These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Crime & Punishment

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

The Tornado Boomerang Maneuver: Chain-Killing Exhumers efficiently

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mortis vonShadow
Balanaz Mining and Development Inc.
#21 - 2012-03-20 13:57:25 UTC
Herr Wilkus wrote:
A nerf is not in the slightest bit necessary.

The only thing that needs to be nerfed are greedy miners who are so accustomed to being safe....

- that they can't be bothered to fit a tank and routinely leave their mid-slots empty.
- pay attention while mining....
- or even play the game at all. After ganking hundreds of them, I'd say 80-90% of them are obvious macros.

A Tornado makes killing Exhumers efficient, but the fault lies with the miner for making themselves such easy targets.

The real solution? CCP should sit back and allow gankers to ravage the belts. Do not throw up needless barriers, or kneecap the Tornado/buff Concord.

Let nature run its course. Smart miners adapt and learn to EHP-fit T2 Exhumers properly, mine in Covetors, quit mining, or quit the game. Believe me, I've seen all of these scenarios occur.

Eventually you are left with a population of miners who can tank, spot the warning signs of an impending attack, earn higher prices for their minerals - as bots and whining idiots are driven out.

But this argument, while true, fall on the deaf ears of miners who refuse to learn an expensive lesson, stamp their feet and scream 'Its no fair!'.

Paraphrasing the late William F. Buckley, "I would like to electrocute everyone who uses the word "fair" in the connection with suicide ganking."


You're a dumbass.

Some days you're the bug, and some days your the windscreen.                   And some days, you're just a man with a gun.
Subdolus Venator
State War Academy
Caldari State
#22 - 2012-03-20 14:06:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Subdolus Venator
Mokanor Lenak wrote:

A simple miner will fit a very small tank with rigs and mids max, and even than will mosly not survive a gank. Reason is that using the mining upgrades will eat at your power, which will limit your tank anyway.

Its all about cost efficiency. Chancing a gank over making extra 5mil isk an hour, a miner will risk it, because its worth it in the long run.
^This.^

Your rig and plan are ingenious, Herr Wilkus, but if I find myself on the recieving end of your guns I'm going to shrug, dust off a spare hull, and get right back to paying the bills. I might even send you a nice note of congratulations for a quality gank - I really appreciate a well-executed gank. But don't expect me to up my tank - I don't bother with tanking when I'm mining.

The economics of mining means that I can easily afford to replace my inexpensive hulls at a rate of twice, even three times a day (when I mine, my mining alt flies Retrievers for a reason!) whilst turning a profit (albeit a sharply-reduced one), so why should I bother adding more stuff I will certainly lose sooner or later? Indeed, why bother up-skilling my alt past the point of basic profitability? Mining is all about long-term efficiency, not flash; Bare minimum functionality and persistence are what pay the bills.

So - Pop my hull. Pod me, too. Have fun at it. But don't expect to have any more than local impact. Oh, and you'll lose ISK on my low-end wreckage.

OTOH, that means your program of miner darwinism is probably safe. Certainly, there's no real economic need for CCP to nerf what you're doing. The only real reason there might be a nerf is that those miners whom have not internalized the rule of "don't fly what you can't afford to lose" and whom have not yet come to terms with the inevitability of ganks may cry enough to force CCP's hand.

Carry on smartly.


edit:
Oh, on the other hand... clumsily-exectuded ganks will be mocked mercilessly. Even if it means return visits.

That will be all.

EVE is EVE - Feaces will eventuate.
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#23 - 2012-03-20 15:03:12 UTC
Solution:

Put ungodly level of structure HP and double the drone bays in industrials and make them attackable any place even in high sec (no concord) with attackers being flashy red and attackable by everybody.


Industrials won't be so gankable, have a chance of escape with ECM drones, those doing the ganking can be attacked by anybody in system. An indy ship stands a better chance to survive long enough for actual help to arrive.

You see if I put guns in a Corvette or Mustang and attempted to gank a Caterpillar Tractor by circling it and shooting at it in a parking lot, it would be expected to take a while.

Other players in local who know their local miners might help - and let the botters go down to the dogs.

End of instaganks so it will take more leet crews who know their stuff, more PVP for everybody, extremely hostile environments for botters...

a good time will be had by all.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Sahara Uhuru
#24 - 2012-03-20 15:36:34 UTC
About tears and yells of "no fair!":
I happen to see a lot more of those from wannabeegankers about the change to bounty when concorded than I see them from ganked miners.

But it could be that I just frequent other places than you do.

Btw: I havn't been ganked even once while mining.
The occasional flipper now and then but no gank. Not even an unsuccessful one.

There are times I start to feel silly for tanking my orca and using shield harmonizing gang links.

P.S. this certainly is an alt, so no use locating it. Blink
kiki mo
Suddenly Ninjas
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
#25 - 2012-03-20 15:51:57 UTC
Subdolus Venator wrote:
[quote=Mokanor Lenak]
OTOH, that means your program of miner darwinism is probably safe. Certainly, there's no real economic need for CCP to nerf what you're doing. The only real reason there might be a nerf is that those miners whom have not internalized the rule of "don't fly what you can't afford to lose" and whom have not yet come to terms with the inevitability of ganks may cry enough to force CCP's hand..


Decent reply overall...and I think you've identified the reason there will be a nerf
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
#26 - 2012-03-20 15:58:55 UTC
Herr Wilkus wrote:

2. Gank, then unload your expensive mods into an Orca.
-Land next to the Orca (and shoot, or not), then immediately open the corporate hangar (make sure Orca is configured for it!)
-Drag mods from the UI into the Corp hangar window. There will be popups, about 'breaking groups' and a 'one-way' move popup which has a clearable checkbox...but if you are prepared for them - you can drag most of your guns to safety even while Concord is destroying your ship. If you are having trouble with lag, turn off the Turret graphics - that should help.

So at minimum you can save a number of your 4M T2 guns.
But there is more....
What if you need more damage? Some Hulk or Mackinaw is tanked JUST a bit harder than you feel comfortable shooting at?
Fit Faction Gyrostabilizers! Yes!
It adds about 1000 damage to your volley and painlessly extends your damage profile.

Because Faction Gyrostabilizers cost around 70M each, I would not use this trick until you are comfortable with the Orca 'unfitting technique', and are relatively sure you will be able to execute properly, but it works. In fact, saving them is even easier than guns, because they are not generally 'grouped' - and thus no-popup to slow you down.


What you'll probably see is CCP nerfing this bit - being able to use an Orca's fitting services while under GCC.

Staying ahead of CONCORD by warping around is simply interesting gameplay and well performed. Avoiding the ISK loss is where it goes from kosher to not kosher.
Subdolus Venator
State War Academy
Caldari State
#27 - 2012-03-20 16:21:48 UTC
kiki mo wrote:
Subdolus Venator wrote:
OTOH, that means your program of miner darwinism is probably safe. Certainly, there's no real economic need for CCP to nerf what you're doing. The only real reason there might be a nerf is that those miners whom have not internalized the rule of "don't fly what you can't afford to lose" and whom have not yet come to terms with the inevitability of ganks may cry enough to force CCP's hand..


Decent reply overall...and I think you've identified the reason there will be a nerf
Fair point - I do hope you're mistaken, though.

And thank you. Smile

EVE is EVE - Feaces will eventuate.
Ubiquitous Forum Alt
#28 - 2012-03-20 16:37:17 UTC
Scrapyard Bob wrote:
Herr Wilkus wrote:

2. Gank, then unload your expensive mods into an Orca.
-Land next to the Orca (and shoot, or not), then immediately open the corporate hangar (make sure Orca is configured for it!)
-Drag mods from the UI into the Corp hangar window. There will be popups, about 'breaking groups' and a 'one-way' move popup which has a clearable checkbox...but if you are prepared for them - you can drag most of your guns to safety even while Concord is destroying your ship. If you are having trouble with lag, turn off the Turret graphics - that should help.

So at minimum you can save a number of your 4M T2 guns.
But there is more....
What if you need more damage? Some Hulk or Mackinaw is tanked JUST a bit harder than you feel comfortable shooting at?
Fit Faction Gyrostabilizers! Yes!
It adds about 1000 damage to your volley and painlessly extends your damage profile.

Because Faction Gyrostabilizers cost around 70M each, I would not use this trick until you are comfortable with the Orca 'unfitting technique', and are relatively sure you will be able to execute properly, but it works. In fact, saving them is even easier than guns, because they are not generally 'grouped' - and thus no-popup to slow you down.


What you'll probably see is CCP nerfing this bit - being able to use an Orca's fitting services while under GCC.

Staying ahead of CONCORD by warping around is simply interesting gameplay and well performed. Avoiding the ISK loss is where it goes from kosher to not kosher.


