These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Dramaticus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#361 - 2012-07-26 14:50:00 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
CCP Soundwave wrote:
If I wanted to remove aggression, I'd just shut it off, instead of going through all these hoops to keep it alive. The reality is that suicide ganking is an integral part of the game that I quite like, but every now and then we need to make changes because the current setup doesn't work.


Why do you think it doesn't work? Right now, Hulks can fit for Tank (sacrificing Yield and convenience), and be unprofitable to gank.
Hulks can fit for convenience (sacrificing Yield and Tank), and be profitable to gank.
Hulks can be fit for yield (sacrificing Tank and convenience), and be profitable to gank.

Hulks can also fit themselves to make it easy to mine while aligned.


If these changes weren't designed as a straight nerf to Suicide ganking, why has every Exhumer gotten a significant Tank increase?

Why are you devaluing the Skiff's new role with both the Hulk and Mack tank buff before it's even on TQ?
Why are you devaluing the Mack's new role with the Skiff's new cargo hold?

And none of them can be profitable to gank.


Yeah my point is that I don't think they should be profitable to gank. I think it should be possible, but not necessarily profitable (profitable might be the wrong word, but more that the expenses should be higher for the attacker than the defender).


Should we expect a similar buff to all T2 ships in the future to prevent them from so easily dying to massed T1 ships

The 'do-nothing' member of the GoonSwarm Economic Warfare Cabal

The edge is REALLY hard to see at times but it DOES exist and in this case we were looking at a situation where a new feature created for all of our customers was being virtually curbstomped by five of them
EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#362 - 2012-07-26 14:50:49 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:

Yeah my point is that I don't think they should be profitable to gank. I think it should be possible, but not necessarily profitable (profitable might be the wrong word, but more that the expenses should be higher for the attacker than the defender).

To put it in simple terms: the cost of your ship isn't a tank. EVE isn't supposed to be a game where more expensive things can't be killed by less expensive things. If a battleship dies to a rifter, we do not complain the cost to the attacker was lower than the cost to the defender.
Adrenalinemax
Lap Dancers
Brothers of Tangra
#363 - 2012-07-26 14:51:25 UTC
EvilweaselSA wrote:
Every form of suicide ganking has repeatedly been nerfed. It's nice that you claim it's not your goal to remove it. However, your stated goals are essentially to make it a once in a blue moon action that is systematically nerfed anytime it happens more often than that (because then its clearly not costing the attacker enough).

It's clear you respond to highsec whining, which will always be there until you remove risk from highsec. You claim you won't do that: but you'll clearly keep going to be moving closer and closer and closer until there's no practical risk, just theoretical risk



what is wrong with making a ganker spend 350mil to gank a ship costing 290mil?

Did you like it better when a 10mil ship could gank a ship that cost 290mil? ( I bet you did) C'mon, lemme see those tears, I can tell you are welling up
Adrenalinemax
Lap Dancers
Brothers of Tangra
#364 - 2012-07-26 14:52:02 UTC
EvilweaselSA wrote:
CCP Soundwave wrote:

Yeah my point is that I don't think they should be profitable to gank. I think it should be possible, but not necessarily profitable (profitable might be the wrong word, but more that the expenses should be higher for the attacker than the defender).

To put it in simple terms: the cost of your ship isn't a tank. EVE isn't supposed to be a game where more expensive things can't be killed by less expensive things. If a battleship dies to a rifter, we do not complain the cost to the attacker was lower than the cost to the defender.



Battleship can shoot back
Dave stark
#365 - 2012-07-26 14:52:20 UTC
Skippermonkey wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
gfldex wrote:
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Suicide ganking wasn't designed to be profitable, it's meant to be an option that let's you punish someone else at your expense. The money you paid for a ship to gank with compared to the money lost by your target was completely off and this change should bring that to a better spot. That said, the numbers can still be adjusted.


How do you plan to scale the HP of a freighter with the value of it's cargo? If you don't plan to do that then please tell me why miners are immune from profit seeking highsec pirates but haulers are not.

