These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#661 - 2012-07-26 19:57:05 UTC
Barbara Nichole wrote:
Richard Desturned wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Yesterday in Sirseshin, several times.


a tornado is a pretty expensive way to kill a hulk

it seems that you're angry because hulks are able to die in hisec???????


but not unfairly expensive..considering the price of the target. Belly up to the bar if you want to drink otherwise move on.

An untanked T1 battle crusier will have nearly double the tank of an untanked T2 hulk... seems fine to me.


isk balancing is ******* stupid hope this helps

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#662 - 2012-07-26 19:57:38 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
JamesCLK wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Exhumers? Need a DCU II just to not suck complete balls.

FYP


No, because the DCU does not enable fitting shield mods to get to those conservative 30k EHP. The MAPC does.


use both in tandem and you get

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#663 - 2012-07-26 19:59:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Lin-Young Borovskova
Tippia wrote:
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
Nothing show your claiming is true, what is true on the other hand is that now you will be able to mine in low/null and have enough tank so your friends come help you, this is good for the game.
Lol No.
Far more sturdier ships than these are lost already because the difference in rules means that the friends will not get there in time…


What about considering these mining barges changes as the beginning of industry changes, just a step. New changes will hit over time like ring mining so yes these ships will be used lore in those regions.
Then, and as many people claim it should happen and will probably happen, high sec minerals available amount and respawn time can/will probably also be tweaked.

But then, the same crying about mining barges buffs will cry because they will have to mine in low/null because :tears: isk/h

Quote:
Now you need REAL organisations and EFFORT to achieve the same ganking, leading to more ships destroyed witch is also good for the game.
Quote:
Not really, no. Unless you're talking about highsec, in which case what you said is already true if you choose to make it so.


Yep was about high sec just forgot to mention it, sry. And yes it's already the case for some gank activities, not in what concerns mining barges, this is shown by thousands and thousands of KM's where you can fit as much tank as you wish you can simple blow up whatever mining barge with minimal effort, this was wrong and needed changes.
Bot argument is a false argument and goes against and makes fools of gankers rather than suit their arguments.

brb
Ginseng Jita
PAN-EVE TRADING COMPANY
#664 - 2012-07-26 20:01:25 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Exhumers? Need a MAPC just to not suck complete balls.
Incorrect.


Had it been incorrect they'd not change the mining ships.


don't try and argue the point with them, they just keep coming up with the same crap.


Because you are too stupid to fit a proper tank on your barge.
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#665 - 2012-07-26 20:02:00 UTC
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
Bot argument is a false argument and goes against and makes fools of gankers rather than suit their arguments.


yeah nobody bots in hisec

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
Dave stark
#666 - 2012-07-26 20:04:38 UTC
Ginseng Jita wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Exhumers? Need a MAPC just to not suck complete balls.
Incorrect.


Had it been incorrect they'd not change the mining ships.


don't try and argue the point with them, they just keep coming up with the same crap.


Because you are too stupid to fit a proper tank on your barge.


considering i've lost 0 hulks in my entire eve career, i disagree.
Barbara Nichole
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#667 - 2012-07-26 20:05:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Barbara Nichole
Danny Diamonds wrote:
Richard Desturned wrote:
Danny Diamonds wrote:
I am just guessing here, but I am willing to bet they chose this route to avoid "Creative" use of said Exhumers. Giving them more slots to fit a tank or more yield may have other implications (using one for tackle?). Just a guess, nothing more.


hint: they don't need more mids to fit a better tank, just a slight bump in CPU and some grid.


True for the Hulk, but not all of the Exhumers. One of the goals of the re-balance is to make ships within a group all have a well-defined role.

Just adding some grid and cpu to all of them would not solve their lack of individual roles.


...and space training out better..while giving them continued value as a character progresses.
the lowest yield exhumers will have better tanks.. the T2 hulks with the best yields will change a little in tanking bringing them up to about as much tank as a half a T1 battlecrusier.

  - remove the cloaked from local; free intel is the real problem, not  "afk" cloaking -

[IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG]
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#668 - 2012-07-26 20:06:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Tippia wrote:
No. It's a right correcting a wrong, making it right.


