These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Sarik Olecar
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#1341 - 2012-07-27 17:42:07 UTC
Dez Affinity wrote:
If you want to kill hulks, use bigger ships.


Or - and this is an extraordinarily insane idea that's bound to rocket my lowly forum troll to the top of nulsecs most wanted...

You could wardec them? I mean I'm sure this is part of CCP's reasoning. They spend all this time 'fixing' their wardec system for this expansion, and everyone just ignores it and suiganks. Maybe this buff is CCP's way of telling us that if you want to prey on poor helpless miners you have to expose yourself to risk first?

This reply isn't directed at you Dez, but you had I nice segway for my post...

Hows my posting? Call 1-800-747-7633 to leave feedback.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1342 - 2012-07-27 17:42:40 UTC
Werst Dendenahzees wrote:
Hulks will be like 100-150m with the tech nerf.


If it works as intended.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Soundwave Plays Diablo
Doomheim
#1343 - 2012-07-27 17:43:32 UTC
Like 12 pages since my last reply, but I have to ask again;

Does anyone else feel like Soundwave admitting that ganking isn't working right a bit ridiculous. Something that's been broken for at least 3-4 years. I assume it was also broken before then? How could it not be? They even made a gay ass rap video insulting their fanbase, "HTFU".

I got my name from soundwaves interview where he said (paraphrasing) its OK that a lot of people "dont get eve" natural selection blah blah blah.

Do you think just maybe being condescending d-bags should be saved until your **** is working as intended?
Dave stark
#1344 - 2012-07-27 17:46:47 UTC
Soundwave Plays Diablo wrote:
Like 12 pages since my last reply, but I have to ask again;

Does anyone else feel like Soundwave admitting that ganking isn't working right a bit ridiculous. Something that's been broken for at least 3-4 years. I assume it was also broken before then? How could it not be? They even made a gay ass rap video insulting their fanbase, "HTFU".

I got my name from soundwaves interview where he said (paraphrasing) its OK that a lot of people "dont get eve" natural selection blah blah blah.

Do you think just maybe being condescending d-bags should be saved until your **** is working as intended?



i don't think soundwave was being a bit ridiculous with what he said. however i don't think he really managed to convey what he meant with such a short statement. i feel he's going to have to elaborate on it at some point [hopefully soon]. people seem to be interpreting what they want for it since it's a rather short and unsupported statement.
Soundwave Plays Diablo
Doomheim
#1345 - 2012-07-27 17:56:13 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
Soundwave Plays Diablo wrote:
Like 12 pages since my last reply, but I have to ask again;

Does anyone else feel like Soundwave admitting that ganking isn't working right a bit ridiculous. Something that's been broken for at least 3-4 years. I assume it was also broken before then? How could it not be? They even made a gay ass rap video insulting their fanbase, "HTFU".

I got my name from soundwaves interview where he said (paraphrasing) its OK that a lot of people "dont get eve" natural selection blah blah blah.

Do you think just maybe being condescending d-bags should be saved until your **** is working as intended?



i don't think soundwave was being a bit ridiculous with what he said. however i don't think he really managed to convey what he meant with such a short statement. i feel he's going to have to elaborate on it at some point [hopefully soon]. people seem to be interpreting what they want for it since it's a rather short and unsupported statement.


I would really like to see that too, because while interpretation by the general public is always subject to heavy debacle, he did use the words " the current setup doesn't work".

Since the current setup has been altered in the favor of the defending pilot several times, it leaves only a few possible conclusions. That it has been broken a long time, or that this years douchogheddon has altered the game.

If the former is true, that speaks very badly on CCP's ability to balance.

If the latter is true, it is admitting that that there is in fact in game harassment of players, sponsored by the publisher. While CCP is free to keep their definition of 'grief play', and only handing out punishment for 'grief play' on an 'at will' basis, harassment is illegal in most places.
Dez Affinity
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1346 - 2012-07-27 17:56:30 UTC
Werst Dendenahzees wrote:
And you can't kill a 30k EHP hulk solo in a 0.7 system even with a 1 billion isk vindicator. Isk balancing is dumb balancing.


Try 3 Tornados, that's 36k alpha and not much more than 300m isk. You should have learned a long time ago in EVE that you can't do everything solo, you need friends or alts.

I don't know if they're giving them TOO much EHP, I think someone said the skiff gets a ridonkulous amount of EHP now but I know it should take more than 1 or 2 destroyers to gank a 150M+ isk ship.

Once you're sat in a belt doing the most mind numbing profession in EVE there's not much you can do if someone warps in on you.
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
#1347 - 2012-07-27 18:02:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Herr Wilkus
Sarik Olecar wrote:
Dez Affinity wrote:
If you want to kill hulks, use bigger ships.


