These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#681 - 2012-07-26 20:14:01 UTC
Richard Desturned wrote:
and the issue isn't even bots, it's further enabling AFK mining


If you don't like AFK mining you can file a petition to Bruxelles.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#682 - 2012-07-26 20:14:06 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
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.


because the risk/reward balance in the game is totally skewed towards nullsec and not hisec ahahaha

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
Barbara Nichole
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#683 - 2012-07-26 20:15:28 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


what?! what are you pretending now? I want local removed in null sec because it should never be used as free intel against the cloaked.. this has nothing what so ever to do with bots, the use of which is against the rules. There are some who shout about AFK cloakers (as if they are problems).. that wouldn't be people who want local removed.

  - 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]
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#684 - 2012-07-26 20:15:42 UTC
Haquer wrote:
The best thing about the barge/exhumer changes is that low end minerals are going to be hilariously low meaning for hilariously cheap supers.

I can't ******* wait :3

Yeah, I want one but I need a hull, mods and a character. I have none of these. At least one will be getting cheaper.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#685 - 2012-07-26 20:15:47 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Your opinion. Not absolute.
No, it's pretty much a fact. The problems they complain about would go away with a few simple adjustments.

Quote:
You know that same Dev was an EvE player (a Goon none the less).
Still the same fallacy.

Quote:
Care to share a DCUII fitting that lets a Mack survive 2-3 catalysts?
Care to not move the goalposts quite so much? DCII + two invulns makes you safe from 2; the right system takes care of the third.

Quote:
No I don't agree.
So why do you keep insisting that people adapt?

Quote:
I can fit 2-3 BCUs in my caldari ships *without losing a single inch of tank*
Lol That's quite incorrect as well. You've lost many inches of tank by doing so.
arcca jeth
Dark Alliance
#686 - 2012-07-26 20:16:16 UTC
Richard Desturned wrote:
i remember when a couple of dudes in frigates kept a proteus tackled long enough for us to arrive and murder it

clearly two dudes in 500k isk ships deciding the fate of a 2bn isk ship is totally unfair


your comparison is flawed. sure they can tackle but obviously they needed help to kill it. had they been able to kill it with those two 500k ships without needing help, you might have a valid point. but you don't so , cool story brah?
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#687 - 2012-07-26 20:20:45 UTC
Herr Wilkus wrote:

You view miners with contempt when they make rational fitting choices. Amazing.


It's not rational choices. It's as scarey choices done by bads who can't be ready to react at incoming hostiles and with the same mentality off those who do L4 in a totally passive Drake in 3 hours.



Herr Wilkus wrote:

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?


Ganking is not rare, it's "rare enough" expecially for those who can mine roids (not ice) and can pick a proper system to do so.

I don't consider ganking a problem at all.
Instead, I consider preaching "LOL miners HTFU or quit" for months and then creating yourselves a waterfall of tears when faced to do the same to be humorous.



Herr Wilkus wrote:

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.


See you pointed out why he's bad. He is so oblivious he never noticed that Probe scanning his mining ship and then warping in the catalyst(s).

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#688 - 2012-07-26 20:20:47 UTC
Richard Desturned wrote:
more like "a ship that still mines better than literally anything else in the game"

vv's not great with numbers

could you make this point in voodoo marks on a graph?
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#689 - 2012-07-26 20:21:38 UTC
Richard Desturned wrote:
even though many of the hypocrites in this thread want local removed from nullsec because of bots lmao


Are you saying there's no bots in nullsec?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jc2vt_t53Us&feature=autoplay&list=PL7734648A75A0F6FA&playnext=1
Chainsaw Plankton
FaDoyToy
#690 - 2012-07-26 20:21:45 UTC
Richard Desturned wrote:
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:
from what I see suicide ganking most people works exactly like that. luckily some people make themselves targets by carrying tons of phat loots. However miners are on the other side of that ratio, the profit aspect isn't exactly there but the lulz:isk outweighs it. I've always lulzed when ganking a hulk but tbh it was always rather easy targets. personally I would have boosted hulk hull hp and increased cargo expander hp penalty to give miners a choice, put em up to 40-50k ehp when fully buffer tanked.


a better solution would have been to give hulks the ability to fit better tanks than what they are currently capable of (say, 50-60k EHP without gang bonuses) at the expense of yield, rather than giving them 15k ehp without a single hardener fit (there is literally no other ship in the game short of battleships with those HP numbers)

in any case, even with a tank fit hulks were still capable of out-mining almost every other ship in the game, save for a yield-fit covetor, which still lacks the utility of a gigantic cargo hold


but I like hull tanking Sad

@ChainsawPlankto on twitter
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#691 - 2012-07-26 20:22:07 UTC
Richard Desturned wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
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.


because the risk/reward balance in the game is totally skewed towards nullsec and not hisec ahahaha


Feel free to find my thread on the suggestion forum where I suggest to remove hi sec from the game from everywhere except the newbie starting systems.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#692 - 2012-07-26 20:23:27 UTC
EvilweaselSA wrote:
Richard Desturned wrote:
more like "a ship that still mines better than literally anything else in the game"

vv's not great with numbers

could you make this point in voodoo marks on a graph?


Glad to see Tech went where I suggested it'd do, while you were cleaning your butt with them, eh?