I'm in your forumz asking rhetorical questions.


the modules dropped from an exhumer exceeds the cost of the ship destroying it. is that the same with a freighter?

If you are doing it right, the cargo should suffice


that's the point though; cargo isn't factored in to this.
people ganking mining barges are doing it because they make money from destroying a ship regardless of it's cargo (and even with a fully expanded and full cargo a hulk will still drop less in cargo than in modules).
if you happen to be carrying a set of bpos when your charon goes pop; you're a ******* moron.
if you went pop because some one gains isk from throwing a ship worth pocket change at you in exchange for scooping a bundle of modules worth more than the ship was then clearly some thing isn't right.

last time i checked (which, admittedly, was a while ago) a single t1 ice harvester turret was worth more than a thrasher. i'll wager most ships are packing t2 variants hence raising the ganker's profit even more (not to mention the insult that the mine replacing is ship is probably buying his own modules back).
Skippermonkey
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#366 - 2012-07-26 14:52:45 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
no because you're intending to go in to a combat situation, tanks are for combat. mining ships are not a combat ship.

Replace the words 'DPS' with 'isk per hour'

I dont fit a mission boat for MAX dps at expense of my survivability, because if i did my shiny billion isk faction ship would explode in no time at all

yet miners fit their mining barges and exhumers for 'max mining' at expense of their survivability in the face of warnings from CCP, countless threads about sucide gankers, eternal hulkageddon, etc

then they innevitably die, and point the finger at anybody but themselves

Miners as a collective group have clearly shown that they are incapable of looking after themselves, and so CCP has stepped in to hold their hand and protect them as if they were an endangered species

COME AT ME BRO

I'LL JUST BE DOCKED IN THIS STATION
Dramaticus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#367 - 2012-07-26 14:53:16 UTC
Adrenalinemax wrote:
EvilweaselSA wrote:
CCP Soundwave wrote:

Yeah my point is that I don't think they should be profitable to gank. I think it should be possible, but not necessarily profitable (profitable might be the wrong word, but more that the expenses should be higher for the attacker than the defender).

To put it in simple terms: the cost of your ship isn't a tank. EVE isn't supposed to be a game where more expensive things can't be killed by less expensive things. If a battleship dies to a rifter, we do not complain the cost to the attacker was lower than the cost to the defender.



Battleship can shoot back


So can a Hulk?

The 'do-nothing' member of the GoonSwarm Economic Warfare Cabal

The edge is REALLY hard to see at times but it DOES exist and in this case we were looking at a situation where a new feature created for all of our customers was being virtually curbstomped by five of them
EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#368 - 2012-07-26 14:53:51 UTC
Adrenalinemax wrote:
what is wrong with making a ganker spend 350mil to gank a ship costing 290mil?

Did you like it better when a 10mil ship could gank a ship that cost 290mil? ( I bet you did) C'mon, lemme see those tears, I can tell you are welling up

the cost of your ship isn't part of your tank
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
#369 - 2012-07-26 14:54:12 UTC
Simple question: If the ore bay is full and you are still mining, is the asteroid still depleted?

If so, I'm training up for a Covetor post-haste.

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.
Dave stark
#370 - 2012-07-26 14:55:22 UTC
EvilweaselSA wrote:
CCP Soundwave wrote:

Yeah my point is that I don't think they should be profitable to gank. I think it should be possible, but not necessarily profitable (profitable might be the wrong word, but more that the expenses should be higher for the attacker than the defender).

To put it in simple terms: the cost of your ship isn't a tank. EVE isn't supposed to be a game where more expensive things can't be killed by less expensive things. If a battleship dies to a rifter, we do not complain the cost to the attacker was lower than the cost to the defender.


that's not really the issue that a small ship can kill a big ship. that's fine. a small ship killing a bigger ship so quickly is the issue, to be honest.

if you're in null in a battleship and an assault frigate attacks you you've got the chance to shoot him before he gets his transversal up and starts showing you that you're a fool.
miners don't have the ability to issue that pre-emptive strike in high sec. they have no guns and concord have to finish their doughnut before they come help you out.
Dramaticus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#371 - 2012-07-26 14:57:14 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
EvilweaselSA wrote:
CCP Soundwave wrote:

Yeah my point is that I don't think they should be profitable to gank. I think it should be possible, but not necessarily profitable (profitable might be the wrong word, but more that the expenses should be higher for the attacker than the defender).

