These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Danny Diamonds
Fabricated Reality
#481 - 2012-07-26 16:50:45 UTC
Tippia wrote:
dexington wrote:
hint: primarily in hi-sec, where it should be hard to gank miners
Why?

Or, more precisely: why does it need to be harder than it is, seeing as how the miners already have to actively choose to make it worth-while?

Danny Diamonds wrote:
I don't think his comments were off mark in any way *IF* we consider context.
The context doesn't matter. He's either using it as a blanket statement, or he's using it about a specific group, meaning that for some reason, they should abide by different rules than the rest of the game. Either way, it's the same deeply flawed balancing concept that has only ever managed to make things unbalanced.

I hereby demand that it should take at least 10bn worth of ships to kill my Nomad.



You are trying very hard to make this a bigger issue than it really is. Want to gank Exhumers in Hisec? Bring more dps. This is the only potential change we have any notion of related to the OP. As of right now, we don't even have the final numbers.
Skippermonkey
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#482 - 2012-07-26 16:53:51 UTC
Danny Diamonds wrote:
You are trying very hard to make this a bigger issue than it really is.

Adapting the game to fit the miners instead of adapting the miners to fit the game is acceptable for you?

COME AT ME BRO

I'LL JUST BE DOCKED IN THIS STATION
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#483 - 2012-07-26 16:54:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Danny Diamonds wrote:
You are trying very hard to make this a bigger issue than it really is.
It is a bigger issue.

Again, a senior game designer is following a balancing concept that has only ever managed to create massive imbalances.

It doesn't really get any bigger than that.
Nikodiemus
Ganja Clade
Shadow Cartel
#484 - 2012-07-26 16:54:49 UTC
And now the other mining ships will be worth using again depending on differing circumstances. Sounds like more options and flexibility to the players.
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#485 - 2012-07-26 16:57:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Richard Desturned
Nikodiemus wrote:
And now the other mining ships will be worth using again depending on differing circumstances. Sounds like more options and flexibility to the players.


Increasing options and flexibility would have involved giving the ships the ability to FIT a tank at the expense of yield, not simply GIVING them one on a silver platter.

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
Kyra Yaken
Doomheim
#486 - 2012-07-26 16:58:57 UTC
Richard Desturned wrote:
Nikodiemus wrote:
And now the other mining ships will be worth using again depending on differing circumstances. Sounds like more options and flexibility to the players.


Increasing options and flexibility would have involved giving the ships the ability to FIT a tank at the expense of yield, not simply GIVING them one on a silver platter.



Wasnt that same as when CCP gave gankers tier3 on silver plate?

True story Bro.
Arvantis Sauril
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#487 - 2012-07-26 16:59:52 UTC
dexington wrote:
Richard Desturned wrote:
dexington wrote:
Richard Desturned wrote:
... this dumbing down of the game - yeah, welcome to a risk-free hisec.


How can it be dumping down the game, when they make it harder for the gankers?


oh right, I forgot that gankers are actually the only players in the equation here

hint: they made it easier for the miners


hint: primarily in hi-sec, where it should be hard to gank miners... somehow it makes sense.

if anything the game was dumped down so the self proclaimed hardcore pvp'ers could gank miners in hi-sec, now that it's going to take just a little skills/brains to find someone to gank, the same people are crying "the end of eve"...




As long as there is little incentive for players to mine in Hi-Sec, then yes, it should be hard to gank in Hi-Sec. The game works. If however, you can find the same return on mining (or missioning or ratting or whatever it is you do)in Hi-Sec that you can in Null and Low, then the game stops functioning and is now broken. How do you not understand this?


If unkillable-hi-sec-miner-minerals were only allowed to be sold to NPC factions at some pittance, and restricted from entering the player markets, then the system could work. But they won't be and the system won't work.

You can't have it both ways. (Well you can, but once you do the game stops being compelling and...)

I understand there is pain and a feeling of shock and rage at the loss of an expensive ship, but why would you fly that expensive ship if you couldn't adequately protect it? ISk/hour? Greed? I thought this game was all about risk vs reward. Calculations. High learning curve. Don't fly what you can't afford to lose.

No one wins with these changes. A newbie miner who only ever mines, would never make enough isk to graduate up the ORE chain the way minerals will likely tank. Already established self sufficient solo miners will pound away for hours and barely make enough ISK to pay for all their logistics costs. A massive influx of minerals will reduce ship costs, making ship losses even less important than they already are, and increasing the number of Super Caps in the game. The game will stretch even further between the have's and have not's.

The only ones who benefit from this will be the AFK botter mine armies and the already established Null Alliances who will triple their Super numbers and make SOV warfare even more pointless than it already is.

Nothing good will come of this.

How can you not see this?
Jed Bobby
Doomheim
#488 - 2012-07-26 17:00:20 UTC
General consensus says.
People are mad that its possible to have options AND still do well in a game

apparently: there MUST be ONE ship that wins EVE
Danny Diamonds
Fabricated Reality
#489 - 2012-07-26 17:00:23 UTC
Skippermonkey wrote:
Danny Diamonds wrote:
You are trying very hard to make this a bigger issue than it really is.

Adapting the game to fit the miners instead of adapting the miners to fit the game is acceptable for you?


I find the currently known changes to be "Acceptable", yes. I would have preferred they left the Hulk's EHP alone and implement all the other changes as they are proposed (Ore cargo hold changes, EHP on skiff and Mak are all good IMO). But it wasn't my decision to make.

Alternatively, they could have given the Hulk 1 or 2 more low slots so it could fit MLU's and still have room for a DC2 and whatever. But again, this is a decent alternative.

All we are talking about is increase in EHP. I fail to see why this is such a big deal. Bring more dps.
Pipa Porto
#490 - 2012-07-26 17:00:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Pipa Porto
Kyra Yaken wrote:
Richard Desturned wrote:
Nikodiemus wrote:
And now the other mining ships will be worth using again depending on differing circumstances. Sounds like more options and flexibility to the players.


Increasing options and flexibility would have involved giving the ships the ability to FIT a tank at the expense of yield, not simply GIVING them one on a silver platter.



Wasnt that same as when CCP gave gankers tier3 on silver plate?


You mean when they removed Insurance payouts for Suicide ganking, resulting in an overall increase in the cost of ganking things even taking t3s and the Dessy buff into account?

That's some awfully tarnished silver.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#491 - 2012-07-26 17:02:41 UTC
Kyra Yaken wrote:
Wasnt that same as when CCP gave gankers tier3 on silver plate?


tell me when you see a tier 3 BC ganking a hulk

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
Jed Bobby
Doomheim
#492 - 2012-07-26 17:03:12 UTC
commiting a crime is in VIOLATION of your insurance policy.

Why should you get paid for being a criminal? dumbass
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#493 - 2012-07-26 17:03:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Kyra Yaken wrote:
Wasnt that same as when CCP gave gankers tier3 on silver plate?
Tier-3s came with inherent (and significant) drawbacks to compensate for the advantages they provide, which is why they aren't all that popular for ganking.

So no. It's not quite the same.
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#494 - 2012-07-26 17:06:31 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Kyra Yaken wrote:
Wasnt that same as when CCP gave gankers tier3 on silver plate?
Tier-3s came with inherent (and significant) drawbacks to compensate for the advantages they provide, which is why they aren't all that popular for ganking.

So no. It's not quite the same.


and the dude you quoted assumes that tier 3 BCs are only ever used for hisec ganking

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#495 - 2012-07-26 17:07:29 UTC
Danny Diamonds wrote:
Bring more dps.


Miners are just going to whine when it's 6 Catalysts killing their Hulks and Mackinaws instead of 1 or 2. Then CCP will implement more changes to nerf suicide ganking. What's the difference?

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
Danny Diamonds
Fabricated Reality
#496 - 2012-07-26 17:15:32 UTC
Richard Desturned wrote:
Danny Diamonds wrote:
Bring more dps.


Miners are just going to whine when it's 6 Catalysts killing their Hulks and Mackinaws instead of 1 or 2. Then CCP will implement more changes to nerf suicide ganking. What's the difference?