This. I certainly have no problems with ganking, and this is an amazingly effective strategy by the looks at it - I don't see any reason to nerf it....but being able to save all your mods and even faction fit with minimal risk is clearly violating the "spirit" of the "you must lose your ship to concord" rule, even if you technically don't violate the letter of the law.

I don't log in - I don't need to. My very existence griefs people. They see my name, and they instinctively fill with rage and indignation. Deny it all you want - but if you didn't care, you wouldn't have posted, would you?
Jacob Staffuer
Doomheim
#29 - 2012-03-20 16:51:59 UTC
Quote:
CCP's policy of "You must lose your ship to Concord


CCP's policy is that "Evading CONCORD is an exploit." When you warp out, you have evaded CONCORD. The fact that they eventually catch up to you is irrelevant; you have still evaded CONCORD. Therefore, your "idea" is an exploit.

Quote:
Concord will chase you like a puppy-dog, but will never be in the right place at the right time, as you bounce back and forth - setting multiple Mackinaws or Hulks alight.


Evading CONCORD is an exploit.

On a side note: The same holds true for Goons when they use mechanics to strategically "spawn and clear" CONCORD. They are evading CONCORD response. Therefore: It's an exploit. The only reason I can fathom that CCP didn't fix it and issue mass-bans of Goons yet is because CCP is doing the whole "favoritism" thing again... like with BoB.
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#30 - 2012-03-20 17:28:39 UTC
Jacob Staffuer wrote:
Quote:
CCP's policy of "You must lose your ship to Concord


CCP's policy is that "Evading CONCORD is an exploit." When you warp out, you have evaded CONCORD. The fact that they eventually catch up to you is irrelevant; you have still evaded CONCORD. Therefore, your "idea" is an exploit.

Quote:
Concord will chase you like a puppy-dog, but will never be in the right place at the right time, as you bounce back and forth - setting multiple Mackinaws or Hulks alight.


Evading CONCORD is an exploit.

On a side note: The same holds true for Goons when they use mechanics to strategically "spawn and clear" CONCORD. They are evading CONCORD response. Therefore: It's an exploit. The only reason I can fathom that CCP didn't fix it and issue mass-bans of Goons yet is because CCP is doing the whole "favoritism" thing again... like with BoB.


Based on what I have seen from the past when this topic comes up, "evading Concord" refers to not getting popped at all. Running from Concord for a while and finding a way to completely escape from them are treated differently.

We could probably predict that Concord ships will get a Probability Drive soon.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Kazacy
BACKFIRE Squad
#31 - 2012-03-20 18:01:09 UTC
to the OP:
AWESOME!
Ubiquitous Forum Alt
#32 - 2012-03-20 18:08:06 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Jacob Staffuer wrote:
Quote:
CCP's policy of "You must lose your ship to Concord


CCP's policy is that "Evading CONCORD is an exploit." When you warp out, you have evaded CONCORD. The fact that they eventually catch up to you is irrelevant; you have still evaded CONCORD. Therefore, your "idea" is an exploit.

Quote:
Concord will chase you like a puppy-dog, but will never be in the right place at the right time, as you bounce back and forth - setting multiple Mackinaws or Hulks alight.


Evading CONCORD is an exploit.

On a side note: The same holds true for Goons when they use mechanics to strategically "spawn and clear" CONCORD. They are evading CONCORD response. Therefore: It's an exploit. The only reason I can fathom that CCP didn't fix it and issue mass-bans of Goons yet is because CCP is doing the whole "favoritism" thing again... like with BoB.


Based on what I have seen from the past when this topic comes up, "evading Concord" refers to not getting popped at all. Running from Concord for a while and finding a way to completely escape from them are treated differently.

We could probably predict that Concord ships will get a Probability Drive soon.


Or Concord will quit sending ships at all and just start installing timed self-destruct devices into everyone's ship hulls - which explode in a very exact amount of time from when you first get GCC, based on the security level of the system you are in....

I don't log in - I don't need to. My very existence griefs people. They see my name, and they instinctively fill with rage and indignation. Deny it all you want - but if you didn't care, you wouldn't have posted, would you?
CCP Guard
C C P
C C P Alliance
#33 - 2012-03-20 19:52:53 UTC
Evading Concord is dodgy business. The GMs will make the call on whether this is an exploit or not, until then I'm locking the thread.

CCP Guard | EVE Community Developer | @CCP_Guard
Previous page12