Or - and this is an extraordinarily insane idea that's bound to rocket my lowly forum troll to the top of nulsecs most wanted...

You could wardec them? I mean I'm sure this is part of CCP's reasoning. They spend all this time 'fixing' their wardec system for this expansion, and everyone just ignores it and suiganks. Maybe this buff is CCP's way of telling us that if you want to prey on poor helpless miners you have to expose yourself to risk first?

This reply isn't directed at you Dez, but you had I nice segway for my post...


Let me spell it out:

Suppose I want to attack miners in an NPC corp? How do I wardec them, hmmm?
And even if the miners are in a player corp, lets go step by step, right?

-So, I'm scouting an icebelt and I find a group of miners that I want to attack.

I spend 160M-500M ISK for a wardec.
Next day, I'm in a war with multiple alliances.
(And thats perfectly OK - gankers aren't afraid of a fight, provided we aren't expected to do it while being attacked by Fed Navy)

Are the miners docked up/logged off? Fine. Are the miners in combat ships? Fine.

But what REALLY happens? I find the miners have dropped corp and are still mining as if the war never was declared. This is not fine.

Wardecs are useless, and probably always will be. Ninja tactics have been are will be further nerfed. Canflipping will be dead. Suicide ganking is the ONLY way left to wage direct industrial warfare on mining assets of an alliance.
Dave stark
#1348 - 2012-07-27 18:05:09 UTC
Soundwave Plays Diablo wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
Soundwave Plays Diablo wrote:
Like 12 pages since my last reply, but I have to ask again;

Does anyone else feel like Soundwave admitting that ganking isn't working right a bit ridiculous. Something that's been broken for at least 3-4 years. I assume it was also broken before then? How could it not be? They even made a gay ass rap video insulting their fanbase, "HTFU".

I got my name from soundwaves interview where he said (paraphrasing) its OK that a lot of people "dont get eve" natural selection blah blah blah.

Do you think just maybe being condescending d-bags should be saved until your **** is working as intended?



i don't think soundwave was being a bit ridiculous with what he said. however i don't think he really managed to convey what he meant with such a short statement. i feel he's going to have to elaborate on it at some point [hopefully soon]. people seem to be interpreting what they want for it since it's a rather short and unsupported statement.


I would really like to see that too, because while interpretation by the general public is always subject to heavy debacle, he did use the words " the current setup doesn't work".

Since the current setup has been altered in the favor of the defending pilot several times, it leaves only a few possible conclusions. That it has been broken a long time, or that this years douchogheddon has altered the game.

If the former is true, that speaks very badly on CCP's ability to balance.

If the latter is true, it is admitting that that there is in fact in game harassment of players, sponsored by the publisher. While CCP is free to keep their definition of 'grief play', and only handing out punishment for 'grief play' on an 'at will' basis, harassment is illegal in most places.


i'm hoping he means it's broken for the fact that in high sec you're able to ruin some one's day; but it should cost you something. as it stands when a catalyst ganks a hulk they can recover the cost of such a cheap ship from the hulk's wreckage and the ganker hasn't paid a thing to wreck the miner's day.

i think people need to also understand the subtle difference of "i will gain from this gank, no matter what. his wreckage is worth more than my ship" rather than "i will gain from this gank, that moron thinks carrying plex in a shuttle is a good idea".
the key difference is the fact that it's only a profitable venture to gank the shuttle because it has a plex, not because it's a shuttle.
Marconus Orion
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#1349 - 2012-07-27 18:08:43 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Marconus Orion wrote:
Just throwing this out there; what if the lower the system sec status the faster the mining laser cycle time?


Highsec miners would still mine in highsec & complain about how nullsec miners can make even more isk per hour than them.

So.

Would give a bit more meaning to where you mine sec wise, even in high sec. As long as it stated it right on the mining laser so miners would read it, look at their 0.9 system and go, "Aww.... maybe I should look into low/null/unknown space for really good yield.." P
Dave stark
#1350 - 2012-07-27 18:10:47 UTC
Herr Wilkus wrote:
Sarik Olecar wrote:
Dez Affinity wrote:
If you want to kill hulks, use bigger ships.


Or - and this is an extraordinarily insane idea that's bound to rocket my lowly forum troll to the top of nulsecs most wanted...

You could wardec them? I mean I'm sure this is part of CCP's reasoning. They spend all this time 'fixing' their wardec system for this expansion, and everyone just ignores it and suiganks. Maybe this buff is CCP's way of telling us that if you want to prey on poor helpless miners you have to expose yourself to risk first?

This reply isn't directed at you Dez, but you had I nice segway for my post...


Let me spell it out:

Suppose I want to attack miners in an NPC corp? How do I wardec them, hmmm?
And even if the miners are in a player corp, lets go step by step, right?

-So, I'm scouting an icebelt and I find a group of miners that I want to attack.

I spend 160M-500M ISK for a wardec.
Next day, I'm in a war with multiple alliances.
(And thats perfectly OK - gankers aren't afraid of a fight, provided we aren't expected to do it while being attacked by Fed Navy)

Are the miners docked up/logged off? Fine. Are the miners in combat ships? Fine.

But what REALLY happens? I find the miners have dropped corp and are still mining as if the war never was declared. This is not fine.

Wardecs are useless, and probably always will be. Ninja tactics have been are will be further nerfed. Canflipping will be dead. Suicide ganking is the ONLY way left to wage direct industrial warfare on mining assets of an alliance.


spend the money on a bigger ship, not a wadec. exhumers are getting a tank bonus not 100% shield resists.
Andre Jean Sarpantis
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1351 - 2012-07-27 18:12:41 UTC
Mimimimimi......check out on Sisi rigth now, seems CCP has listened to your whinning thread Herr Wilkus......they lowred the stats from the Miningships down again to something more fitting your needs beeing able to easy gank them.

So again the loudest vocal whiner voices from the PvP fraction have won again......Shame on you CCP.
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1352 - 2012-07-27 18:14:46 UTC
Marconus Orion wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Marconus Orion wrote:
Just throwing this out there; what if the lower the system sec status the faster the mining laser cycle time?


Highsec miners would still mine in highsec & complain about how nullsec miners can make even more isk per hour than them.

So.

Would give a bit more meaning to where you mine sec wise, even in high sec. As long as it stated it right on the mining laser so miners would read it, look at their 0.9 system and go, "Aww.... maybe I should look into low/null/unknown space for really good yield.." P


Currently Scordite is 3rd most valuable ore in the game. Only Arkonor and Mercoxit are more valuable.
Dave stark
#1353 - 2012-07-27 18:15:17 UTC
Andre Jean Sarpantis wrote:
Mimimimimi......check out on Sisi rigth now, seems CCP has listened to your whinning thread Herr Wilkus......they lowred the stats from the Miningships down again to something more fitting your needs beeing able to easy gank them.

So again the loudest vocal whiner voices from the PvP fraction have won again......Shame on you CCP.



stop conveying half a story; gankers complained about the ehp, miners complained about crystal sizes.

BOTH concerns have been addressed. both voices have been listened to.
Dave stark
#1354 - 2012-07-27 18:16:18 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Marconus Orion wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Marconus Orion wrote:
Just throwing this out there; what if the lower the system sec status the faster the mining laser cycle time?


Highsec miners would still mine in highsec & complain about how nullsec miners can make even more isk per hour than them.

So.

Would give a bit more meaning to where you mine sec wise, even in high sec. As long as it stated it right on the mining laser so miners would read it, look at their 0.9 system and go, "Aww.... maybe I should look into low/null/unknown space for really good yield.." P


Currently Scordite is 3rd most valuable ore in the game. Only Arkonor and Mercoxit are more valuable.

that's per m3, and mercoxit is not mined at the same rate as other ores hence it cannot be directly compared on an m3 basis.

it must also be noted that the gap between arkonor and scordite is far, far larger than the gap between scordite and whatever is directly below scordite.
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
#1355 - 2012-07-27 18:17:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Herr Wilkus
Dez Affinity wrote:
[quote=Werst Dendenahzees]

Once you're sat in a belt doing the most mind numbing profession in EVE there's not much you can do if someone warps in on you.


Don't martyr yourself. You don't get bonus points for doing a boring task in a stationary manner.

You CHOSE it. And besides...suicide ganking isn't all fun and laughs either. Try scanning empty haulers for 3 hours, and finding nothing worth attacking.

One of the biggest problems with miner attitude:
"Mining is boring so I'm entitled to have a ship that allows me to be AFK and mine without paying attention."

No, you aren't.

You should be allowed to AFK mine, but you shouldn't be able to AFK mine without risk.

Nor should gankers be required to spend a fortune to provide that risk.
They WON'T spend a fortune, because they aren't stupid. The main risk in highsec mining (the only risk) will simply go away.

Which is what 90% of the miners on here want.....

Not just to AFK mine - but to do it without fear of losing their property, and thats BS.
Andre Jean Sarpantis
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1356 - 2012-07-27 18:19:54 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
Andre Jean Sarpantis wrote:
Mimimimimi......check out on Sisi rigth now, seems CCP has listened to your whinning thread Herr Wilkus......they lowred the stats from the Miningships down again to something more fitting your needs beeing able to easy gank them.