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#693 - 2012-07-26 20:26:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Richard Desturned
Barbara Nichole wrote:
what?! what are you pretending now? I want local removed in null sec because it should never be used as free intel against the cloaked.. this has nothing what so ever to do with bots, the use of which is against the rules. There are some who shout about AFK cloakers (as if they are problems).. that wouldn't be people who want local removed.


And CONCORD should be removed in hisec because you should never get free defense by NPCs.

You want the risk in hisec reduced to zero, and the risk in nullsec increased to where doing anything outside of fleets is impossible without getting murdered by a few bombers. Meanwhile, it would be just as profitable to operate in hisec as it would to operate in nullsec.

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#694 - 2012-07-26 20:26:30 UTC
Richard Desturned wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
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.


because the risk/reward balance in the game is totally skewed towards nullsec and not hisec ahahaha



I'm sure you can mine in null and for much higher isk/h then high sec, yes the risk is higher but that's not the real problem.
This doesn't stop mining bots from mining in null and *swift* kiss the POS, how bigger is the risk then?

Again, low risk low income, pick your 100kEHP skiff put it in the high sec belt and do your homework, your accountability or your nex book whatever crap you want to do. Some people just mine in groups and have fun on coms while doing some other stuff, what are you proposing to this people?
-you're saying they should not play the game?-unless you pay their sub you have nothing to say about this
-you say they play badly the game they pay for? -how much does this affect you and if really does that much, pick a couple ships and go gank them, problem solved.


And I really think the cost for killing those new mining barges is not a problem for goonswarm, PL, -A-, RA whatever, does it?

brb
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#695 - 2012-07-26 20:26:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Tippia wrote:
No, it's pretty much a fact. The problems they complain about would go away with a few simple adjustments.



Well, simple adjustments happened. Sadly not in the direction you (or even I) wanted. Stuff happens.


Tippia wrote:
You know that same Dev was an EvE player (a Goon none the less).
Still the same fallacy.

Ah, now I get it. He was a Rugby player.


Tippia wrote:
Care to not move the goalposts quite so much? DCII + two invulns makes you safe from 2; the right system takes care of the third.


Not at all and I move "goalposts" as far as I want. Sue me.




Tippia wrote:
Quote:
I can fit 2-3 BCUs in my caldari ships *without losing a single inch of tank*
Lol That's quite incorrect as well. You've lost many inches of tank by doing so.


Why are you one of those terribles who fit a plate in their shield tanked Drake or Raven lows?

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#696 - 2012-07-26 20:28:03 UTC
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
Richard Desturned wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
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.


because the risk/reward balance in the game is totally skewed towards nullsec and not hisec ahahaha



I'm sure you can mine in null and for much higher isk/h then high sec, yes the risk is higher but that's not the real problem.
This doesn't stop mining bots from mining in null and *swift* kiss the POS, how bigger is the risk then?

Again, low risk low income, pick your 100kEHP skiff put it in the high sec belt and do your homework, your accountability or your nex book whatever crap you want to do. Some people just mine in groups and have fun on coms while doing some other stuff, what are you proposing to this people?
-you're saying they should not play the game?-unless you pay their sub you have nothing to say about this
-you say they play badly the game they pay for? -how much does this affect you and if really does that much, pick a couple ships and go gank them, problem solved.


And I really think the cost for killing those new mining barges is not a problem for goonswarm, PL, -A-, RA whatever, does it?


I hear you can anchor towers in asteroid belts.

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#697 - 2012-07-26 20:28:37 UTC
Richard Desturned wrote:
Barbara Nichole wrote:
what?! what are you pretending now? I want local removed in null sec because it should never be used as free intel against the cloaked.. this has nothing what so ever to do with bots, the use of which is against the rules. There are some who shout about AFK cloakers (as if they are problems).. that wouldn't be people who want local removed.


And CONCORD should be removed in hisec because you should never get free defense by NPCs.



And let me remind you it's the same Concord who's protecting GS/-A-/Pl and every major alliance high sec industry/mission/transport ALT corporations.

How much are you serious about this when you clearly get all the advantages of high sec and null sec?

brb
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#698 - 2012-07-26 20:29:04 UTC
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
And I really think the cost for killing those new mining barges is not a problem for goonswarm, PL, -A-, RA whatever, does it?


Apparently their Technetium won't afford them to pay for 1 more catalyst to kill the hulk.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Barbara Nichole
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#699 - 2012-07-26 20:29:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Barbara Nichole
Richard Desturned wrote:
and the issue isn't even bots, it's further enabling AFK mining


Roll afk mining is not against the EULA nor is it a big problem.. if a miner goes afk in space he is not safe and he is not making isk - even after this change. AFK miners are typically absent for about 2 to 3 minutes at the longest and usually are not even gone from their keyboards. The thing that causes me to take my attention from the game the most is my kids.. usually not long enough to miss a cycle.. sorry if that is somehow disturbing to you.

  - 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]
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#700 - 2012-07-26 20:30:09 UTC
Richard Desturned wrote:
And I really think the cost for killing those new mining barges is not a problem for goonswarm, PL, -A-, RA whatever, does it?


Quote:
I hear you can anchor towers in asteroid belts.



Would you mind to answer my question?

Thx Blink

brb