To put it in simple terms: the cost of your ship isn't a tank. EVE isn't supposed to be a game where more expensive things can't be killed by less expensive things. If a battleship dies to a rifter, we do not complain the cost to the attacker was lower than the cost to the defender.


that's not really the issue that a small ship can kill a big ship. that's fine. a small ship killing a bigger ship so quickly is the issue, to be honest.

if you're in null in a battleship and an assault frigate attacks you you've got the chance to shoot him before he gets his transversal up and starts showing you that you're a fool.
miners don't have the ability to issue that pre-emptive strike in high sec. they have no guns and concord have to finish their doughnut before they come help you out.


Warrior II

The 'do-nothing' member of the GoonSwarm Economic Warfare Cabal

The edge is REALLY hard to see at times but it DOES exist and in this case we were looking at a situation where a new feature created for all of our customers was being virtually curbstomped by five of them
Marconus Orion
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#372 - 2012-07-26 14:57:29 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
We all know how terribly this is going to boil over. I wonder whose idea it was at CCP to do this. One thing's for sure, they ****** up pretty royally here.

Isn't it funny how CCP Soundwave stopped posting in this thread as soon as people started calling him out on his bullshit? "Suicide ganking wasn't meant to be profitable." Yeah, because that's TOTALLY what the issue is about, and not, you know, CCP coddling highsec carebears who don't give a **** about what this game is really supposed to be about and instead think that they are entitled to some blanket of protection.

Well they got that blanket. I can't wait until the hordes of miners come onto the forums and complain that they don't bother mining anymore because ore and mineral prices have dropped so much.

CCP Soundwave: Slowly turning EVE highsec into a risk free environment.


There has always been three core things that drew me to this game. They have always been here and don't look to be changing anytime soon.

1. One server. No moving population. No different 'worlds'. Everyone is in the very same boat so anything you do or hear about everyone else experiences too.

2. When your ship blows up, there is no running back to collect everything. Death actually means something. Granted it varies depending on your point of view, but exploding represents time and effort evaporating in a glorious fire ball.

3. As long as you are undocked (and not cloaked at some safe spot); combat can happen at any given moment. Granted it could only be for a few seconds before Concord shows up to lay down the smack on someone, it still happened. No where is safe.

When any one of those three things no longer applies, I will leave this game forever. That said, those three things have remained a constant the entire time I have been playing this game and I see no evidence of them changing. So please enough with the 'Hello Kitty' jokes and other extreme nonsense. You can still suicide gank anyone you want. You just have to adjust the caliber of the slug in your elephant gun.
Skippermonkey
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#373 - 2012-07-26 14:57:35 UTC
Also i'd like to throw into the mix that the cost of an Exhumer can NEVER be used to justify any buff to its EHP

CCP have 'promised' to tackle the Technetium problem, and as Technetium is like 70% of the price of a Hulk, these T2 ships will not likely remain the price they are now once the tech problem is dealt with

COME AT ME BRO

I'LL JUST BE DOCKED IN THIS STATION
Adrenalinemax
Lap Dancers
Brothers of Tangra
#374 - 2012-07-26 14:57:57 UTC
EvilweaselSA wrote:
Adrenalinemax wrote:
what is wrong with making a ganker spend 350mil to gank a ship costing 290mil?

Did you like it better when a 10mil ship could gank a ship that cost 290mil? ( I bet you did) C'mon, lemme see those tears, I can tell you are welling up

the cost of your ship isn't part of your tank


I honestly have no earthly idea what you mean

A Gank ship fits no tank as Concord will take care of it

That tank on a hulk is a minor part of the equation, maybe 10-12 mil, including a Co-pro
EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#375 - 2012-07-26 14:58:10 UTC
Dave stark wrote:

that's not really the issue that a small ship can kill a big ship. that's fine. a small ship killing a bigger ship so quickly is the issue, to be honest.

It's highsec: you simply must kill something within a specific amount of time.

It's absolutely trivial to tank a hulk to resist a catalyst, and easy to resist two. I don't have an issue with them increasing the hulk's tank when the hulk has made a tradeoff for extra tank. I have a problem with increasing the tank of a 4x civilian shield booster hulk.
Dave stark
#376 - 2012-07-26 14:58:20 UTC
Skippermonkey wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
no because you're intending to go in to a combat situation, tanks are for combat. mining ships are not a combat ship.

Replace the words 'DPS' with 'isk per hour'

I dont fit a mission boat for MAX dps at expense of my survivability, because if i did my shiny billion isk faction ship would explode in no time at all

yet miners fit their mining barges and exhumers for 'max mining' at expense of their survivability in the face of warnings from CCP, countless threads about sucide gankers, eternal hulkageddon, etc

then they innevitably die, and point the finger at anybody but themselves

Miners as a collective group have clearly shown that they are incapable of looking after themselves, and so CCP has stepped in to hold their hand and protect them as if they were an endangered species


no, you fit your ship to do missions as efficiently as possible. that's the same thing as fitting to mine as efficiently as possible.

i have no problem with hulkaggedon, if you want to gank me i think you're perfectly entitled to do so; provided you actually have to put some effort in to it and not just use ships costing less than the contents of my jetcan. the tears from the gankers about this buff is the fact that they're no longer able to do it in throwaway ships and have to put some kind of investment in to ******* up some one's day. hard life isn't it?
EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#377 - 2012-07-26 14:59:54 UTC
I'm also relatively annoyed at how low the tradeoff for switching to a skiff from a hulk is in terms of yield but that's another issue.
Dave stark
#378 - 2012-07-26 15:01:08 UTC
EvilweaselSA wrote:
Dave stark wrote:

that's not really the issue that a small ship can kill a big ship. that's fine. a small ship killing a bigger ship so quickly is the issue, to be honest.

It's highsec: you simply must kill something within a specific amount of time.

It's absolutely trivial to tank a hulk to resist a catalyst, and easy to resist two. I don't have an issue with them increasing the hulk's tank when the hulk has made a tradeoff for extra tank. I have a problem with increasing the tank of a 4x civilian shield booster hulk.


if you're time limited; bring bigger guns.
personally i don't think it's unreasonable for a hulk to be able to tank a ship worth more than it's module drops until concord arrives without giving up anything. being able to tank a ship of equal value until concord arrives without fitting for it would mean the ehp buff has gone too far.

obviously you may feel differently to me about that.
Dramaticus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#379 - 2012-07-26 15:01:57 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
EvilweaselSA wrote:
Dave stark wrote:

that's not really the issue that a small ship can kill a big ship. that's fine. a small ship killing a bigger ship so quickly is the issue, to be honest.

It's highsec: you simply must kill something within a specific amount of time.

It's absolutely trivial to tank a hulk to resist a catalyst, and easy to resist two. I don't have an issue with them increasing the hulk's tank when the hulk has made a tradeoff for extra tank. I have a problem with increasing the tank of a 4x civilian shield booster hulk.


if you're time limited; bring bigger guns.
personally i don't think it's unreasonable for a hulk to be able to tank a ship worth more than it's module drops until concord arrives without giving up anything. being able to tank a ship of equal value until concord arrives without fitting for it would mean the ehp buff has gone too far.

obviously you may feel differently to me about that.


You do realize that right now, under current mechanics, it is possible for you to do that, right?

The 'do-nothing' member of the GoonSwarm Economic Warfare Cabal

The edge is REALLY hard to see at times but it DOES exist and in this case we were looking at a situation where a new feature created for all of our customers was being virtually curbstomped by five of them
Adrenalinemax
Lap Dancers
Brothers of Tangra
#380 - 2012-07-26 15:02:25 UTC
Here it is in a nutshell...

Did they stop Ganking? NO

Can you Gank a Hulk, Mack or Skiff? Hell YES

Can you do it in a rupture or a thrasher? Hell NO