These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

so the hulk WTF CCP?!!?!?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#261 - 2012-04-11 17:22:48 UTC
Adunh Slavy wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Adunh Slavy wrote:


So just a bit under the cost of a covetor that can be nearly fully insured. I'll refer to V V's argument, why fly the hulk at all?


Because it won't die?



LOL, sure it will, and with the more expensive tank, it is likely to drop more, that makes it worth sending in a couple of extra trashers.


You would need a least 20 of them, most likely more. There is a reason why my hulk is 3 years old.
EvilweaselFinance
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#262 - 2012-04-11 17:23:28 UTC
Severian Carnifex wrote:
bornaa wrote:


Yea, i am talking about relevant class of ships and weapon type on dessys that are most used.
And if you look at changes it really is 25% and 15%.
And sorry, its not 33,333% its even more, its 40%. Roll



Yea, by that amount (40%) increase tank of mining ships and we are happy.
We are back on what was 6 months ago.

And gankers got tier3 BCs too (cheaper gankers BS).

tornados cost more to use now than an artillery apoc did with insurance
Adunh Slavy
#263 - 2012-04-11 17:24:20 UTC
EvilweaselFinance wrote:
its funny you call other people sheep while you're complaining your grazing is insufficently safe from predators

highsec miners are, without exception, dimwitted idiots who deserve the destruction meeted out to them



I've mined twice in the past year, go assume someplace else, sheep.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt
EvilweaselFinance
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#264 - 2012-04-11 17:24:26 UTC
i am somewhat dissapointed the tornado is so common now because the highlight of ganking was always the miner with about ten logistics buddies and no tank, one second gloating about how he was immune to the goonies, the next second wondering where his ship went and what that apoc was doing
Adunh Slavy
#265 - 2012-04-11 17:24:53 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

You would need a least 20 of them, most likely more. There is a reason why my hulk is 3 years old.



Mine is six, what's your point?

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt
EvilweaselFinance
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#266 - 2012-04-11 17:25:22 UTC
Adunh Slavy wrote:
EvilweaselFinance wrote:
its funny you call other people sheep while you're complaining your grazing is insufficently safe from predators

highsec miners are, without exception, dimwitted idiots who deserve the destruction meeted out to them



I've mined twice in the past year, go assume someplace else, sheep.

"i graze on delicious green grass only occasionally now that i realized the predators are out to get me, and instead spend my time hiding, this surely proves i am not callow prey who deserves to be slaughtered and devoured"
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#267 - 2012-04-11 17:26:41 UTC
Adunh Slavy wrote:
baltec1 wrote:

You would need a least 20 of them, most likely more. There is a reason why my hulk is 3 years old.



Mine is six, what's your point?


Just punching holes in whatever argument you are trying here. Hulks tank fine its players that are the weak link here.
Jojo Jackson
Dead Red Eye
#268 - 2012-04-11 17:27:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Jojo Jackson
Lapine Davion wrote:
Jojo Jackson wrote:
Drew Solaert wrote:
You can get 24k ehp out of it without gang boosts.

But you cut yield to the point you may as well be in an insured covetor instead, with zero tank, and a small loss if your ganked.

If you use the lows for tank you get less yield as a mining BS.

But it's well known, that CCP HATE miner+industrials (check my sig).

- bad joke CPU + Grid
- bad joke anti-gang. Anti passive targeter? Anti cargo scan? WHERE ARE THEY???
- bad joke slot layouts. Multi million ISK BC sice hull with less slots then a damn T1 frigat??
- agility and speed like rocks

And all this for what? A tiny bit of more cargo space?

one word: STUPID!


The Orca isn't actually a capital. It's an Industrial Command Ship. The Rorqual is the Capital Industrial.


First it is listed as: ships -> CAPITAL ships -> CAPITAL industrial ship -> ore -> Orca
So it IS a capital!

Second even if you see it just as a Battleship size (which it isn't as it would be listed as Battleships) ..
Show me any other BS with 2-4-3 slot layout and just 430 CPU 960 PG.

For comperision:
Rifter 3-3-4 = same number of slots
Drake 525 CPU 850 PG = CAPITAL industrial has slightly better PG but worth CPU then a Battlecruiser

Dude, that's nothing but a big fat bad joke!

Why the hell can't I fitt capital repairs or shield booster on an Orca ... it's an CAPITAL ship!
Adunh Slavy
#269 - 2012-04-11 17:30:16 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Just punching holes in whatever argument you are trying here. Hulks tank fine its players that are the weak link here.


Oh it's the players that are at fault, that old canard just doesn't fly. Try it on a noobie who has never heard it before.

The picture may very well change after crimewatch 2 is implemented, we'll have to wait and see.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt
Alyssa VonDeadAir
Doomheim
#270 - 2012-04-11 17:33:38 UTC
Wow, you mean I can't optimize my hulk to have full mining capability and an unbreakable tank? WTF CCP

Oh wait, if I drop down to t1 strip miners, fit shield resistance mods + shield booster in mid, use resistance rigs, and still keep MLU IIx2....I now have a decent tank and decent mining? And if I have two of these with shield logi drones, it takes even longer to kill?

My word, I'm confused now.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#271 - 2012-04-11 17:38:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Severian Carnifex wrote:
Yea, by that amount (40%) increase tank of mining ships and we are happy.
We are back on what was 6 months ago.
That would make the buff pointless, so why on earth would they do something that stupid?

Adunh Slavy wrote:
Oh it's the players that are at fault
Since it's the player who chooses to make himself easier to kill, and then complain about how easy he is to kill, yes. It is 100% the idiot's fault.

Mystrak wrote:
No. The orca is under the capital ships section.
…and it requires no capital skills; no capital arrays; and CCP lists it in their ship charts as a “large” ship, together with the battleships (and, incidentally, the freighters). So no, the Orca isn't really a capship — the Rorqual is.
Jojo Jackson
Dead Red Eye
#272 - 2012-04-11 17:40:59 UTC
Karim alRashid wrote:
Mystrak wrote:
No. The orca is under the capital ships section.


So, what?

Not all battleship sized modules can be fit on all frigs either.

If a ship is listed under Battleship .. you expect to be able to fit Battleship size moduls, aren't you?

Hell, most of you fit 1600mm plates (BS SIZE) or Large Shield Extender (BS SIZE) or X-Large Booster (BS SIZE) on everything starting from Cruiser hulls.

From your argument NOTHING should be able to fit a 1600mm or Large Shield Extender EXCEPT Battleships.

By by HACs and Drakes with DOUBLE BS moduls!

But no, this would hurt your playstyle. But industrials/miners are third class players anyway right? So why should they get the same fitting rights as you get?

Why the hell can't I fitt capital repairs or shield booster on an Orca ... it's an CAPITAL ship!
Severian Carnifex
#273 - 2012-04-11 17:42:28 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Severian Carnifex wrote:
Yea, by that amount (40%) increase tank of mining ships and we are happy.
We are back on what was 6 months ago.
That would make the buff pointless, so why on earth would they do something that stupid?



oh... so ganking is intended to be only viable gameplay for Destroyers in EVE???
Can DEV please confirm this please??? Roll
Severian Carnifex
#274 - 2012-04-11 17:42:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Severian Carnifex
Tippia wrote:
Severian Carnifex wrote:
Yea, by that amount (40%) increase tank of mining ships and we are happy.
We are back on what was 6 months ago.
That would make the buff pointless, so why on earth would they do something that stupid?



oh... so ganking of miners is intended to be only viable gameplay for Destroyers in EVE???
Can DEV please confirm this, please??? Roll
Alain Kinsella
#275 - 2012-04-11 17:43:10 UTC
OK, lets try a different tack - modifying mining ships in a subtle way.

-> Drop cargohold to 500 m3 (allow crystals and spare mods/drones)
-> Add a (non-expandable) ore bay of decent size to each class, say 5K for barges and 10K for exhumers (maybe scale across the entire set)
-> re-work strip miners slightly so they drop into the ore bay

-> (optional) give exhumers the sig radius and agility one class below the barges, to allow an I-Stab/Nano agility fit for Low and Null (more risk, more reward)

This would still allow you to fit for tank or yield, and afk is still possible to some extent. But gives more possibilities on both sides (including the chance for smarter targets maybe), all with a tweak that's not related to tanking.

"The Meta Game does not stop at the game. Ever."

Currently Retired / Semi-Casual (pending changes to RL concerns).
Jojo Jackson
Dead Red Eye
#276 - 2012-04-11 17:44:05 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Severian Carnifex wrote:
Yea, by that amount (40%) increase tank of mining ships and we are happy.
We are back on what was 6 months ago.
That would make the buff pointless, so why on earth would they do something that stupid?

Adunh Slavy wrote:
Oh it's the players that are at fault
Since it's the player who chooses to make himself easier to kill, and then complain about how easy he is to kill, yes. It is 100% the idiot's fault.

Wrong.

The buff happened to make this weapons and ships compareble to other COMBAT ships.

NOT to make your anti sozial ganker life easier!

CCP just ignored (as usual) the influence on Industrials and Miners (as CCP hate Indutrials and Miners, we all know it).

Why the hell can't I fitt capital repairs or shield booster on an Orca ... it's an CAPITAL ship!
Severian Carnifex
#277 - 2012-04-11 17:44:43 UTC
EvilweaselFinance wrote:
Severian Carnifex wrote:
bornaa wrote:


Yea, i am talking about relevant class of ships and weapon type on dessys that are most used.
And if you look at changes it really is 25% and 15%.
And sorry, its not 33,333% its even more, its 40%. Roll



Yea, by that amount (40%) increase tank of mining ships and we are happy.
We are back on what was 6 months ago.

And gankers got tier3 BCs too (cheaper gankers BS).

tornados cost more to use now than an artillery apoc did with insurance


And what would happen if you did not got tier3 BCs?
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#278 - 2012-04-11 17:46:04 UTC
Jojo Jackson wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Severian Carnifex wrote:
Yea, by that amount (40%) increase tank of mining ships and we are happy.
We are back on what was 6 months ago.
That would make the buff pointless, so why on earth would they do something that stupid?

Adunh Slavy wrote:
Oh it's the players that are at fault
Since it's the player who chooses to make himself easier to kill, and then complain about how easy he is to kill, yes. It is 100% the idiot's fault.

Wrong.

The buff happened to make this weapons and ships compareble to other COMBAT ships.

NOT to make your anti sozial ganker life easier!

CCP just ignored (as usual) the influence on Industrials and Miners (as CCP hate Indutrials and Miners, we all know it).

Right, because CCP doesn't want money from Industrialists.

The real problem is that Industrialists don't want balance from CCP. Roll

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#279 - 2012-04-11 17:46:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Severian Carnifex wrote:
oh... so ganking is intended to be only viable gameplay for Destroyers in EVE???
Can DEV please confirm this please??? Roll
No, but why on earth would they implement a change that counteracts a buff they just made like that?

Put another way: why on earth should they buff the Hulk just because destroyers were buffed? If it's because destroyers are often used to kill hulks, then the logic you're implying applies: they buffed the destroyers so they can kill hulks more easily, so why should they undo that buff? If it's for some other reason, then the increased ability of destroyers is irrelevant, so why bring them up?
Jojo Jackson wrote:
Wrong.

The buff happened to make this weapons and ships compareble to other COMBAT ships.

NOT to make your anti sozial ganker life easier!
Actually, one inevitably generates the other. Regardless, if they buffed the destroyers to improve their combat ability, then there is no reason to buff the Hulk just because they buffed the destroyers, because they have nothing to do with each other.

You can't have it both ways, and no matter which way you choose, there is no reason to buff Hulks.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#280 - 2012-04-11 17:47:09 UTC
Adunh Slavy wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Just punching holes in whatever argument you are trying here. Hulks tank fine its players that are the weak link here.


Oh it's the players that are at fault, that old canard just doesn't fly. Try it on a noobie who has never heard it before.

The picture may very well change after crimewatch 2 is implemented, we'll have to wait and see.


So its not the pilots fault for not tanking their ship?