Your opinion. Not absolute.


Tippia wrote:
Fallacy. It can be (and is) just as correct anyway, especially if the decision behind the change is driven by a fundamentally flawed and disproven balancing concept.


You know that same Dev was an EvE player (a Goon none the less). You may as well send a curriculum and replace him and make your opinions law for the Higher Good of EvE.

Till that day, HE decides and YOU adapt or stop playing.


Tippia wrote:
…except, of course, that 30k EHP isn't the qualifier for “not sucking balls”. The DCII is quite sufficient, and an MAPC isn't needed.


Care to share a DCUII fitting that lets a Mack survive 2-3 catalysts?


Tippia wrote:
So you agree that the barge EHP changes are completely unnecessary then. Good. A but confusing given your previous statements, but still good.


No I don't agree. To me I have to have the same freedom fitting any ship in game. I can fit my Minnie ships in 50 different *and cool and powerful* ways each, I don't see why I have to settle for EITHER yield OR tank OR cargo for industrial ships.
There's no middle way 20k EHP fitting for a Mack that lets use 1 MLU and hold 4 ice cubes (while I can fit 2-3 BCUs in my caldari ships *without losing a single inch of tank* or I can fit both gyrostabs and TEs on minnie ships with a smooth degree of choice of tank vs gank).

So the "proper way" for me would be to give freedom to get such 20k EHP Mack. Not a 200K EHP but something better than the current: "either it tanks a bit but sucks or it dies to a random fart".

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Ginseng Jita
PAN-EVE TRADING COMPANY
#669 - 2012-07-26 20:06:59 UTC
Richard Desturned wrote:
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
Bot argument is a false argument and goes against and makes fools of gankers rather than suit their arguments.


yeah nobody bots in hisec


OMG I love you...have my babies. Never thought I would be siding with Goons, but, in this instance I support you 100%. Bot's are present now in large numbers and with these changes not only will you see rise in bots, but now...now,...get your mackinaws!

Go to the ice fields. Target ice. Activate strip miners. Walk away from computer. Go watch a movie.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#670 - 2012-07-26 20:07:03 UTC
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
What about considering these mining barges changes as the beginning of industry changes, just a step. New changes will hit over time like ring mining so yes these ships will be used lore in those regions.
…and that doesn't change the fact that far far sturdier ships than these are lost already because the difference in rules means that the friends will not get there in time. So still no, you won't really be able to mine in low/null any more than you can now because of this.

Quote:
Yep was about high sec just forgot to mention it, sry. And yes it's already the case for some gank activities, not in what concerns mining barges
Sure it is, if you choose it to be. You see, it's already quite easy to make the gankers require organisation and effort to get their kills. What's shown by thousands and thousands of killmails is that miners don't fit a tank, and thus get blown up to no-one's surprise but their own.

Quote:
Bot argument
…wasn't even mentioned so what's your point?
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#671 - 2012-07-26 20:07:26 UTC
Arvantis Sauril wrote:
Quote:



Nothing show your claiming is true, what is true on the other hand is that now you will be able to mine in low/null and have enough tank so your friends come help you, this is good for the game.

Now you need REAL organisations and EFFORT to achieve the same ganking, leading to more ships destroyed witch is also good for the game.

As you can see, there's no problem, just cry babies tears by millions of M3




This is good for the game!!!!


But only if there are more reasons for people to be out in low and null. Mining, missioning, whatever. If everyone is generating income behind Concord, this game doesn't happen. I'm just worried, with what I understand of CCP's track record, that even if this is their vision (Which would be a good vision) it will take 2 + years to get there...



There are already more reasons and there will be more reasons sooner than later:

-ring mining?
-new DED complexes?
-Station and POS changes about to hit?

And you know what? -those making gazillions of isk in high sec are not really those so called "bad at eve" carebears, sure 100% of those are null alliances alts using high sec facilities and concord protection to make their costs get even lower with still higher profits from null sec activities.