Crazy idea, but why not go find challenging targets to shoot? You know, maybe those that are allowed to be fitted with guns? Or maybe haulers with tasty loots? When it takes 6 destroyers to take out a miner, I don't think there will be much support for the whiner. They surely wont have my support (not that it means much; I am just one EVE player).
Kyra Yaken
Doomheim
#497 - 2012-07-26 17:16:20 UTC
Richard Desturned wrote:
Danny Diamonds wrote:
Bring more dps.


Miners are just going to whine when it's 6 Catalysts killing their Hulks and Mackinaws instead of 1 or 2. Then CCP will implement more changes to nerf suicide ganking. What's the difference?



So you are admiting that the ganking will stil be going with dessies. Why are you so concern about new tank for miners?

True story Bro.
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#498 - 2012-07-26 17:17:07 UTC
Danny Diamonds wrote:
Crazy idea, but why not go find challenging targets to shoot? You know, maybe those that are allowed to be fitted with guns? Or maybe haulers with tasty loots? When it takes 6 destroyers to take out a miner, I don't think there will be much support for the whiner. They surely wont have my support (not that it means much; I am just one EVE player).


miners will whine whether it takes 6 catalysts to kill them or 6 vindicators

they will whine about dying until the day CCP hamfistedly removes the ability to aggress a ship in hisec outside of wardecs

and they'll still whine about getting popped by wartargets until that's nuked as well

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#499 - 2012-07-26 17:18:47 UTC
Kyra Yaken wrote:
So you are admiting that the ganking will stil be going with dessies. Why are you so concern about new tank for miners?


the direction they're taking, treating miners (hiseccers in general, with crimewatch) as a protected class who get to fly ships that were originally meant to be paper-thin but can now tank better than command ships

welcome to EVE Online: Nonconsensual Ganking Eliminated (NGE for short)

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
Xercodo
Cruor Angelicus
#500 - 2012-07-26 17:19:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Xercodo
Unfitted Zealot:
Jita Price: 174,996,056.98
Base EHP with all 5s: 10,843
ISK per EHP: 16,139.08

Unfitted Hulk:
Jita Price: 279,893,053.00
Base EHP with all 5s: 9,217
ISK per EHP: 30,367.04

Vagabond: 17,948.77
Pilgrim: 22,595.88
Sacrilege: 10,963.04
Rapier: 26,249.02

The claim that T2 cruisers are just as bad has some merit to it given that you also ignore the fact that the recons I posted can also use a covert cloak.

The combat recons are already significantly lower in the case of the Curse: 18,213.24

Thus making the Hulk's "ISK per base EHP ratio" should be closer to 20,000 instead of 30,000. This means that the base EHP of the hulk, with all level 5 skills and no modules fitted at all, should be around 13,994 EHP, give or take a few 100.

Not completely unreasonable is it?

In the same breath I also ask...how many of you fly T2 cruisers with nothing but tank on it? In the case of recons you're gonna have some ewar on there, in the case of HACs you're gonna have some dmg mods and TEs on there possibly. If you ARE purely tank then you're bait and hardly do any damage compared to the guys that DO fit dmg mods.

The other problem we have is that those ships also have MUCH better fitting. The hulk's best option for tanking uses two SMALL shield extenders. I dunno about you but I'm pretty sure that all the T2 cruisers can fit a LSE or a 800mm plate while still doing decent damage with a dmg mod.

So if you're going to compare the hulk to T2 cruisers I would ask that the hulk be able to be fitted similarly to a T2 cruiser's tank relative to it's ability to do it's main function (ewar or damage) before you make that sort of claim. By this logic not only should the base EHP of an unfitted hulk should be higher it should also have the ability to fit at least ONE LSE while also fitting one MLU besides a damage control. In this way it would then be much closer to the effectiveness of a T2 cruiser that has fitted a tank and a dmg mod.

Edit: I'd also like to point out that the new skiff's tank (when fitted for as much tank as you can) has an EHP comparable to a Sacrilege fitted the same way. In both cases neither ship is going to be all that good at doing anything besides tanking but they both fit their roles fairly well: tanking like a brick, and they both have similar costs.

The Drake is a Lie