These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Barge Fairy Tale

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Pipa Porto
#261 - 2012-07-26 11:13:55 UTC
Jypsie wrote:
Here's my problem with his list when it comes to fitting. Which is really what we're arguing about in this thread. The stat changes and fitting changes to barges.

He includes the exhumers using every single slot fitted for tank.

If an exhumer with half slots tank, half slots yield, had a chance against a decent ass dessie fit, we wouldn't be where we are today. But it doesn't, and here we are.


A Hulk with every slot dedicated to Tank will be unprofitable to Gank in any reasonable HS gank (30 noobships is not reasonable).

A Hulk with 1 MLUII can still get over 20k EHP, which will stop any solo gank. Heck, it'll probably stop ganks from being profitable in some higher sec bands. I'm not going to bother doing the math because ::effort::

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#262 - 2012-07-26 11:14:40 UTC
pussnheels wrote:

not really true over the last 2 months i ve seen a change in miner attitude , away from the max yield hulks , sure there are still plenty out there who still mine stupid
and i disagree with the second part of your answer , adapt you need to learn to adapt , somebody will come up with a method to gank them, it will only take more effort , effort keyword , here
and no i am not happy how mining actually works , it is long and boring work and very open to abuse by bots
but i can understand that some people after a long stressfull day at the office , watching their stripminers chew rocks relieves stress
what i find harder to understand why some people only want to ruin other gaming experience by acting like a bunch of white trash teenagers who s like nothing more than to set fire to the neigbours pet rabbit


Its called piracy.

Kinis Deren
Mosquito Squadron
D0GS OF WAR
#263 - 2012-07-26 11:19:17 UTC
I can't understand all the QQ'ing from the ganker dudes Ugh

Plenty of Hulks in nullbear land (sov null) and no CONCORD response either Roll Oh wait, is that too risky for you?Twisted
Adam Junior
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#264 - 2012-07-26 11:19:37 UTC
AFK mining makes my warboats cheap.
Tyrton
Imbecile MIiss Managment and Disasters
Intergalactic Interstellar Interns
#265 - 2012-07-26 11:25:34 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
MinefieldS wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
Marconus Orion wrote:
Oh he mad.


But is he wrong?

Nope.

Fitted properly, a Hulk cannot be profitably ganked.

How about a fleet of 30ish velators w/ cheap blasters?



So taking 7.5 man hours to gank a Hulk profitably. Ok Roll



Crap like this amazes me ... ccp is taking away/reducing cheap ganks for lols, thats fantastic.
You spend time repeating the same boring 3 points
1 Don't afk mine
2 Tank your barge(instead of yield or cargo)
3 Be aligned and have friends.

AND NOW

You are now whining that it will take effort on your part to gank a barge.....REALLY.

The only thing that will change is this upcoming buff will get rid of the
"herp derp i killed your hulk you suck at pvp i am pvp god"

I am sure that serious gankers ... will find a way to kill even a fully tanked skiff (it will all depend on how much they want it)
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#266 - 2012-07-26 11:31:35 UTC
Tyrton wrote:

AND NOW

You are now whining that it will take effort on your part to gank a barge.....REALLY.



No we are pointing out that exhumers could already tank and that the changes mean thet they can now tank most attempts while having a max yeild fit. Which is wrong.
Dave Stark
#267 - 2012-07-26 11:34:13 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Tyrton wrote:

AND NOW

You are now whining that it will take effort on your part to gank a barge.....REALLY.



No we are pointing out that exhumers could already tank and that the changes mean thet they can now tank most attempts while having a max yeild fit. Which is wrong.


and it's not wrong that a 3m ship can take down a 250m ship in a matter of seconds? i have no issue with a 3m ship taking down a 250m ship, i just have an issue with it happening in seconds.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#268 - 2012-07-26 11:36:01 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Tyrton wrote:

AND NOW

You are now whining that it will take effort on your part to gank a barge.....REALLY.



No we are pointing out that exhumers could already tank and that the changes mean thet they can now tank most attempts while having a max yeild fit. Which is wrong.


and it's not wrong that a 3m ship can take down a 250m ship in a matter of seconds? i have no issue with a 3m ship taking down a 250m ship, i just have an issue with it happening in seconds.


The same 3 mil ship will take down any heavy assault ship and recon in the same time if they dont tank their ships.
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#269 - 2012-07-26 11:38:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Jorma Morkkis
baltec1 wrote:
The same 3 mil ship will take down any heavy assault ship and recon in the same time if they dont tank their ships.


I would PAY to see you destroying my Pilgrim with Catalyst. Or Curse.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#270 - 2012-07-26 11:40:27 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
The same 3 mil ship will take down any heavy assault ship and recon in the same time if they dont tank their ships.


I would PAY to see you destroying my Pilgrim with Catalyst.


Pilgrim hull has less tank than a hulk hull.
Dave Stark
#271 - 2012-07-26 11:41:04 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Tyrton wrote:

AND NOW

You are now whining that it will take effort on your part to gank a barge.....REALLY.



No we are pointing out that exhumers could already tank and that the changes mean thet they can now tank most attempts while having a max yeild fit. Which is wrong.


and it's not wrong that a 3m ship can take down a 250m ship in a matter of seconds? i have no issue with a 3m ship taking down a 250m ship, i just have an issue with it happening in seconds.