So again the loudest vocal whiner voices from the PvP fraction have won again......Shame on you CCP.



stop conveying half a story; gankers complained about the ehp, miners complained about crystal sizes.

BOTH concerns have been addressed. both voices have been listened to.



Well i see it as antoher slap in the face from the Industrialist PvE fraction in the game, showing CCP's trend showing more love to PvP'ers then to the industrialists.

As usual its working as intended, SLap the weakest in the face and hold hands to those which screaming and whining the loudest. WHich in this case HERE are the Ganker F***tards.
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1357 - 2012-07-27 18:21:18 UTC
Andre Jean Sarpantis wrote:
Mimimimimi......check out on Sisi rigth now, seems CCP has listened to your whinning thread Herr Wilkus......they lowred the stats from the Miningships down again to something more fitting your needs beeing able to easy gank them.

So again the loudest vocal whiner voices from the PvP fraction have won again......Shame on you CCP.


I almost got a heart attack.
Mack fit I tested earlier had 42k EHP. Now same fit and it has 39k EHP.
Dave stark
#1358 - 2012-07-27 18:22:11 UTC
Andre Jean Sarpantis wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
Andre Jean Sarpantis wrote:
Mimimimimi......check out on Sisi rigth now, seems CCP has listened to your whinning thread Herr Wilkus......they lowred the stats from the Miningships down again to something more fitting your needs beeing able to easy gank them.

So again the loudest vocal whiner voices from the PvP fraction have won again......Shame on you CCP.



stop conveying half a story; gankers complained about the ehp, miners complained about crystal sizes.

BOTH concerns have been addressed. both voices have been listened to.



Well i see it as antoher slap in the face from the Industrialist PvE fraction in the game, showing CCP's trend showing more love to PvP'ers then to the industrialists.

As usual its working as intended, SLap the weakest in the face and hold hands to those which screaming and whining the loudest. WHich in this case HERE are the Ganker F***tards.


yeah, perhaps they did get a better deal out of it.

the changes aren't final, the hulk got a massive boost before it got a nerf, and people still haven't got around to efting/pyfaing the changes to see if hulks are in a better or worse place after today's changes.
Togg Bott
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1359 - 2012-07-27 18:24:49 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Richard Desturned wrote:
Togg Bott wrote:
As a part time miner... i am sadened by the massive numbers of mining ship fail fit kills. it is now very easy to survive being ganked not by fitting a mining ship to be ungankable... you just have to fit a little better than the other guy. Gankers... and i have done this in the past myself (not miner ships but afk auto pilot to jita with mass loot in them). will go for the guy that offers them the most bling for their cost. always has been. but even with the upcoming changes... we will still see people fit T2 exhumers for max yield instead of tanking them. ganking will still be profitable (maybe not quite as profitable) because CCP cant change the bot/afk miners thought process.

this is in my opinion not going to kill the gankers off... instead its gonna give them many many new targets. balance will still be there.


this guy gets it


He will unfortunately suffer the most in the end though. He has put in effort to survive & will be one of the few that don't deserve the inevitable hit to their wallets when veld goes back to 1 isk PU.



Actually, i look for my income to skyrocket. and for a few very logical (in my mind) reasons.

1) Fail fit is still gonna be fail fit.

2) Afk/bot miners are not gonna change their habits. idiots will be idiots no matter what CCP mandates

3) a lot of people are gonna feel that CCP has snubbed them in favor of miners and the backlash is gonna make hulkageddon look like childsplay.

4)????

5) profit
Pipa Porto
#1360 - 2012-07-27 18:26:02 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
i'm hoping he means it's broken for the fact that in high sec you're able to ruin some one's day; but it should cost you something. as it stands when a catalyst ganks a hulk they can recover the cost of such a cheap ship from the hulk's wreckage and the ganker hasn't paid a thing to wreck the miner's day.

i think people need to also understand the subtle difference of "i will gain from this gank, no matter what. his wreckage is worth more than my ship" rather than "i will gain from this gank, that moron thinks carrying plex in a shuttle is a good idea".
the key difference is the fact that it's only a profitable venture to gank the shuttle because it has a plex, not because it's a shuttle.


I will gain from this Gank only if he doesn't bother to fit a tank.
I will break even from this gank maybe in a .5 system with a special snowflake fleet of 10 guys.
I will lose isk in any other situation. Mine in a 0.7-1.0 system with 2MLUs and a midslot/rig only tank and guess what, anyone who ganks you will lose money.

The only reason it's a usually profitable thing is that Hulks don't bother to fit tanks.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto