These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#1621 - 2012-07-28 05:19:35 UTC
A great way to balance things would be to make Concord response time depending on the security status of the victim.



Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#1622 - 2012-07-28 05:32:42 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
With the changes as currently PROPOSED, the Skiff is entirely worthless, because the Mackinaw is not reasonably gankable (not being reasonably gankable is the Skiff's job). The only way to fix that is to reduce the Mack's PROPOSED tank. Then the Mack becomes worthless because of the Skiff's Ore Hold (having an enormous Ore Hold is the Mack's job). The only way to fix that is to reduce the Skiff's PROPOSED ore hold.

It's not a Nerf if the result is better than the current TQ, unless you've already decided that you're entitled to the SISI stats.


Let me guess, the Mack is the official AFK ship yet you want it to pop as easy as possible. That's though design eh?

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#1623 - 2012-07-28 05:34:29 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:


Now, I think the Mackinaw's tank should be nerfed a bit so that the Skiff has a role. If that happens, it will be best to AFK in a Skiff because of its 17k Ore Hold. Which should be nerfed a bit so the Mack has a role.


Nice way to give roles. "I make this crappier so they will use the other. But hey, let's also make the other ship more crappier so people will have to pick the less worst".

Made with this mentality, the current Retriever keeps a fraction price tag and is almost a copy of the Mack.

I suggest you file for a position at CCP, the results would be pyroclastic.


The irony here being that all of these ships are going to be better than what we currently have.


The irony is that I prefer the current ships with a simple PG / CPU update over the new ones, figures.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Tarryn Nightstorm
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
#1624 - 2012-07-28 06:08:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Tarryn Nightstorm
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
A great way to balance things would be to make Concord response time depending on the security status of the victim.






As well as instituting the possibility -- vanishingly small, but none the less real, at least theoretically -- to escape CONCORD's retribution 100% legally.

All these bleating unthinking sheep keep drawing comparisons to RL crime/law enforcement as justification for hilariously sandbox-breaking nerfs to non-consensual PvP in hisec, if not removing it entirely. (24+ hours in "jail?" Skill-point loss? Really? Really?)

Well:

In RL, the Mountie doesn't always get his man, now does he.

E:

Ref.: post #196 in this thread for some first-hand testing experience regarding the "solo-gankability" of the new T I barges, as well as some existential-but-germane musings/ranting.

WARNING: Walloftext(TM), inbound!

Star Wars: the Old Republic may not be EVE. But I'll take the sound of dual blaster-pistols over "NURVV CLAOKING NAOW!!!11oneone!!" any day of the week.
Anya Ohaya
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1625 - 2012-07-28 06:21:52 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
A great way to balance things would be to make Concord response time depending on the security status of the victim.






I disagree. I have sec status 5, and I've been playing long enough to know what risks I'm taking.

If anything concord response time should be buffed for newer players.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#1626 - 2012-07-28 06:47:06 UTC
Boxless wrote:
http://i.imgur.com/x7d0o.jpg Just look at that tank. for the tier 1 mining barge.


You can brick tank a damnation too. Nerf it?

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#1627 - 2012-07-28 06:58:40 UTC
Never thought some stupid mining ships were so pivotal to the very future of EvE.

I expect BCE's president Mario Draghi lowering EURIBOR just to deal with the worldwide nuclear fallout coming out of adding 3k EHP to a ship or something.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Dave stark
#1628 - 2012-07-28 07:06:30 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Never thought some stupid mining ships were so pivotal to the very future of EvE.

I expect BCE's president Mario Draghi lowering EURIBOR just to deal with the worldwide nuclear fallout coming out of adding 3k EHP to a ship or something.


people are upset because their efficiency ratios won't be as good when they have to fly 'nados to gank a hulk.

killboard stats are serious business.
Chokichi Ozuwara
Perkone
Caldari State
#1629 - 2012-07-28 07:25:16 UTC
Real men fly Retrievers.

Tears will be shed and pants will need to be changed all round.
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1630 - 2012-07-28 07:49:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Jorma Morkkis
Boxless wrote:
http://i.imgur.com/x7d0o.jpg Just look at that tank. for the tier 1 mining barge.


So?

Tanky mining ship is Skiff's and Procurer's new role.
Beekeeper Bob
Beekeepers Anonymous
#1631 - 2012-07-28 08:17:41 UTC
A miner with tanking skills....Shocked

So from OP's post, he apparently thinks newer players shouldn't be allowed to mine at all?

It's embarrassing to think that you probably consider yourself a skilled player, and can't figure this out for yourself....Oops

Newer players don't have the skills to tank anything, much less "Overheat"....

