These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#2041 - 2012-07-30 11:11:01 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
It's not surprising that the devs are trying to appeal to the incredibly stupid baby masses - making changes or improvements for the hardc0re 1337 players doesn't help them as a business. Doing stuff like this will potentially draw in or retain the new terribad players. Thats why there's so much focus on frigates, destroyers, mining barges, etc.


Gotta start somewhere.
OmniBeton
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2042 - 2012-07-30 11:13:04 UTC
OP and other "hardcore" PVP players spending their time ganking defenseless ships in hisec should listen to their own advice they've been shouting for so long and LEARN TO ADAPT ! Big smile
Pipa Porto
#2043 - 2012-07-30 11:13:38 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Thats because barges are not combat ships. They are only for mining and thus, fit differently to combat ships. Problem with miners is that they think that they should get the max yeild and still be able to have a good tank. No other ship can do this so why should miners?


And you can stop me from using ceptor as hauler or missioning in recon?


Of course we can't stop you, but we can gank you if you do. Ceptors and Recons who aren't paying attention are really easy to gank (especially since your Recon will have to be active tanked).


And because of that Pilgrim is such a terrible all-in-one exploration ship...


AFK Exploration Pilgrims in a site* are pretty easy to gank. Just like AFK Mining ships. If you're ATK and flying it properly, a mining barge will be safe, just like an ATK Pilgrim.


*The situation that Miners put themselves in.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2044 - 2012-07-30 11:16:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Jorma Morkkis
Pipa Porto wrote:
AFK Exploration Pilgrims in a site* are pretty easy to gank. Just like AFK Mining ships. If you're ATK and flying it properly, a mining barge will be safe, just like an ATK Pilgrim.


I've been AFK many times in my Pilgrim. In safe spot, cloaked...
I've been AFK in covops during war and war targets in same system. In safe spot, cloaked...

And they keep whining about how I don't know what PvP means...
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#2045 - 2012-07-30 11:17:09 UTC
OmniBeton wrote:
OP and other "hardcore" PVP players spending their time ganking defenseless ships in hisec should listen to their own advice they've been shouting for so long and LEARN TO ADAPT ! Big smile


We have.
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#2046 - 2012-07-30 11:17:14 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
It's not surprising that the devs are trying to appeal to the incredibly stupid baby masses - making changes or improvements for the hardc0re 1337 players doesn't help them as a business. Doing stuff like this will potentially draw in or retain the new terribad players. Thats why there's so much focus on frigates, destroyers, mining barges, greyscales awful ideas for crimewatch, etc.



I'd like to see those hardcore crybabies move on to show how important they are and how fast eve would die. Please do it, stop doing your jelly bad kid who stop breathing to get some attention, act like real men do and move on, show you are able to take decisions instead of moaning and bitching.

!!!!!

brb
Lallante
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#2047 - 2012-07-30 11:21:22 UTC
I really dont understand why anyone would fly a skiff (to mine in, lots of comedy PVP possibilities though) or fit tanking mods after these changes - the only purpose of tank on a mining ship is, realistically, to deter suicide gankers and that simply wont be necessary anymore after the changes go live.
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2048 - 2012-07-30 11:24:25 UTC
Lallante wrote:
I really dont understand why anyone would fly a skiff (to mine in, lots of comedy PVP possibilities though) or fit tanking mods after these changes - the only purpose of tank on a mining ship is, realistically, to deter suicide gankers and that simply wont be necessary anymore after the changes go live.


You can be sure about that I'll use one during next Hulkageddon. Just to annoy these whiney gankers. Yes, gankers... I'll do it just for you.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#2049 - 2012-07-30 11:24:53 UTC
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
It's not surprising that the devs are trying to appeal to the incredibly stupid baby masses - making changes or improvements for the hardc0re 1337 players doesn't help them as a business. Doing stuff like this will potentially draw in or retain the new terribad players. Thats why there's so much focus on frigates, destroyers, mining barges, greyscales awful ideas for crimewatch, etc.



I'd like to see those hardcore crybabies move on to show how important they are and how fast eve would die. Please do it, stop doing your jelly bad kid who stop breathing to get some attention, act like real men do and move on, show you are able to take decisions instead of moaning and bitching.

!!!!!


Except it isn't a case of that kind of player leaving and eve dying, it's more of a slow gradual shift in the type of player. Some of the more pvp-driven types may leave, but more wowcrowd will move in if enough hand-holding changes are implemented. EVE will survive, it'll just be different.

As for the barges - they did need rebalancing, the main issue was that they were all pretty much useless compared to the hulk. Giving the others a bit of a boost or specialties is a good idea, but the amount all the barges have been buffed is utterly silly. As have been some of the crimewatch ideas like making you a global criminal that anyone can shoot if you dare to do something as minor as steal one trit from a can, or the invulnerable remote logis... but Failwatch is another thread entirely though.
Pipa Porto
#2050 - 2012-07-30 11:46:29 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
AFK Exploration Pilgrims in a site* are pretty easy to gank. Just like AFK Mining ships. If you're ATK and flying it properly, a mining barge will be safe, just like an ATK Pilgrim.


I've been AFK many times in my Pilgrim. In safe spot, cloaked...
I've been AFK in covops during war and war targets in same system. In safe spot, cloaked...

And they keep whining about how I don't know what PvP means...


Made much Isk while Cloaked?

You're comparing Mining AFK to Doing nothing AFK.

Mining AFK is to Being in an Exploration Site, shooting at rats AFK (Income, Risk)
as
Being Cloaked AFK is to being AFK in a station in a Barge (No Income, No Risk)

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2051 - 2012-07-30 12:07:39 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
Being Cloaked AFK is to being AFK in a station in a Barge (No Income, No Risk)


There's a risk when you are in safe spot and cloaked. People can still find you.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#2052 - 2012-07-30 12:10:09 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
Being Cloaked AFK is to being AFK in a station in a Barge (No Income, No Risk)


There's a risk when you are in safe spot and cloaked. People can still find you.


They also stand about the same chance of having a meteorite hit them in the gonads.
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2053 - 2012-07-30 12:15:45 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
Being Cloaked AFK is to being AFK in a station in a Barge (No Income, No Risk)


There's a risk when you are in safe spot and cloaked. People can still find you.


They also stand about the same chance of having a meteorite hit them in the gonads.


So? It's not my job to make their fun easier. It's still PvP.
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tuff Guys
#2054 - 2012-07-30 12:52:22 UTC
I'm must say that the barges have too much ehp in this new iteration. First, they are reaching heavily tanked BC levels of ehp. This is rather silly for game play and also rather unimmersive. Now I agree with soundwave that things were busted and suicide ganking was getting somewhat silly however I think this has gone a bit too far.... I think we need to scale back some of these hp increases by a little bit. Barges with 80k+ ehp is worse for eve than barges easily popped by a couple thrashers.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#2055 - 2012-07-30 13:08:10 UTC
rodyas wrote:
Does anyone think, that if supers cost less, more would be out fighting. Or even with plummeting mineral costs, it would still cost to much to openly pvp or risk them?


No, everyone has some degree of risk aversion and those things are pretty much the thing not to lose so it'll just mean more people logged out in super caps.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2056 - 2012-07-30 13:15:02 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
rodyas wrote:
Does anyone think, that if supers cost less, more would be out fighting. Or even with plummeting mineral costs, it would still cost to much to openly pvp or risk them?


No, everyone has some degree of risk aversion and those things are pretty much the thing not to lose so it'll just mean more people logged out in super caps.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZDME4zZdMQ
Shalua Rui
Rui Freelance Mining
#2057 - 2012-07-30 13:18:46 UTC
Ok... let's pretend for one second that the practice of "suicide ganking" isn't the completly invantile attempt of a bored part of the community, to give a giant middle finger to the systems of a game they should have stopped playing long ago...

... and let's think about what logical reactions this kind of incidents would provoke in game lore terms. Aside from a complete, military lockdown of Jita, ORE R&D departments would most probably work non stop to make their ships more resilient, so their customers could protect themselfes better from those terrorist attacks.

That's my logical conclusion, atleast...

"ginger forum goddess, space gypsy and stone nibbler extraordinaire!" Shalua Rui - CEO and founder of Rui Freelance Mining (RFLM)
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#2058 - 2012-07-30 13:22:53 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:


Actually, with the right placement, you can destroy the engine in about 30s with a Sledgehammer. That means it can't drive, which I'd call destroyed.

And again, the Nuke and Torp are much faster than 30s.

i lack the care to keep arguing the point, especially when you're comparing an extremely rare out of game situation to a common in game situation.

the simple fact is destroyers are intended to kill frigates that quickly, not cruiser + sized ships that quickly. mining ships can't shoot back and have to give up pretty much everything possible in order to fit a tank. no other ship has to give up so much just so they can be used.

if people can't see why that's an issue that does need addressing then *shrug* i don't know.


Fleet line sheild ships have to give up all their mids to survive. Armour tanking cargoships have to give up cargo mods to tank. Sniper ships have togive up their tank ect ect. Miners are far from being alone in making these choices.


fleet ships don't give up their damage mods when they fit a tank; miners do because they lack the cpu to fit a shield tank and a rack of mlus.

armour tanking cargo ships are a ******* retared idea and whoever at ccp came up with it need putting out of our misery and are in the same situation as miners except nobody is actively ganking them because when you've got orcas avalable the entire ship type is redundant anyway.

yeah snipers don't have give up their tank; they choose to do it for a bit more range, or a bit more damage. snipers not fitting tanks is akin to miners not fitting tanks. it's not because they can't it's because they choose not to.

i agree miners probably aren't alone in this; however their rebalancing came first so they're getting fixed first. i'm sure ccp will address the same issue with other ships when they get around to rebalacing those ship types.


You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#2059 - 2012-07-30 13:40:16 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
rodyas wrote:
Does anyone think, that if supers cost less, more would be out fighting. Or even with plummeting mineral costs, it would still cost to much to openly pvp or risk them?


No, everyone has some degree of risk aversion and those things are pretty much the thing not to lose so it'll just mean more people logged out in super caps.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZDME4zZdMQ


why do publords keep linking that video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAB6UxUo-rc

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#2060 - 2012-07-30 13:48:26 UTC
Richard Desturned wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAB6UxUo-rc


Nice, Drakes killing supers.