistics of getting your product to buyers is long and involved and is extremely dangerous to perform solo without extremely specialized equipment and multiple accounts.

  2. Living out of a POS and sharing space with other members of your corporation requires an enormous amount of trust which can often leave you penniless at the slightest misstep if you are not careful.

  3. Entry into most nullsec corps that seem capable of providing the required logistics or in-corp purchase plans often require you to pay inordinate amounts of ISK on top of allowing your new employer haul all of your belongings for you. 9 times out of 10 this is a scam. I've never found the risk versus reward on those odds worth it.



Miss Whippy provided a reference to a armored vehicle capable of filling industrial roles similar in comparison to a hulk (but obviously not exactly) that was specifically designed to operate with the risk of combat. This vehicle is the "Trojan". After reading the article linked I found the following excerpt to be of the most interest:

Trojan is capable of carrying out a wide range of roles, usually providing mobility for combat units on the battlefield whilst under fire from the enemy.

The way this excerpt reads to me, is that this industrial style vehicle is capable of fulfilling it's role while under fire. A high end industrial mining ship specifically designed to operate in lawless space should have equal expectations.



TL;DR? Start Here!

Now, in terms of specific balancing on hulks I do think changes need to be made. However, not for the reasons of suicide ganking. No matter what you do suicide ganks will happen as previously stated in this and many other threads. Will increases in effectiveness reduce suicide ganks? Maybe, but I honestly do not see that as the end result.

I believe that industrial ships should be rebalanced for the sake of survivability. When I say this I mean they should have a higher chance of surviving an engagement, not getting away. By this I am specifically referring to things like the Butterfly Effect trailer where a hulk survives long enough, under fire for a passer-by to join the engagement and kill both attackers. Any PVP'er worth their salt knows that two frigates properly fit trolling nullsec for hulk kills is going to get the kill if they do it right. A hulk should be able to survive long enough for friendlies to warp to it in-system and still have enough health left for the defenders to actually have a chance of preventing the ships death. As it stands now, this is not possible to the extent that I think it should.



Now, on the note of suicide ganking. I have attempted to suicide gank a hulk in a 0.6 high sec system in a severely gank fit thorax. If they are tanked properly in their current state, it is possible that a hulk can out last a single high damage gank cruiser. Believe me.. I've riden the pod of shame after a failed suicide gank attempt. No, I'm not a suicide gank pro to those that may be wondering. It was actually my first attempt.



In conclusion... I believe that a re-balance is needed not to increase the survivability of the ships solo, but to increase their rate of survival when they have reinforcements. Hulks should be reinforced. They should not be the obvious "KIll that first, it's weak and expensive!" target that is engaged prior to engaging the actual attacking forces. If you think about it... for the players that want to run solo... That extra HP won't do anything against someone if you let them get you engaged. You're going down regardless unless they are ill-prepared.

Once again, boost its longevity while under siege. Not the ability to avoid combat.

That's all I have to say about that.

It wont let me have an empty signature...

El Geo
Warcrows
Shattered Foundations
#160 - 2012-03-30 10:01:25 UTC  |  Edited by: El Geo
for mining in a group (ie orca + 2 buffer hulks), hulks use repair bots, orca use combat drones, siege link and 2 mining links

ty have a nice day

mining during highsec wardec, no problem use a skiff ^^