These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Greifers vs CCP, Hulkageddon is winning. Time for CCP to code changes.

Author
Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#21 - 2012-05-07 16:24:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Drake Draconis
mxzf wrote:
It's not griefers vs CCP, it's griefers vs people who don't like to acknowledge that there are other people in the game. The miners should learn that Eve isn't a safe and cuddly place and watch out for griefers, sitting there in a crowd of expensive and untanked ships is just asking for it (and I say that as someone who spent the first part of my career mining).

A. That doesn't even make any sense
B. You clearly don't understand how the insurance mechanic works or why it's that way
C. You can't fix the stupid miners refusing to tank their Hulks or pay attention to the space around them, which is the real issue (it's not hard to put 2 and 2 together if you see a couple negative sec Thrashers show up in the belt)
D. Way too exploitable. Either form a chat channel to hang out and have your social experience in or man up and get a corp, with associated benefits/dangers.
E. T1 ships are still pretty amazing when used right. And look at the fanfest vids and such, they're working on balancing moon mats already.
F. No safety in game where nothing is safe for you, it's way too exploitable and totally against all of what Eve is.
G. lol, scamming is completely in keeping with the game's rules and is, in fact, encouraged if anything. If it looks to good to be true and you click it anyways, it's your fault for not reading the fine print.
H. Alts are completely disassociated with mains, so you'd never know who they are anyways.
I. You can already see that it's a player, you just have to open your eyes.
J. You can already see who has a bounty or not, just learn to set up your overview.

And if you're going to continue to whine about not being safe in Eve, a game where safety is something you fight for, not something that's given to you, then maybe Eve isn't the game for you. The door is that way, we won't hate you if you leave.



TLDR: Stop ####ing about hulkageddon and grow a pair...welcome to EVE Online.

OP is clearly a noob who doesn't know what or how to survive in high sec without getting ganked because he's too busy being afk while chewing on rocks.

PS: Actually the above quoted piece is very well written and well said..just stating the obvious Lol

================ STOP THE EVEMAIL SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152

Blatant Forum Alt
Doomheim
#22 - 2012-05-07 16:45:52 UTC
Lady Lupiah wrote:

Please make high sec purely PvE, and please don't let people scam because I am too ******** to tell the difference between a scam and an actual trade.

DireNecessity
Mayhem-Industries
#23 - 2012-05-07 20:28:17 UTC
Dearest Lady Lupia,

There are multiple types of tanking in EvE.

Active Tanking wherein a pilot expends capacitor to regenerate shields or armor. This is a common approach taken by PvE pilots.

Buffer Tanking wherein a pilot increases total effective shields or armor creating a sturdy boat able to endure a terrible beating. This is a common approach take by PvP pilots.

Passive Shield Tanking wherein a pilot cleverly creates a hybrid active/buffer shield tank utilizing shields inherent regenerative powers. Drakes are renown for this.

Whine Tanking wherein a pilot proceeds to the forums complaining, “My preferred ship is too weak! Please recode the game so my preferred ship’s weakness is reduced/eliminated.”

You have chosen to Whine Tank. A laudable all or nothing approach. However, if you’ll forgive me making a suggestion . . . Whine Tanking, to be affective, must include an ultimatum. Something to the affect, “Either X&Y or I terminate my account.” If CCP doesn’t code in your whine in a reasonable amount of time, TERMINATE YOUR ACCOUNT! For you see, without the ultimatum and follow through, Whine Tanking is little but noise.

If you’ll forgive another suggestion, be sure to scale up your Whine Tanking ultimatum to include many, many players. CCP is not foolish. When many many players Whine Tank and then follow through on their ultimatum by terminating their accounts, CCP notices and responds. Incarna/Moniclegate producing Crucible is good evidence of the astounding power of Follow Through Whine Tanking.


With Luv,
DireNecessity
Cyprus Black
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#24 - 2012-05-07 22:07:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Cyprus Black
A) Name one. You claim combat ships have a larger cargohold than exumers, so go ahead and name a combat ship that has a larger cargohold than 8k. Go ahead, I'll wait. (titans don't count)

B) Agreed. Insurance payouts for exumers is ridiculously terrible.

C) First of all, Hulks can't use mining turrets. Exumers don't have turret slots. Second, destroyers have only recently received CCP loving. They've barely changed since the day they were introduced into the game. Third, a destroyers intended purpose is high dps / low durability. They're not meant to tank, only to dish out dps.

D) Um what? There should NEVER be wardec immunity. Never any PvP immunity. Do you even play the same game as the rest of us? Seems like you don't.

E) You really should pay attention. This is partially what CCP is doing.

F) lol no, just no. Again, there should NEVER be PvP immunity. And you can't go off hiding asteroid belts in highsec. They're publicly available for a reason: to be available to the public.

G) GMs don't deal with scams. Again, what game are you playing because it sure isn't EvE Online. Absolutely terrible idea.

H) This ties in with the previous terrible idea. Terrible is terrible is terrible. Compounding on a terrible idea doesn't make it any better.

I) lol what? Players don't look like NPCs. Never have, never will, and currently don't. Once again, what game are you playing?

J) Seriously, I want to know what game you're playing. You're obviously not playing EvE Online. Learn this next sentence and learn it well because you obviously don't have a clue. Concord does not protect people nor is intended to protect people. Concord only punishes.

I will concede that the ganking in highsec has gotten out of hand. Last night my alt got ganked in a tanked industrial ship for two million isk worth of PI goods. I'm not mad about it, but it does illustrate a growing problem in EvE and that's the lack of consequences for ganking in highsec.

Summary of EvEs last four expansions: http://imgur.com/ZL5SM33

Lady Lupiah
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#25 - 2012-05-08 10:13:10 UTC
Davon Mandra'thin wrote:


I also agree that this situation is a problem for new players and potentially stunts CCPs and Eve Online's growth as a company.



^^ This is what it is all about.

In the next year or two CCP is about to have a game that is potentially 100x or more valuable to them than EVE. If Darkness takes off as CCP hope it will, then where do you think their design effort will go?

If I believe the trolls in-game and above, then EVE is perfect, and nothing needs to change. Are you really happy with everything as it is? You would be ok with EVE going to maintenance only patches every year with major content additions being decided against due to cost/reward being in favour of applying the resources to CCP's new games? I know CCP wants EVE to grow, thrive, and stay viable indefinitely. But the commercial reality is if you keep kicking new players in the guts and they keep leaving, sooner or later EVE will become "minimum input to maintain only" in terms of CCP's business.

You don't like my ideas? No problem, that's your view. But don't say I have no idea how to play etc etc etc ... you have no idea what I know, or do not know. And attacking me won't fix the underlying issues of low-sec null-sec players being so damn bored they grief newbies because they have nothing better to do.

And all you trolls, please remember this thread. Come back in three years, and either laugh at how wrong I was, or swear loudly at your lack of foresight because CCP is devoting its primary effort to Darkness, and hasn't done all those things you always wished for in EVE. I really hope CCP can pull the subscriptions to do both to their full potential: however CCP's player numbers are not nearly as good as they ought to be for such a well-known, stong game, particularly given the immense advertising effort CCP deploys.

You don't like my ideas .., come up with better ones. And "go to another game" is not a good option, because when Darkness launches, I expect a significant portion of EVE's current playerbase will do precisely that. And guess what? Null sec etc will be even more boring ... and about three months later CCP would be reviewing resource allocations, and could well put EVE into Reinforced Mode indefinitely.
Lady Lupiah
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#26 - 2012-05-08 10:38:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Lady Lupiah
You asked for it:

Shield tanked maelstrom has more cargo capacity than a tanked procurer. 1,000 capacity for a mining ship... really? You want to say that's good design from CCP?

Strip miners are Mining Lasers, go look on the market under "Turrets & Bays" if you don't believe me.

Basic issue is that there ARE people who are genuinely immune to pvp in this game. Go talk to Barbie in Amarr: one of the richest most wanted scumbags ever, who apparently makes a billion or so a day without ever undocking. Go watch the freighters ambling past in their day newbie corps, 9 years on from launch. Good luck taking one of those out, with warp to 0 mechanics and gazillion armour points.

Frigates could not kill miners nearly as easily as destroyers; they were quickly celebrated as a griefer ship when introduced. Oddly enough, I cannot recall ever seeing a T1 destroyer in null-sec low-sec or wormhole space. They are too squishy for real pvp, and if you want mass DPS, get the latest BC, the one with the battleship guns. Yes, that's nicely balanced ... friggin candy to distract from more fundamental issues.

You seem to wonder what game I am playing ... maybe the real issue is you don't want to look more closely at what is going on around you. Go play other games and you will see just how different NPC/players look in most of the games out there.
Although your last comment does show that you are at least not blind to the issues.

Bottom line: in this area of the fourms, we can talk about CCP and EVE, the business. My suggestions are not because I personally want to see EVE totally turned into something else ... if I wanted something else, there is plenty to choose from. That's the real issue: in the game market games rise, fall, and die. Don't kno about you, but I want this one to stick around another 9 years and beyond. But to achieve that, it needs to keep healthy revenue streams to justify its postion as CCP's #1 game: and guess what, if you greif newbies, you really do run the risk that EVE will become #2, with all the long term resource implications that carries.
Lady Lupiah
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#27 - 2012-05-08 11:04:28 UTC
DireNecessity wrote:
CCP is not foolish. When many many players Whine Tank and then follow through on their ultimatum by terminating their accounts, CCP notices and responds. Incarna/Moniclegate producing Crucible is good evidence of the astounding power of Follow Through Whine Tanking.


With Luv,
DireNecessity


Thank you for pointing out just how much CCP is willing to change EVE to retain players. The power is in your hands: I have set out what I see as an issue, you don't like my suggestions. That's perfectly fine. But unless you come up with better options guess what CCP is going to do [reread above].
Ispia Jaydrath
Reib Autonomous Industries
#28 - 2012-05-08 12:05:52 UTC
Lady Lupiah wrote:
... you clearly don't actually know how people have been killing hulks. By the time a thrasher appears in your belt, you are already dead, even with a T2 defensive fit, ECM drones out, and aligned to station. Stop blaming miners for poor game balance, as if it was the miners fault CCP upped small ship DPS massively but didn't improve mining ship defences.


Appears in your belt?

What you're telling me here is that you're too lazy to watch local or use dscan in order to ensure your own safety. I hope you aren't looking for sympathy in this thread, because you don't deserve any.

Lady Lupiah wrote:
Basic issue is that there ARE people who are genuinely immune to pvp in this game. ... Go watch the freighters ambling past in their day newbie corps, 9 years on from launch. Good luck taking one of those out, with warp to 0 mechanics and gazillion armour points.


http://eve-kill.net/?a=system_detail&sys_id=143&m=4&y=2012&view=kills&scl_id=20

This is how poorly informed you are.
Jint Hikaru
OffWorld Exploration Inc
#29 - 2012-05-08 12:24:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Jint Hikaru
I hardly think a 19 day old player is qualified enough to propose such dramatic changes to the game. The op has clearly shown such a massive lack of understanding of what Eve is about and what Eve needs....

Once again a post here in the Assembly Hall has reconfirmed that perhaps we should have a 6month age restriction on posting threads here.

Jint Hikaru - Miner / Salvager / Explorer / SpaceBum In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Vertisce Soritenshi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#30 - 2012-05-08 13:26:18 UTC
So far the OP has managed to soundly refute every argument posed against their idea. While I don't completely agree 100% with the idea I can say that most of it is sound. There IS a problem with a 300m mining ship and how weak it's defenses are. Insurance does suck but that's how it goes with Tech 2 ships. If that is going to change for the Hulk, it will need to change for all Tech 2 ships. I don't see that happening.

I can fly a Hulk on several of my accounts and I have mined before but honestly have never experienced being ganked in high sec. It was always in Null and I was running D-Scan constantly...a major pain in the ass that needs to be corrected. The game stops being fun when you have to spam click a single button to perform one mind numbing process just to stay safe. Sorry...that's a mechanic that needs correction. Period.

Overall I agree with the OP. I am not going to nitpick the parts I don't agree with in the OP as they are minor in the grand scheme.

Bounties for all! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2279821#post2279821

DireNecessity
Mayhem-Industries
#31 - 2012-05-08 13:47:13 UTC
Lady Lupiah wrote:
DireNecessity wrote:
CCP is not foolish. When many many players Whine Tank and then follow through on their ultimatum by terminating their accounts, CCP notices and responds. Incarna/Moniclegate producing Crucible is good evidence of the astounding power of Follow Through Whine Tanking.


With Luv,
DireNecessity


Thank you for pointing out just how much CCP is willing to change EVE to retain players. The power is in your hands: I have set out what I see as an issue, you don't like my suggestions. That's perfectly fine. But unless you come up with better options guess what CCP is going to do [reread above].


My Sweet Lupiah,

You're missing the point. Whine Tanking, to function, must produce noticeable disruptions in CCPs bottom line. CCP knows they need paying customers. They have over 300,000 now. If you're going to wrestle CCP into changes via Whine Tanking you and yours need to terminate your accounts - en mass - to generate sufficient ripple among that 300,000+ for them to take notice. Lacking sufficient ripple, Whine Tanking will prove ineffectual. CCP needs customers but they don’t need any one specific customer and they don’t need you. CCP sells EvE as a harsh and brutal universe. The approach has treated them well so far. Until you prove to them via mass account terminations that EvE should be less harsh and brutal in your little corner of the universe, your Whine Tanking will prove ineffectual.

Perhaps I misunderstand your intent however. Perhaps you’re not engaged in Follow Through Whine Tanking. Perhaps you have no intent to Follow Through. Perhaps you merely wish to Whine. Very well. You’ve found the place for it. Whine away! One caveat, however. As you’re discovering, the EvE forums are every bit as harsh and brutal as the in-game universe.

Welcome to EvE Lady Lupiah,
We’ll see if you have the mettle for it,
Luv,
DireNecessity
Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#32 - 2012-05-08 16:10:12 UTC
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:
So far the OP has managed to soundly refute every argument posed against their idea. While I don't completely agree 100% with the idea I can say that most of it is sound. There IS a problem with a 300m mining ship and how weak it's defenses are. Insurance does suck but that's how it goes with Tech 2 ships. If that is going to change for the Hulk, it will need to change for all Tech 2 ships. I don't see that happening.

I can fly a Hulk on several of my accounts and I have mined before but honestly have never experienced being ganked in high sec. It was always in Null and I was running D-Scan constantly...a major pain in the ass that needs to be corrected. The game stops being fun when you have to spam click a single button to perform one mind numbing process just to stay safe. Sorry...that's a mechanic that needs correction. Period.

Overall I agree with the OP. I am not going to nitpick the parts I don't agree with in the OP as they are minor in the grand scheme.


Yes..agree with a 19 day old toon like a fool and ignore the obvious...great job...typical of your mind set.

================ STOP THE EVEMAIL SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152

Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#33 - 2012-05-08 16:11:55 UTC
DireNecessity wrote:
Lady Lupiah wrote:
DireNecessity wrote:
CCP is not foolish. When many many players Whine Tank and then follow through on their ultimatum by terminating their accounts, CCP notices and responds. Incarna/Moniclegate producing Crucible is good evidence of the astounding power of Follow Through Whine Tanking.


With Luv,
DireNecessity


Thank you for pointing out just how much CCP is willing to change EVE to retain players. The power is in your hands: I have set out what I see as an issue, you don't like my suggestions. That's perfectly fine. But unless you come up with better options guess what CCP is going to do [reread above].


My Sweet Lupiah,

You're missing the point. Whine Tanking, to function, must produce noticeable disruptions in CCPs bottom line. CCP knows they need paying customers. They have over 300,000 now. If you're going to wrestle CCP into changes via Whine Tanking you and yours need to terminate your accounts - en mass - to generate sufficient ripple among that 300,000+ for them to take notice. Lacking sufficient ripple, Whine Tanking will prove ineffectual. CCP needs customers but they don’t need any one specific customer and they don’t need you. CCP sells EvE as a harsh and brutal universe. The approach has treated them well so far. Until you prove to them via mass account terminations that EvE should be less harsh and brutal in your little corner of the universe, your Whine Tanking will prove ineffectual.

Perhaps I misunderstand your intent however. Perhaps you’re not engaged in Follow Through Whine Tanking. Perhaps you have no intent to Follow Through. Perhaps you merely wish to Whine. Very well. You’ve found the place for it. Whine away! One caveat, however. As you’re discovering, the EvE forums are every bit as harsh and brutal as the in-game universe.

Welcome to EvE Lady Lupiah,
We’ll see if you have the mettle for it,
Luv,
DireNecessity


TLDR Version for noobs- Quit EVE Online and get everyone else to quit and you'll get somewhere.
Otherwise buck up and grow a pair because this is a Sandbox where its ok to kick sand in your face and laugh because everyone else does it.

If you can't use a little common sense in how you fly then don't expect mercy from everyone else.

WE havel ittle to no trouble in 0.0 in defending our mining ships and have far more to worry about then you paulty high sec carbebears....get over yourselves.

The fine gents here who have pointed that out have made it clear there are ways to avoid the trouble.

Changing the game to suit your needs is wrong..end of discussion.

================ STOP THE EVEMAIL SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152

Vertisce Soritenshi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#34 - 2012-05-08 16:56:38 UTC
Drake Draconis wrote:
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:
So far the OP has managed to soundly refute every argument posed against their idea. While I don't completely agree 100% with the idea I can say that most of it is sound. There IS a problem with a 300m mining ship and how weak it's defenses are. Insurance does suck but that's how it goes with Tech 2 ships. If that is going to change for the Hulk, it will need to change for all Tech 2 ships. I don't see that happening.

I can fly a Hulk on several of my accounts and I have mined before but honestly have never experienced being ganked in high sec. It was always in Null and I was running D-Scan constantly...a major pain in the ass that needs to be corrected. The game stops being fun when you have to spam click a single button to perform one mind numbing process just to stay safe. Sorry...that's a mechanic that needs correction. Period.

Overall I agree with the OP. I am not going to nitpick the parts I don't agree with in the OP as they are minor in the grand scheme.


Yes..agree with a 19 day old toon like a fool and ignore the obvious...great job...typical of your mind set.

Yes...continue to be an ignorant fool, typical of your mindset. What does the age of his toon have to do with the idea itself? Oh...right...it doesn't. You are just looking for an excuse to disagree because you are incapable of using your own brain to think about new ideas.

I am just going to block you again. You never have anything of value to contribute at all.

Bounties for all! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2279821#post2279821

FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#35 - 2012-05-08 17:27:41 UTC
If you want a tanky miner, use a Rokh. Lower yield and smaller hold, but hey...that's realistically what you'd have to give up in order to have a tougher ship. Exhumers are fragile because they're just a gloried dump truck. They are built to maximize yield, not survive combat. You have a CHOICE to sacrifice one benefit for the other. Please stop asking for both and claiming it's "balance".

As for a "craft guild", just the use of the word "guild" tells me all I need to know about where you draw ideas and preconceptions. If you want to have a little corp of you and your buddies, you run the risk of becoming a war target. If you want to avoid war, you suck it up and take the 10% tax and just use a private chat channel.

I don't really understand why you want to change the overview. I can tell the difference between players and NPCs at a glance and know who is and is not safe to shoot. If you can't be bothered to learn how to tell the difference without Eve saying "HEY THERE'S A PLAYER ON GRID WITH YOU NOW" then I'm inclined to agree that this game may not be for you.

Eve allows us to do almost anything we want, but in return it requires vigilance. You're asking for change after change to allow you to be less attentive and more lazy. Quite frankly that flies in the face of what Eve was built on.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.

FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#36 - 2012-05-08 17:36:27 UTC
Some specific points:
Lady Lupiah wrote:
A. Double the hold space on all exhumers. It is a joke that some combat ships have more hold space than ORE ships.

Which combat ships? I've never seen one that could carry 8k m3.

Lady Lupiah wrote:
E. Introduce moon mining to 0.7 and lower planets

Yes, let's remove one of the few remaining drivers for conflict in nullsec.

Lady Lupiah wrote:
F. Introduce advanced drones for miners. In particular, a dampner drone, that when depolyed hides the site and ship from a system scan.

It's a cloaking device, but without the downside of cloaking devices! Now you can cloak AND do all those other things you wanted to do!

Lady Lupiah wrote:
G. Consequences. DUST 514 marines should be given an in-station environment, and when a player is scammed, they should be able to report the scammer to the proper authorities (i,e, a GM as Concord's rep). The scammer should get a security hit.

Let's just stop there on this premise. Prove you were scammed. Come on, show me definitive proof that someone scammed you. Now do so in a way that the system could automatically adjust security standings based on that proof. Otherwise GMs will be consumed with playing detective and marking scammers, driving players to use alts for scams.

As for the threat of being shot in-station: I can avoid that right now. Don't dock.

Lady Lupiah wrote:
I. Clarity. A player locking someone in HighSec should not, on the overview, appear the same as an NPC. But a huge PLAYER word over their ship icon, inside the yellow blinky.

Players don't look like NPCs on the overview. I'm not sure you're using that right.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.

Drake Draconis
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#37 - 2012-05-08 17:56:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Drake Draconis
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:
Drake Draconis wrote:
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:
So far the OP has managed to soundly refute every argument posed against their idea. While I don't completely agree 100% with the idea I can say that most of it is sound. There IS a problem with a 300m mining ship and how weak it's defenses are. Insurance does suck but that's how it goes with Tech 2 ships. If that is going to change for the Hulk, it will need to change for all Tech 2 ships. I don't see that happening.

I can fly a Hulk on several of my accounts and I have mined before but honestly have never experienced being ganked in high sec. It was always in Null and I was running D-Scan constantly...a major pain in the ass that needs to be corrected. The game stops being fun when you have to spam click a single button to perform one mind numbing process just to stay safe. Sorry...that's a mechanic that needs correction. Period.

Overall I agree with the OP. I am not going to nitpick the parts I don't agree with in the OP as they are minor in the grand scheme.


Yes..agree with a 19 day old toon like a fool and ignore the obvious...great job...typical of your mind set.

Yes...continue to be an ignorant fool, typical of your mindset. What does the age of his toon have to do with the idea itself? Oh...right...it doesn't. You are just looking for an excuse to disagree because you are incapable of using your own brain to think about new ideas.

I am just going to block you again. You never have anything of value to contribute at all.


Only a fool would consider/trust what a noob has to say concerning severe game changing mechanics more importaint than experience....you have no excuse. What-so-ever.

================ STOP THE EVEMAIL SPAM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=78152

ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#38 - 2012-05-08 20:45:06 UTC  |  Edited by: ShahFluffers
Lady Lupiah wrote:
Shield tanked maelstrom has more cargo capacity than a tanked procurer. 1,000 capacity for a mining ship... really?

What is your fit? I am looking at a Procurer in EFT with a Damage Control and Reinforced Bulkhead. It still has 1000 m3 of cargo space. Without any cargo expanders a Maelstrom can only hold 550 m3 worth of stuff. And the battleship with the highest cargospace is the Megathron with 675 m3.

Also bear in mind that you are comparing a BATTLESHIP with something that is more or less cruiser sized.

Lady Lupiah wrote:
Strip miners are Mining Lasers, go look on the market under "Turrets & Bays" if you don't believe me.

While they may be under the "Turrets & Bays" market section, strip miners are not technically turrets. Otherwise they would not be able to fit on mining barges or exhumers (because neither ship has any turret slots).

Lady Lupiah wrote:
Basic issue is that there ARE people who are genuinely immune to pvp in this game. Go talk to Barbie in Amarr: one of the richest most wanted scumbags ever, who apparently makes a billion or so a day without ever undocking.

Station traders may not risk themselves physically but they do open themselves up to the risk of having their wallets nuked by someone smarter and/or with more capital than they have.
Fortunately for most station traders, not many people have the patience or mind to economically outmaneuver them.

In a way, it's no different from people who have learned various combat tactics and aggro mechanics to keep their ship safe while applying maximum damage to their target. It's just a different form.

Lady Lupiah wrote:
Go watch the freighters ambling past in their day newbie corps, 9 years on from launch. Good luck taking one of those out, with warp to 0 mechanics and gazillion armour points.

It's possible to kill such ships with the right planning.

Lady Lupiah wrote:
Frigates could not kill miners nearly as easily as destroyers; they were quickly celebrated as a griefer ship when introduced. Oddly enough, I cannot recall ever seeing a T1 destroyer in null-sec low-sec or wormhole space. They are too squishy for real pvp,

Just because YOU haven't seen ships being used or you dislike certain aspects about them, doesn't mean they aren't being used.
We use A LOT of destroyers in FW.

Now...

A. Double the hold space on all exhumers.
See the first quote above.

B. Fix insurance payouts on Exhumers.
T2 Insurance is supposed to suck. If you were [more or less] fully reimbursed for the loss of a T2 ship, what reason would you have to fly a T1 ship ever again? You PAY for that 10 to 20% edge over other players.

C. Fix the DPS/defence impalance.
What imbalance? Four destroyers can kill my Pilgrim (a 150mil ISK cloaky recon ship) without too much of an issue. They can also kill a 180 mil ISK Zealot.
And the ships I mentioned are COMBAT ships. Really... why should a NON-COMBAT ship be able to better defend itself against certain attackers than a COMBAT ship?

D. Fix social guiild war-griefing.
Fight back and generally be more trouble than you're worth. Get your corp into 4 cheapo gank-fit destroyers and gun for the squishiest, most expensive thing on field. Most war decs end when you consistently "ruin" the aggressor corps ISK efficiency.

Alternatively, jump corp and set up a "locked" channel to stay in touch with everyone. Now your enemies have to suicide gank you if they want to kill you. Problem solved.

E. Introduce moon mining to 0.7 and lower planets,
CCP is looking into removing tech moons entirely and re-inventing "belt mining."

F. Introduce advanced drones for miners.
Cloaking module. And no... you can't have something that conceals you AND allows you to continue doing what you were doing. You have to give up something of equal value to what you are gaining.

G. Consequences. 'Killing scammers.'
"If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is."
Scamming has been with EVE since the beginning. I was scammed when I was a nubbin, my peers were scammed... it's a rite of passage and, in a twisted way, prepares you for stuff you will encounter later in the game (which is arguably worse).

H. Consequences, #2. An alt should also be allowed to be killed if DUST marines go in
Now you are trying to institute meta-penalties for allowable in-game actions. This is a bad precedent no matter how you look at it.

I. Clarity. A player locking someone in HighSec should not, on the overview, appear the same as an NPC.
As others have said... a player DOES NOT look anything remotely close to an NPC... even on the overview... or in space... or in any way, shape, or form.
NPCs are "crosses" (white or red). Players are "squares" with may other colors differentiating them.

J. Podding wanted players in High-sec should immediately pay out the reward.
If someone has a -5.0 security status or lower, you can pod them anytime you wish... provided you can catch them.

Concord is nice, but a joke. Engagement times have reduced so much with the new ships that Concord intervention times are not an effective protection for new players,
Repeat after me: "CONCORD does not protect... it punishes." It is a means to increase the cost of [illegal] engagement in high-sec. The fact that some people do it anyways means that they have simply accepted the costs.

Newbies are generally "protected" because they have nothing of value to gank.

And for the record... CONCORD has been buffed many, many times. It honestly can't get much more powerful than it is now without removing suicide ganking as a mechanic altogether. However... removing it as a mechanic means that people who "live" in NPC corps effectively become immune to almost all forms of combat.
Lady Flute
Ilmarinen Group
#39 - 2012-05-09 00:19:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Lady Flute
Drake Draconis wrote:
Vertisce Soritenshi wrote:
So far the OP has managed to soundly refute every argument posed against their idea. While I don't completely agree 100% with the idea I can say that most of it is sound. There IS a problem with a 300m mining ship and how weak it's defenses are. Insurance does suck but that's how it goes with Tech 2 ships. If that is going to change for the Hulk, it will need to change for all Tech 2 ships. I don't see that happening.

I can fly a Hulk on several of my accounts and I have mined before but honestly have never experienced being ganked in high sec. It was always in Null and I was running D-Scan constantly...a major pain in the ass that needs to be corrected. The game stops being fun when you have to spam click a single button to perform one mind numbing process just to stay safe. Sorry...that's a mechanic that needs correction. Period.

Overall I agree with the OP. I am not going to nitpick the parts I don't agree with in the OP as they are minor in the grand scheme.


Yes..agree with a 19 day old toon like a fool and ignore the obvious...great job...typical of your mind set.


I completely agree with the OP. Drake your argument is now utterly invalid, rather than just idiotic.

To whoever linked kills of freighters for the "burn Jita" month ... nice one. It's meaningless data as it has no context, just like a hulk getting killed because I was using it as an afk bait in a WH to lure people in to thier doom is also just as utterly irrelevant to this discussion. I wonder what % of those players ganked unsubscribed because a bored null-sec alliance ruined their gameplay, without any real risk (lets face it, unless you lose systems there is not real risk for many top level Corps, or thier pilots, given jump clones).

And as for "whine tanking" needing to hit CCP's bottom line ... have you noticed that PLEX is suddenly on sale? Part of the comments above are that social players are the ones who are most likely to buy PLEX to acieve things they want in-game.

If you stop casual players being able to use Hulks / mine safely in Highsec, then you depress demand for PLEX from that highly volitile customer group, and that hits CCPs pocket. I personally would love to see PLEX use/sales data, particularly analysed by account age. I don't think we ever will, but CCP will. And yes, that's going to impact their business bottom line.
Lady Lupiah
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#40 - 2012-05-09 00:43:56 UTC
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
I Exhumers are fragile because they're just a gloried dump truck.


... but an Iteron V can have 20,000 cargo without blinking, and has a ton of slots to play with. The dump truck has more mid slots and generic high slots. Varying Hulk's high/low/mid slots would be an option, as would introducing a T3 exhumer with cusomisable configs.

As for Mael fit, it has superb low slots, so fill it up with cargo expanders, tank on the mid, and high slots are mix of gas miners / cruise missles / turrets, whatever floats your boat. Speaking of which, why can exhumers not mine gas? Where is the mining ship that can?

The comment was made above that Concord do not protect, they punish. But there is no punishment when an alt scoops everything and the crystals/turrets in a hulk are often worth more than the ship used to kill it. Perhaps Concord should shoot thieves on sight, too.

But those are not really the issues here, it's about player retention in the face of a sharp upswing in bored players suicide ganking. EVE has always had an implicit arms race, between prey ships and hunter ships. THe hunter's ships have had all the love for a few years, it seems.

And yes, changing insurance for all T2 ships should happen. It likely hasn't because CCP wants people to buy PLEX to get the ISK to replace thier ships, rather than just using insurace payouts: if that is the case, then naughty naughty on CCP; them fixing T2 insurance will be a clear message that isn't what they are up to on that.