Again, I live in null and never claim I know better than everyone whatever crap thing, but this kind of thread and most threads where I see null sec guys come trying to give lessons of e-honour, how the game should be played by others etc just makes me really laugh.
You know it's the story of the thief and the guy surveying, the thief gets caught and so the other guy but he just doesn't understand why he's also in jail. You see where the problem is?

brb
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#672 - 2012-07-26 20:07:35 UTC
Richard Desturned wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
JamesCLK wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Exhumers? Need a DCU II just to not suck complete balls.

FYP


No, because the DCU does not enable fitting shield mods to get to those conservative 30k EHP. The MAPC does.


use both in tandem and you get


... an useless brick. May as well fit lasers on a damnation.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#673 - 2012-07-26 20:09:03 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Richard Desturned wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
JamesCLK wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Exhumers? Need a DCU II just to not suck complete balls.

FYP


No, because the DCU does not enable fitting shield mods to get to those conservative 30k EHP. The MAPC does.


use both in tandem and you get


... an useless brick. May as well fit lasers on a damnation.


more like "a ship that still mines better than literally anything else in the game"

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#674 - 2012-07-26 20:09:10 UTC
Richard Desturned wrote:
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
Bot argument is a false argument and goes against and makes fools of gankers rather than suit their arguments.


yeah nobody bots in hisec

The efforts against bots come in the form of banning bots. Also it's entirely possible and probable that a number of non-botting players will take advantage of these changes. Despite their presence, bot are a non issue in this argument.
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#675 - 2012-07-26 20:09:50 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
The efforts against bots come in the form of banning bots. Also it's entirely possible and probable that a number of non-botting players will take advantage of these changes. Despite their presence, bot are a non issue in this argument.


even though many of the hypocrites in this thread want local removed from nullsec because of bots lmao

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#676 - 2012-07-26 20:10:20 UTC
Richard Desturned wrote:
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
Bot argument is a false argument and goes against and makes fools of gankers rather than suit their arguments.


yeah nobody bots in hisec



That's Shreegs job not yours, and yes there are bots over there but numbers already shown there are also in null, mining and rating bots, what are you doing about this?

Nothing.

brb
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#677 - 2012-07-26 20:12:01 UTC
Richard Desturned wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
The efforts against bots come in the form of banning bots. Also it's entirely possible and probable that a number of non-botting players will take advantage of these changes. Despite their presence, bot are a non issue in this argument.


even though many of the hypocrites in this thread want local removed from nullsec because of bots lmao

Calling "bots" isn't a good justification for any change.
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#678 - 2012-07-26 20:13:11 UTC
and the issue isn't even bots, it's further enabling AFK mining

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#679 - 2012-07-26 20:13:19 UTC
Richard Desturned wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
The efforts against bots come in the form of banning bots. Also it's entirely possible and probable that a number of non-botting players will take advantage of these changes. Despite their presence, bot are a non issue in this argument.


even though many of the hypocrites in this thread want local removed from nullsec because of bots lmao


No, local should removed from every sec because it gives more free intel than WoW will ever give in their game.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
#680 - 2012-07-26 20:13:59 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:

Also, when I see a DCII and shield rigs Hulk I think: "what a moron" or "what an overtank AFKer". Not respect.
He's making easily 30% less than everybody else, who can get a ship exploded every now and then but make it back in 2 days and come well ahead off the overtanked scared afker.

The real risk vs reward does not come from having zero deaths in your life but from earning much more than you lose.


THIS is very revealing. A window into the mind of the entitled miner bear.

You view miners with contempt when they make rational fitting choices. Amazing.
You see someone adapting to ganking strategy, by adding EHP - and you dismiss it as 'scared overtanking'?

It seems like you have it all figured out then - if you earn more by going 'max yield' because you consider ganking to be a rare event - not to warrant a tank - by all means. Why do you even consider ganking a problem then?

The funny thing about tanking up a barge - generally the owner will never know precisely how many times its saved his ass, simply by passively causing a ganker to move along and find easier targets.

A DCUII is like deadbolts, a Rottie in the yard, and an NRA sticker in the window. Most thieves will just pass on by.