These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
malcovas Henderson
THoF
#401 - 2012-04-11 20:48:13 UTC  |  Edited by: malcovas Henderson
Ranger 1 wrote:


Not everyone in the thread is screaming Tank! Tank!. Some of us view the Hulks role as being alert enough to simply avoid the gank, with a decent tank to offer a chance of survival if you screw up and get caught.

All fittings are a trade off, no matter what ship you are talking about. If you fit solely to fulfill a specific role with no thought to anything else you will be extremely vulnerable to anything outside of that role.

Now you "CAN" do this if you are situationally alert enough to get your ship out of harms way before something it is not set up to handle occurs, but that requires a modicum of skill.



I understand what you are saying. A little common sense, and a little grey matter will allow you to avoid some ganks. Not all but some.

If you got to warp out everytime a ratting ship enters your belt. It becomes a little tiresome. Added to the fact, that those ships will do that continiously, just to annoy you.

Yes I mine. No, I dont care how weak or strong the hulk is. I play my game my way, with the tools I am given. If I am ganked, I know I have 1 month to get my revenge.It still remains, in a fleet, the Hulk cannot not Fit for its role, if it needs to tank itself.


o7
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#402 - 2012-04-11 20:49:03 UTC
Adunh Slavy wrote:
Tippia wrote:

Did that already. Also, go read any of the ship popularity lists in the old QENs, in Diagoras' tweets, in the Economy presentations, and/or in the economy snapshots.


Oh, you're going to equivocate with "popularity", got it.

Tippia wrote:

Agreed. The fundamental design principle of EVE — that bigger isn't better and that marginal improvement comes at exponential cost — is what makes it good design.


Ignoring arguments you don't like by trying to recast them into another black and white paradigm. Your game is old, learn some new tricks.



My friend, you are starting to lose your credibility.

The numbers of Hulk flown vs other ships is easily verifiable at the sources listed.
The game design principles that CCP sticks with are the same as they have always been.

Respectfully, it's time to step back.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Sycho Pathic
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#403 - 2012-04-11 20:49:42 UTC
Adunh Slavy wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:

Why doesn't anybody do anything about it then?

The problem is mentality, not rules.


Sadly, the gankbears are just as protected by Concord as the miners. Here's to high hopes for crimewatch 2.0.


I'm kind of hoping the "Shoot someone and you're fair game" mechanic happens.
Having an honest-to-God cluster**** of violence and mayhem break out over a simple can flip would be quite fun.
Yes, it would be abused mightily by the gankers but it would be fun none-the-less until the nerfs hit.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#404 - 2012-04-11 20:50:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Adunh Slavy wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
Why doesn't anybody do anything about it then?

The problem is mentality, not rules.
Sadly, the gankbears are just as protected by Concord as the miners. Here's to high hopes for crimewatch 2.0.
Incorrect. Gankers are not as protected as the miners are, since the act of ganking means that CONCORD will bow out should you choose to seek revenge. As DG points out, the problem is mentality not rules — people choose to let the gankers be protected, when they could equally choose not to.

In fact, if the (unconfirmed) rumours that Crimewatch 2.0 will remove kill rights are true, they will actually be more protected after the patch than before. Twisted

If that doesn't happen, then CW2.0 will have no effect at all.

Sycho Pathic wrote:
I'm kind of hoping the "Shoot someone and you're fair game" mechanic happens.
That mechanic already exists. It's called GCC. Blink
Adunh Slavy
#405 - 2012-04-11 20:50:33 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:

So mining drops your security status by the mineral intake or what?



Get bad standings with the veldspar faction, probably.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt
Adunh Slavy
#406 - 2012-04-11 20:52:21 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:

My friend, you are starting to lose your credibility.

The numbers of Hulk flown vs other ships is easily verifiable at the sources listed.
The game design principles that CCP sticks with are the same as they have always been.

Respectfully, it's time to step back.



My argument wasn't about the popularity of the ship. Tip attempting to recast the argument. Sorry. I'm not going to debate Y when my point is X.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#407 - 2012-04-11 20:53:58 UTC
Sycho Pathic wrote:
Adunh Slavy wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:

Why doesn't anybody do anything about it then?

The problem is mentality, not rules.


Sadly, the gankbears are just as protected by Concord as the miners. Here's to high hopes for crimewatch 2.0.


I'm kind of hoping the "Shoot someone and you're fair game" mechanic happens.
Having an honest-to-God cluster**** of violence and mayhem break out over a simple can flip would be quite fun.
Yes, it would be abused mightily by the gankers but it would be fun none-the-less until the nerfs hit.


Be careful what you wish for. Smile

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#408 - 2012-04-11 20:55:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Adunh Slavy wrote:
My argument wasn't about the popularity of the ship. Tip attempting to recast the argument. Sorry. I'm not going to debate Y when my point is X.
Your argument is that the T2 upgrade to barges isn't worth the effort; my argument is that the numbers don't support this claim — if it were true, exhumers should be far less popular than they are, and the price for the upgrade shouldn't be anywhere as beneficial as it is.

I'm not trying to recast the argument — I'm countering your assertion with data.
Adunh Slavy
#409 - 2012-04-11 21:02:36 UTC
Tippia wrote:

What's equivocal about CCP's numbers on which ships are used the most (among them the Hulk) and which are used the least (among them the Covetor, to the point where they're adjusting its price/performance ratio)?


There are additional factors to that, such as the hulk having skill requirements that made the covetor passed over in short order.

Besides, popularity was never the point. You choose to wander off to make an argument about popularity and ignore what you do not want to address.

Quote:
What argument was being ignored? The fact is that bigger-isn't-better and marginal-improvement-for-huge-cost are fundamental design principles of EVE, and that a ship that adheres to these principles is thus well designed. It's not my opinion — it's how they've chosen to approach balance.


That does not always lead to "good design". You choose to ignore the basic economic arguments for a ship balancing debate. Congrats on once again proving you ignore what you do not wish to address.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt
malcovas Henderson
THoF
#410 - 2012-04-11 21:03:34 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Adunh Slavy wrote:
My argument wasn't about the popularity of the ship. Tip attempting to recast the argument. Sorry. I'm not going to debate Y when my point is X.
Your argument is that the T2 upgrade to barges isn't worth the effort; my argument is that the numbers don't support this claim — if it were true, exhumers should be far less popular than they are, and the price for the upgrade shouldn't be anywhere as beneficial as it is.



The answer to why that is, Greed. pure and simple. It's why Miners do not tank Hulks. Fitted for it's role the Hulk outperforms the Covetor by over 25%. It is not because the Hulk is in a good position. It's because it generates more Iskies.


o7
Whitehound
#411 - 2012-04-11 21:07:23 UTC
Tippia wrote:
1. Cost isn't a balancing factor.
2. No. People have chosen not to make use of its ability to tank, allowing it to be ganked from an overheated frigate. If people chose to actually make use of that ability, the frigate would no longer stand a chance.
3. The cost to tank ratio is an… odd… measure since, again, cost is not a balancing factor. Fitting a tank pretty much ensures that it will survive a cruiser/BC ship trying to gank it, and that makes the benefit pretty much infinite.
4. …so don't fly it during hulkageddon?
5. Interesting. A large number of people disagree with you, what with it being one of the most popular ships in the game.

Be fair. ISK prices are a balancing factor. CCP has made changes to the balance by adjusting the bill of materials as well as to the source of materials a few times. They cannot adjust the price itself. How could they?

People then fly the Hulk often because they can skill for it after the Covetor for only a little bit of extra time and because Hulkageddon does not catch all Hulks. If gankers were putting more effort into it then how do you think would this affect the numbers?

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
VagabondAlt
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#412 - 2012-04-11 21:09:18 UTC
Kengutsi Akira wrote:
Tippia wrote:

Sure it should. The fact that a new character in a destroyer can kill this expensive and low-to-mid req (in terms of skills) ship is a sign of good design.


Gotta agree with T

But you should be required to keep those biomassed gank alts for a set time imo. Yeah its a exploit to biomass them but the ccp ppl are forever saying they dont have the ppl to watch every biomass so theres a big loophole

Nobody biomasses ganking alts because they work just fine at -10.
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#413 - 2012-04-11 21:09:58 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Tippia wrote:
1. Cost isn't a balancing factor.
2. No. People have chosen not to make use of its ability to tank, allowing it to be ganked from an overheated frigate. If people chose to actually make use of that ability, the frigate would no longer stand a chance.
3. The cost to tank ratio is an… odd… measure since, again, cost is not a balancing factor. Fitting a tank pretty much ensures that it will survive a cruiser/BC ship trying to gank it, and that makes the benefit pretty much infinite.
4. …so don't fly it during hulkageddon?
5. Interesting. A large number of people disagree with you, what with it being one of the most popular ships in the game.

Be fair. ISK prices are a balancing factor. CCP has made changes to the balance by adjusting the bill of materials as well as to the source of materials a few times. They cannot adjust the price itself. How could they?

People then fly the Hulk often because they can skill for it after the Covetor for only a little bit of extra time and because Hulkageddon does not catch all Hulks. If gankers were putting more effort into it then how do you think would this affect the numbers?

We'll find out in 17 days won't we?

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Whitehound
#414 - 2012-04-11 21:13:57 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:
We'll find out in 17 days won't we?

I will try to sit in a cloaked ship and stream it over Justin TV if I find the time. I do not want to miss it for anything. Twisted

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#415 - 2012-04-11 21:15:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Ranger 1 wrote:

The numbers of Hulk flown vs other ships is easily verifiable at the sources listed.
The game design principles that CCP sticks with are the same as they have always been.

Respectfully, it's time to step back.


The published numbers were from the time when botters had complete free reign. Nor the published numbers say why people go for those ships.


A botter thinks in a macro view:

1) Squeeze out the maximum minerals per day, with their immense volume the cost of a T2 mining ship tends to zero.

2) Everything is disposable and will be caught one day, including banned pilots and tied ships. Keep efficiency high till it lasts.

They will go for hulks / macks because if they lose 1-2-3 of them they have 4 spares at the station already. Making some tens of billions in botted mineral has its perks and money is one of them.

At the same time, losing 1-2-3 of those is still rare enough expecially when you have others guarding and perma-repping (go to see any "modern" bot operation and you'll see how they adapted).

The average real miner will have 1-3 ships, a botter will have 8-10, guess which best efficiency ships will be over-popular?


Also - and I don't know how the Bright Minds in this thread missed it - players in all the MMOs tend to want to get to "end game", and T2 mining ships are the end game and the trophy to proudly show off.
Right today there was a guy in local announcing how he couldn't wait the 1h 24m till he "dinged" ice mining V.

That freshness, those feelings for something new and rewarding are something that has long abandoned the forum berserkers in here. They won't be able to understand.

That guy tomorrow will buy a mack like it's his "supercar". That's what drives players to leave the retriever / covetor more than some dry, stupid numbers.

Only later, he'll learn that he could have stuck with his old Honda.


Over time, the general populace will decide how to solve the "Hulk is crap" dilemma and the development I have seen, greatly amuses me, because it does NOT go with the poopy advices going on this forum.

Guess what, they don't retardedly go for over 90000 EHP gimpy waste of ships but they bring in mercs and friends and me.
Feel free to browse some random ice systems KBs close to Jita to see how catalyst heroes have been podded enough to leave in the last 2-3 weeks

Come the next aggression mechanics change, it'll get incredibly fun, my BPOs are already crunching wartoys.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#416 - 2012-04-11 21:19:41 UTC
Adunh Slavy wrote:
There are additional factors to that, such as the hulk having skill requirements that made the covetor passed over in short order.
…which kind of contradicts that the difference is so small as to make the Hulk not worth-while as an upgrade.
Quote:
Besides, popularity was never the point. You choose to wander off to make an argument about popularity and ignore what you do not want to address.
No, the argument was about relative effectiveness, and your claim that the Hulk wasn't really worth it is being contradicted by the numbers. The numbers themselves are not in question (although you tried to do that too) — they are a counter-argument to your claim.
Quote:
That does not always lead to "good design". You choose to ignore the basic economic arguments for a ship balancing debate.
You mean cost — that thing that isn't a factor in balance?

Whitehound wrote:
Be fair. ISK prices are a balancing factor. CCP has made changes to the balance by adjusting the bill of materials as well as to the source of materials a few times. They cannot adjust the price itself. How could they?
No. Cost is not a balancing factor as was shown very early in the thread. Cost is a result of supply and demand; it does not dictate performance — if anything, it's the other way around because of how much in demand a high-performing ship is. However, due to that design principle of marginal improvement at ever increasing costs, the value you get for a higher price is somewhere between nil and completely unpredictable.

Put another way: just because a Hulk costs a lot doesn't mean it has to be made to perform better — instead, the reason it costs a lot is because it already does perform better. If you don't think it's worth the cost, don't use it, and soon the price will match what you think its performance is. Problem solved.
Whitehound
#417 - 2012-04-11 21:27:30 UTC
Tippia wrote:
No. Cost is not a balancing factor as was shown very early in the thread. Cost is a result of supply and demand; it does not dictate performance — if anything, it's the other way around because of how much in demand a high-performing ship is. However, due to that design principle of marginal improvement at ever increasing costs, the value you get for a higher price is somewhere between nil and completely unpredictable.

Put another way: just because a Hulk costs a lot doesn't mean it has to be made to perform better — instead, the reason it costs a lot is because it already does perform better. If you don't think it's worth the cost, don't use it, and soon the price will match what you think its performance is. Problem solved.

Yes, cost is a balancing factor. CCP did change the bill of materials in the past and did change production processes as well as the sources. They cannot balance the price because of the free market. CCP knows this just like you do.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Karim alRashid
Starboard.
#418 - 2012-04-11 21:28:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Karim alRashid
EvE is not a game of acquiring gear. Thus the "endgame" you describe does not exist, Vaerah.

Pain is weakness leaving the body http://www.youtube.com/user/AlRashidKarim/videos
Karim alRashid
Starboard.
#419 - 2012-04-11 21:34:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Karim alRashid
Whitehound wrote:

Yes, cost is a balancing factor. CCP did change the bill of materials in the past and did change production processes as well as the sources. They cannot balance the price because of the free market. CCP knows this just like you do.


I'm sorry, but I must tell you that you don't understand the motives behind changes in the BOM, nor the essential meaning of the phrase "ship balance".

No change to BOM made one ship preferable to another, in particular the changes to R64 material requirements or alchemy.

Pain is weakness leaving the body http://www.youtube.com/user/AlRashidKarim/videos
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#420 - 2012-04-11 21:36:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Whitehound wrote:
Yes, cost is a balancing factor. CCP did change the bill of materials in the past and did change production processes as well as the sources. They cannot balance the price because of the free market. CCP knows this just like you do.
Ok, you're not reading what I'm writing.

Cost does not determine performance; performance determines cost. Yes, if they feel that relationship is out of whack, they can change it, but that still doesn't mean that cost determines performance — it's still the other way around. They've tried to use it as such in the past and — unsurprisingly — it has never worked because performance is always worth paying for.

Just because a ship is more expensive doesn't mean it must therefore be better. Instead, a ship is better, so it will therefore most likely earn a higher price tag. Cost is a consequence, not a cause. It's a result, not a factor. You cannot turn that relationship around for the simple reason that it doesn't work because… [drumroll]… cost is not a balancing factor.

To take the extreme example, an unkillable ship cannot be made balanced just by applying an astronomical cost to it — people will simply acquire that amount of ISK and buy invincibility, and thus balance is irreversibly and unquestionably broken. Conversely, a ship that is 100% useless will not be used, even if the cost is zero — that uselessness cannot be counterbalanced by a low cost any more than ultimate overpoweredness can be counterbalanced by high cost.