The same 3 mil ship will take down any heavy assault ship and recon in the same time if they dont tank their ships.


that assumes the destroyer doesn't get it's ass handed to it by a ship that can shoot back; miners don't have that option. combat ships don't *have* to fit tanks to win fights, barges do since we have no control over our "guns" (concord).

if you're turning your ship in to a tank it defeats the purpose of the ship to begin with. you may as well be mining in a battleship which ccp obviously think is ******** due to the fact that they then introduced dedicated mining ships.
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#272 - 2012-07-26 11:41:45 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Pilgrim hull has less tank than a hulk hull.


How long can you keep firing your blasters without cap?
Mara Tessidar
Perkone
Caldari State
#273 - 2012-07-26 11:43:37 UTC
Highsec is not supposed to be safe, it is supposed to be safer. Unfortunately, mining ships are now so overtanked that even an idiot can't lose one short of pressing the self-destruct button and walking away from their computer for two minutes. There are a lot of idiots flying mining ships.

Thanks for the wonderful ship balancing as per your usual standard, CCP.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#274 - 2012-07-26 11:44:21 UTC
Dave stark wrote:


that assumes the destroyer doesn't get it's ass handed to it by a ship that can shoot back; miners don't have that option. combat ships don't *have* to fit tanks to win fights, barges do since we have no control over our "guns" (concord).

if you're turning your ship in to a tank it defeats the purpose of the ship to begin with. you may as well be mining in a battleship which ccp obviously think is ******** due to the fact that they then introduced dedicated mining ships.


So fitting a tank means the three t2 strips stop working?

Also, the untanked heavy assault ship would die so fast it wouldnt get the chance to shoot back. I know, we tested this.
Dave Stark
#275 - 2012-07-26 11:44:54 UTC
Mara Tessidar wrote:
Highsec is not supposed to be safe, it is supposed to be safer. Unfortunately, mining ships are now so overtanked that even an idiot can't lose one short of pressing the self-destruct button and walking away from their computer for two minutes. There are a lot of idiots flying mining ships.

Thanks for the wonderful ship balancing as per your usual standard, CCP.


and you think it was balanced that in order to tank a 0.0 rat spawn you HAD to use deadspace/faction modules? as if a hulk hull on it's own isn't a big enough prize for a neut...
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#276 - 2012-07-26 11:45:06 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Pilgrim hull has less tank than a hulk hull.


How long can you keep firing your blasters without cap?


2-3 vollies and you die.
Dave Stark
#277 - 2012-07-26 11:47:04 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Dave stark wrote:


that assumes the destroyer doesn't get it's ass handed to it by a ship that can shoot back; miners don't have that option. combat ships don't *have* to fit tanks to win fights, barges do since we have no control over our "guns" (concord).

if you're turning your ship in to a tank it defeats the purpose of the ship to begin with. you may as well be mining in a battleship which ccp obviously think is ******** due to the fact that they then introduced dedicated mining ships.


So fitting a tank means the three t2 strips stop working?

Also, the untanked heavy assault ship would die so fast it wouldnt get the chance to shoot back. I know, we tested this.


no. however the point of it is that you're effectively mining in a battleship, which is not what ccp want as evident by the fact that when that was the only option they introduced ships that were dedicated to mining. however then we come to the issue that i just put in my other post in order to tank rat spawns you need deadspace modules etc

the tank buff was inevitable. have they gone too far with the skiff? yeah probably, however in their current state their tank is just bad.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#278 - 2012-07-26 11:50:30 UTC
Dave stark wrote:


no. however the point of it is that you're effectively mining in a battleship, which is not what ccp want as evident by the fact that when that was the only option they introduced ships that were dedicated to mining. however then we come to the issue that i just put in my other post in order to tank rat spawns you need deadspace modules etc

the tank buff was inevitable. have they gone too far with the skiff? yeah probably, however in their current state their tank is just bad.


You dont need deadspace mods to tank rats in 0.0

Also your self entitlement is shocking. I mean, hoe DARE I say that you should be putting a tank on your ship just like everyone else has to. Hulks should have the best of all worlds just because.
Mara Tessidar
Perkone
Caldari State
#279 - 2012-07-26 11:50:54 UTC
Dave stark wrote:


and you think it was balanced that in order to tank a 0.0 rat spawn you HAD to use deadspace/faction modules? as if a hulk hull on it's own isn't a big enough prize for a neut...


You can easily tank nullsec rats in a Hulk if you don't fit an omnitank.
Dave Stark
#280 - 2012-07-26 11:52:38 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Dave stark wrote:


no. however the point of it is that you're effectively mining in a battleship, which is not what ccp want as evident by the fact that when that was the only option they introduced ships that were dedicated to mining. however then we come to the issue that i just put in my other post in order to tank rat spawns you need deadspace modules etc

the tank buff was inevitable. have they gone too far with the skiff? yeah probably, however in their current state their tank is just bad.


You dont need deadspace mods to tank rats in 0.0

Also your self entitlement is shocking. I mean, hoe DARE I say that you should be putting a tank on your ship just like everyone else has to. Hulks should have the best of all worlds just because.


yeah, you do. you can't be cap stable without a deadspace/faction booster.

self entitlement? how? all i said was it's not what ccp want you to do, and i've stated why it's obvious ccp don't want you to do that.