Did you honestly think you would have "easymode" forever?

Signature removed - CCP Eterne
Pipa Porto
#1632 - 2012-07-28 08:22:26 UTC
Shizuken wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
Marconus Orion wrote:
Oh he mad.


But is he wrong?

Nope.

Fitted properly, a Hulk cannot be profitably ganked.



This is great, dont take any responsibility for your own actions. NO ONE FORCES YOU TO GANK MINERS. You CHOOSE to gank miners and then justify it by repeating the same BS (risk v reward, dont undock if you cant afford it, eve was made for pvp... etc...). Just because you can be a **** on the playground does not mean you have to.

This is getting to be rediculous with you people. You are constutuionally incapable of admitting you are dicks, despite all of the evidence. You can keep ganking, by all means. EvE was designed to allow many forms of gameplay. But, if you highsec gank you MUST admit that you are an antisocial, you take pleasure in causing frustration to others, and only YOU are responsible for YOUR actions.



Fit a Tank on your current Hulk or, post 1.2, fly a Skiff and you probably won't be ganked because it's going to be very expensive to do so. (Current tanked Hulk can only have a breakeven for the gankers in very limited, special snowflake conditions, and it can't be profitable).

EVE was designed to allow many forms of gameplay. Nobody's telling you that you're not allowed to mine; we're just trying to blow you up. Why are you telling us we're not allowed to do something we like?

This isn't WOW. "It Hurts the Vicitims Feel" isn't a valid reason to ban something or effectively ban something (the original SISI stats would have made it impossible to gank for profit no matter which ship the miners flew).

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Pipa Porto
#1633 - 2012-07-28 08:26:43 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
With the changes as currently PROPOSED, the Skiff is entirely worthless, because the Mackinaw is not reasonably gankable (not being reasonably gankable is the Skiff's job). The only way to fix that is to reduce the Mack's PROPOSED tank. Then the Mack becomes worthless because of the Skiff's Ore Hold (having an enormous Ore Hold is the Mack's job). The only way to fix that is to reduce the Skiff's PROPOSED ore hold.

It's not a Nerf if the result is better than the current TQ, unless you've already decided that you're entitled to the SISI stats.


Let me guess, the Mack is the official AFK ship yet you want it to pop as easy as possible. That's though design eh?


The Mack is the official "not supported by a Hauler ship." Why should CCP design a ship specifically to cater to AFK people?

The Official AFK ship is the same ship as always. The Itty V.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#1634 - 2012-07-28 08:31:09 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
Shizuken wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
Marconus Orion wrote:
Oh he mad.


But is he wrong?

Nope.

Fitted properly, a Hulk cannot be profitably ganked.



This is great, dont take any responsibility for your own actions. NO ONE FORCES YOU TO GANK MINERS. You CHOOSE to gank miners and then justify it by repeating the same BS (risk v reward, dont undock if you cant afford it, eve was made for pvp... etc...). Just because you can be a **** on the playground does not mean you have to.

This is getting to be rediculous with you people. You are constutuionally incapable of admitting you are dicks, despite all of the evidence. You can keep ganking, by all means. EvE was designed to allow many forms of gameplay. But, if you highsec gank you MUST admit that you are an antisocial, you take pleasure in causing frustration to others, and only YOU are responsible for YOUR actions.



Fit a Tank on your current Hulk or, post 1.2, fly a Skiff and you probably won't be ganked because it's going to be very expensive to do so. (Current tanked Hulk can only have a breakeven for the gankers in very limited, special snowflake conditions, and it can't be profitable).

EVE was designed to allow many forms of gameplay. Nobody's telling you that you're not allowed to mine; we're just trying to blow you up. Why are you telling us we're not allowed to do something we like?

This isn't WOW. "It Hurts the Vicitims Feel" isn't a valid reason to ban something or effectively ban something (the original SISI stats would have made it impossible to gank for profit no matter which ship the miners flew).



First of all CCP posted a Tiericide devblog and the philosophy behind making all hulls worth flying by giving them different flavours.
One of those flavours is "tanky boat". Guess what, we are going to get such a tanky boat, with the drawback of mining worse than the best but still enough (this is debatable) not to make it relegated to abandoned hull any longer.

Deal with it.



Also, it's cute how you arrogate the established right to kill whoever in humongous masses and then say this is not WoW.

In WoW and other games the designers are not idiots, when they see spawn camping and mass farming they implement spawn defenses, barriers, cannons etc.

We got something similar to mass spawn camping in EvE and guess what, CCP are implementing defenses and so on.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
dexington
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1635 - 2012-07-28 08:31:31 UTC
CCPSoundwave just said on twitter, that if this thread reaches an awesome of OVER 9000!!! posts all T2 barges are getting 500 shield/armor and one extra mid slot.

Keep the thread alive, tears are fuel for the new barges.

I'm a relatively respectable citizen. Multiple felon perhaps, but certainly not dangerous.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#1636 - 2012-07-28 08:33:20 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:


The Mack is the official "not supported by a Hauler ship." Why should CCP design a ship specifically to cater to AFK people?


Because there's demand for it?

Why shoud Dodge build pickups? Or why Harley Davidson builds noisy chromed motorbikes?

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Pipa Porto
#1637 - 2012-07-28 08:44:05 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
Fit a Tank on your current Hulk or, post 1.2, fly a Skiff and you probably won't be ganked because it's going to be very expensive to do so. (Current tanked Hulk can only have a breakeven for the gankers in very limited, special snowflake conditions, and it can't be profitable).

EVE was designed to allow many forms of gameplay. Nobody's telling you that you're not allowed to mine; we're just trying to blow you up. Why are you telling us we're not allowed to do something we like?

This isn't WOW. "It Hurts the Vicitims Feel" isn't a valid reason to ban something or effectively ban something (the original SISI stats would have made it impossible to gank for profit no matter which ship the miners flew).



First of all CCP posted a Tiericide devblog and the philosophy behind making all hulls worth flying by giving them different flavours.
One of those flavours is "tanky boat". Guess what, we are going to get such a tanky boat, with the drawback of mining worse than the best but still enough (this is debatable) not to make it relegated to abandoned hull any longer.

Deal with it.

Also, it's cute how you arrogate the established right to kill whoever in humongous masses and then say this is not WoW.

In WoW and other games the designers are not idiots, when they see spawn camping and mass farming they implement spawn defenses, barriers, cannons etc.

We got something similar to mass spawn camping in EvE and guess what, CCP are implementing defenses and so on.


Did you bother reading my Post? Let me bold some things for you. The Skiff's tank is great. I love that Miners can choose to fly a ship with enough tank that nobody's going to bother them. The problem is that the Mack takes that cool role away from the Skiff by fitting enough tank to do exactly the same thing with a much larger cargo bay and the exact same (actually, a little better yield). (I'm ignoring, for now, the fact that they already had a ship that can tank enough, but now the Mackinaw has a role).

Again. The Mackinaw's large enough tank removes any value that the Skiff's even larger tank has for miners, so as it stands now, the Skiff has no role whatsoever. You get it? I want all 3 Exhumers to have a role. With the current stats, only 2 of them do.


This is EVE. We do have the right to kill anyone we want. If we didn't, F1 wouldn't work in HS. Roll

In EVE, you "spawn" at a Station. That station has Sentry guns. In HS, you have CONCORD. That kills anyone who ganks. What more do you want? Players are responsible for their own safety.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Pipa Porto
#1638 - 2012-07-28 08:47:19 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:


The Mack is the official "not supported by a Hauler ship." Why should CCP design a ship specifically to cater to AFK people?


Because there's demand for it?

Why shoud Dodge build pickups? Or why Harley Davidson builds noisy chromed motorbikes?


There's demand for a HS Dread. It comes up in the EffandEye forums all the time. CCP's not making those at the moment.

Why should CCP design a ship specifically to cater to AFK people? Game design reason, please.

The Mack is meant to be used when you don't have hauling support. That doesn't mean that it's meant for going AFK in dangerous areas.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1639 - 2012-07-28 08:52:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Jorma Morkkis
Pipa Porto wrote:
Again. The Mackinaw's large enough tank removes any value that the Skiff's even larger tank has for miners, so as it stands now, the Skiff has no role whatsoever. You get it? I want all 3 Exhumers to have a role. With the current stats, only 2 of them do.


People are already fitting cynos and brick tanks on SiSi and you whine about "Skiff can't be ganked in hisec"...

Also ever considered ninja mining? At least now you can do it. Solo.
Pipa Porto
#1640 - 2012-07-28 08:55:37 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
Again. The Mackinaw's large enough tank removes any value that the Skiff's even larger tank has for miners, so as it stands now, the Skiff has no role whatsoever. You get it? I want all 3 Exhumers to have a role. With the current stats, only 2 of them do.


People are already fitting cynos and brick tanks on SiSi and you whine about "Skiff can't be ganked in hisec"...


That is, in fact, nothing like what I said. Try reading it again.

I said that the Mackinaw's Tank renders the Skiff's tank moot for miners. I don't think Ultra Heavy Tackle was the Role CCP intended for the Skiff.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto