These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Mining v. Suicide Ganking: The Solution
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#61 - 2012-05-09 10:17:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Andski
Andrea Roche wrote:
unless you are safe in 0.0 (which is safer than high sec)!


is the "safety" in hisec the end result of gameplay or instakill scripts

that's a trick question

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
AureoBroker
Perkone
Caldari State
#62 - 2012-05-09 12:32:58 UTC
Andski wrote:
yes they should make concord chance-based so that there's "risk" by worthless pubbie standards

CONCORD can be sweeped up (or annulled) when the system makes more sense.
That means:
Hulks being tough enough to need a proper assault, uncarriable by two-weeks alts.
Sec status lowerings are NOT reverseable in any way or shape, and especially not by ratting.
Criminal status means no market/contract access, and no hisec docking.
Then concord can be abolished.
Tobiaz
Spacerats
#63 - 2012-05-09 12:47:00 UTC
Andrea Roche wrote:
Killer Gandry wrote:
Lady Spank wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
I like the idea, but there is no kill mails for suicide ganking drones. So you will never get any real support due to that. Make no mistake. They do not suicide gank to deal with bots or any of that. It is all about destroying high costing ships while risking nothing at all. They come for the kill mails and make no effort to distinguish between bots or actual human at the keyboard.

LOL No Risk? They lose their ship every time they gank something. You sound like a moron. Suicide ganking is very dangerous and every time you even try it you lose something even if you are successful or not.


Risk is when you have the chance of getting away with something.
As soon as you know the outcome and the following loss before the action even took place it isn't a risk but a calculated loss.

Learn what risk is before slapping it on everything.


good point. The outcome is predetermined already.


The value of the dropped modules is not predetermined. The risk in ganking is in the uncertainty to make a profit and if it's worth enough to validate spending time repairing your sec standing.

Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!  Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors!
Killer Gandry
The Concilium Enterprises
#64 - 2012-05-09 13:45:40 UTC
Tobiaz wrote:

The value of the dropped modules is not predetermined. The risk in ganking is in the uncertainty to make a profit and if it's worth enough to validate spending time repairing your sec standing.


And you want to tell me with a straight face that the majority of the hulk gankers looks at making profit from the ganks.
You really have to try better.
Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#65 - 2012-05-09 14:43:23 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
I like the idea, but there is no kill mails for suicide ganking drones. So you will never get any real support due to that. Make no mistake. They do not suicide gank to deal with bots or any of that. It is all about destroying high costing ships while risking nothing at all. They come for the kill mails and make no effort to distinguish between bots or actual human at the keyboard.



Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.



Of course I agree with Malcanis, if people want easy kill mails they can always fly in groups and go there where pvp happens.

Unless of course those "gankers" are there only for griefing easy preys
Zyress
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#66 - 2012-05-09 15:12:05 UTC
Seems like it would be more appropriate to change Mining Barges to allow battleship size tanks, if it decreases their capacity a little thats ok, but a mining barge should be a mining barge and a battleship should be a battleship, more diversity, not less.
Andrea Roche
State War Academy
Caldari State
#67 - 2012-05-09 16:20:21 UTC
Tobiaz wrote:
Andrea Roche wrote:
Killer Gandry wrote:
Lady Spank wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
I like the idea, but there is no kill mails for suicide ganking drones. So you will never get any real support due to that. Make no mistake. They do not suicide gank to deal with bots or any of that. It is all about destroying high costing ships while risking nothing at all. They come for the kill mails and make no effort to distinguish between bots or actual human at the keyboard.

LOL No Risk? They lose their ship every time they gank something. You sound like a moron. Suicide ganking is very dangerous and every time you even try it you lose something even if you are successful or not.


Risk is when you have the chance of getting away with something.
As soon as you know the outcome and the following loss before the action even took place it isn't a risk but a calculated loss.

Learn what risk is before slapping it on everything.


good point. The outcome is predetermined already.


The value of the dropped modules is not predetermined. The risk in ganking is in the uncertainty to make a profit and if it's worth enough to validate spending time repairing your sec standing.


we are talking about ganking a hulk. This very rarelly will drop things of much value. Therefore we are not talking about ganking a hulk for profit based on the loot it drops but more cos of a general vandetta.
Andrea Roche
State War Academy
Caldari State
#68 - 2012-05-09 16:30:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Andrea Roche
Zyress wrote:
Seems like it would be more appropriate to change Mining Barges to allow battleship size tanks, if it decreases their capacity a little thats ok, but a mining barge should be a mining barge and a battleship should be a battleship, more diversity, not less.


this is very true.
May i point out also that during the many years all the other ship classes got buffs (including new recent buffs) and barges havent had any since they came out first time. Barges are one if not the only class of ships that has had no buffs since they came out.
One should NOT have to get into a Battleship to do mining specially in high sec. This is ridiculous. Why have mining barges after all?

I dont dispute that one should not be safe in high sec BUT i do dispute that the price loss of 6m for a destroyer vs a hulk is just nuts.

Buff mining barges shields or reduce its price significantly.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#69 - 2012-05-09 20:02:35 UTC
Andrea Roche wrote:
Zyress wrote:
Seems like it would be more appropriate to change Mining Barges to allow battleship size tanks, if it decreases their capacity a little thats ok, but a mining barge should be a mining barge and a battleship should be a battleship, more diversity, not less.


this is very true.
May i point out also that during the many years all the other ship classes got buffs (including new recent buffs) and barges havent had any since they came out first time. Barges are one if not the only class of ships that has had no buffs since they came out.
One should NOT have to get into a Battleship to do mining specially in high sec. This is ridiculous. Why have mining barges after all?

I dont dispute that one should not be safe in high sec BUT i do dispute that the price loss of 6m for a destroyer vs a hulk is just nuts.

Buff mining barges shields or reduce its price significantly.


T2 Gang Links buffed the Hulk.


You don't need to be in a battleship to mine in HS. Mining barges are maximum yield at the expense of everything else, so if you want a tanky mining ship, you get a battleship. But any of the mining barges can tank the HS rats.

If someone else's playstyle is messing with yours, that's how a multiplayer sandbox works, and you can choose to figure out how to weather the storm, how to fight back, or how to join the fun.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Katalci
Kismesis
#70 - 2012-05-09 23:59:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Katalci
AureoBroker wrote:
While i hold no hope about honorable engagements and such (it's part of the EVE beauty having the lack of those), it's SUPPLY DISRUPTION, which would be qualified under "market" and not under "pvp".
You're engaging in an activity which is VERY akin to ratting. People won't shoot back in any form. Won't react. The outcome of the activity is expected with less than 1% of variance.
Now, excuse me for that, but i thought pvp was about surviving AND killing. The simple fact that you're interacting with another player does not make it PVP, unless any market activity (be it on the supply or demand side) is considered pvp.

"Killing miners isn't pvp because they're so stupid that they're effectively NPCs." Did you think before you wrote this horrific post?

Brooks Puuntai wrote:
Andrea Roche wrote:

Why dont you ask CCP to remove mining barges from the game then?


I wouldn't mind them doing this. So long as they replace them with a T3 version that allows customization based off of need.

How mind-bogglingly stupid do you have to be to think that something has to have subsystems for it to be customizable?
Digital Messiah
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#71 - 2012-05-10 00:20:28 UTC
If they just got rid of mining lasers all together and made it all drone based that would be preferable. Keep the same values and bonuses change the slot layout and mining is than perfectly fine. I hate when people try to argue about a feature but won't admit it's pros and cons. Increasing the ease or difficulty of ganking hulks isn't the problem. The problem is more so the popularity of doing it. And when it starts costing more to gank I assume people will do it less. But that is also why hulkageddon is not year round Lol.

Something clever
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#72 - 2012-05-10 00:53:58 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Digital Messiah wrote:
If they just got rid of mining lasers all together and made it all drone based that would be preferable. Keep the same values and bonuses change the slot layout and mining is than perfectly fine. I hate when people try to argue about a feature but won't admit it's pros and cons. Increasing the ease or difficulty of ganking hulks isn't the problem. The problem is more so the popularity of doing it. And when it starts costing more to gank I assume people will do it less. But that is also why hulkageddon is not year round Lol.


HAG was a weeklong event supported by donations.

Now it's a monthlong event supported by the CFC. They're paying 10m bounties on every hulk or mack killed. (in a 10kills 100m package)

Given that OTEC makes around 200m ISK in tech sales per hulk destroyed, I would guess that the GSF finance team is considering making HAG a year-round thing.

So, good luck with your economic analysis given your lack of looking at the bigger picture.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Andrea Roche
State War Academy
Caldari State
#73 - 2012-05-10 08:32:17 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Andrea Roche wrote:
Zyress wrote:
Seems like it would be more appropriate to change Mining Barges to allow battleship size tanks, if it decreases their capacity a little thats ok, but a mining barge should be a mining barge and a battleship should be a battleship, more diversity, not less.


this is very true.
May i point out also that during the many years all the other ship classes got buffs (including new recent buffs) and barges havent had any since they came out first time. Barges are one if not the only class of ships that has had no buffs since they came out.
One should NOT have to get into a Battleship to do mining specially in high sec. This is ridiculous. Why have mining barges after all?

I dont dispute that one should not be safe in high sec BUT i do dispute that the price loss of 6m for a destroyer vs a hulk is just nuts.

Buff mining barges shields or reduce its price significantly.


T2 Gang Links buffed the Hulk.


You don't need to be in a battleship to mine in HS. Mining barges are maximum yield at the expense of everything else, so if you want a tanky mining ship, you get a battleship. But any of the mining barges can tank the HS rats.

If someone else's playstyle is messing with yours, that's how a multiplayer sandbox works, and you can choose to figure out how to weather the storm, how to fight back, or how to join the fun.


well while you can tank rats easelly, you cant tank 2 destroyers. This is a vulnerability thats new due to the buff of destroyers.
Since destroyers now are way too strong, i move for a buff to hulks. Its too easy to blow up a hulk. Mind you, i am not a minr by any means but i see this been wrong in the game. This needs fixing. If you think that this is gonna be over by the time hulkaggedon is finished then you are very wrong. While I am ok and i like eve been hard, this is ridiculously op and its no different from a titan tracking a frigate, that also needs fixing.
Helicity Boson
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
#74 - 2012-05-10 09:25:50 UTC
Andrea Roche wrote:
a titan tracking a frigate, that also needs fixing.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#75 - 2012-05-10 09:27:23 UTC
Andrea Roche wrote:


well while you can tank rats easelly, you cant tank 2 destroyers. This is a vulnerability thats new due to the buff of destroyers.
Since destroyers now are way too strong, i move for a buff to hulks. Its too easy to blow up a hulk. Mind you, i am not a minr by any means but i see this been wrong in the game. This needs fixing. If you think that this is gonna be over by the time hulkaggedon is finished then you are very wrong. While I am ok and i like eve been hard, this is ridiculously op and its no different from a titan tracking a frigate, that also needs fixing.


1) Ever seen a Dev say that the Hulks were designed to be competent PvP ships? Neither have I.

2) 2 Destroyers have always been able to kill a hulk. The reason people used bigger ships was that you only needed one and it cost the same.

2a) Destroyers are now useful, not overpowered. The fact that they happen to excel at activities that seem to be right up a glass cannon's alley is fine by me. But the buff wasn't about suicide ganks, it was about making the ship class more broadly viable.

3) Why should a mining ship, designed to give up everything (save enough tank for unsupported 0.0 ops) for maximum yield be able to tank anything?

4) Any ship engaged in PvP without the ability to fire back cannot win, and likely will die barring some intervention, so the idea of "tanking" an enemy ship is a misnomer.

5) Titans tracking is an issue with the overall mechanics of tracking in EvE. I don't really want to get into the specifics, but expect to see a lot of Supers with mids full of Target Painters in the near future.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Antisocial Malkavian
Antisocial Malkavians
#76 - 2012-05-10 14:59:20 UTC
AureoBroker wrote:
Andski wrote:
yes they should make concord chance-based so that there's "risk" by worthless pubbie standards

CONCORD can be sweeped up (or annulled) when the system makes more sense.
That means:
Hulks being tough enough to need a proper assault, uncarriable by two-weeks alts.
Sec status lowerings are NOT reverseable in any way or shape, and especially not by ratting.
Criminal status means no market/contract access, and no hisec docking.
Then concord can be abolished.


and gate/station guns kill pods

none of this BS driving anywhere you want in a pod

And, isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean all you get is one trick, rational thinking, but when you're good and crazy, oooh, oooh, oooh, the sky is the limit.

AureoBroker
Perkone
Caldari State
#77 - 2012-05-10 15:21:10 UTC
Katalci wrote:
AureoBroker wrote:
While i hold no hope about honorable engagements and such (it's part of the EVE beauty having the lack of those), it's SUPPLY DISRUPTION, which would be qualified under "market" and not under "pvp".
You're engaging in an activity which is VERY akin to ratting. People won't shoot back in any form. Won't react. The outcome of the activity is expected with less than 1% of variance.
Now, excuse me for that, but i thought pvp was about surviving AND killing. The simple fact that you're interacting with another player does not make it PVP, unless any market activity (be it on the supply or demand side) is considered pvp.

"Killing miners isn't pvp because they're so stupid that they're effectively NPCs." Did you think before you wrote this horrific post?

I'll return the question: did you?
The activity is:
Pick up ship.
Warp to belt
Shoot.


Sure, you can organize it better, with baits, orcas and wtz's: but mostly, is done as solo, wandering affairs.

It's not about miners being dumb. Both mining only onscreen and fitting tanks are net economic losses superior to the problem they would solve. The system is engineered this way.

And did you read the rest of the post, or you extrapolated something on the single purpose of whining about it?
Andrea Roche
State War Academy
Caldari State
#78 - 2012-05-10 15:48:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Andrea Roche
RubyPorto wrote:
Andrea Roche wrote:


well while you can tank rats easelly, you cant tank 2 destroyers. This is a vulnerability thats new due to the buff of destroyers.
Since destroyers now are way too strong, i move for a buff to hulks. Its too easy to blow up a hulk. Mind you, i am not a minr by any means but i see this been wrong in the game. This needs fixing. If you think that this is gonna be over by the time hulkaggedon is finished then you are very wrong. While I am ok and i like eve been hard, this is ridiculously op and its no different from a titan tracking a frigate, that also needs fixing.


2) 2 Destroyers have always been able to kill a hulk. The reason people used bigger ships was that you only needed one and it cost the same.


this is incorect. A bigger ship like a BC cos a heck of alot more specially when you add fittings. you are talking of a difference from 6m to 40m and thats without fittings. Big difference. The loss versus the loss of a hulk is much higher. I would not care much to loss to BC but to destroyers worth 6m.....come on....you are pushing it. Its too easy and too abusive. You can train a destoryer in 2 week but to train to a BC takes almost a 2 month. Thats with gunnery/missiles skills for both.

Before with BC it was more expensive so not many did it. Now thats dirt cheap everyone can afford it.
Its too easy my friend, too easy.
Zyress
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#79 - 2012-05-10 15:52:54 UTC
If any schmuck in a 500,000 isk hull can gank your 200 million isk hulk which cannot be fully insured, then the risk vs reward is just out of whack for the miner. I'm all for reasonable risk but this is excessive and cannot be sustained.
Katalci
Kismesis
#80 - 2012-05-10 16:03:22 UTC
AureoBroker wrote:
It's not about miners being dumb.

Yes it is.