These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Danny Diamonds
Fabricated Reality
#2541 - 2012-08-01 12:54:53 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Danny Diamonds wrote:
You have no chance Vaera.

Pipa will keep posting and trying to "win" an internet thread about opinions. Logic and fun were thrown out long ago.


He's the second prevalent "pro PvP" troll on the forums and fully motivated to bring as much nerf on miners as possible. I know it's pointless but that does not mean I will stay silent and see them manipulate the developers into creating unpractical features that bring nothing new on the table except inconvenience



I wasn't asking you to stay silent! It was more of a "I feel your pain" sorta post. It boggles my mind how some of the seasoned players spend so much effort to prevent others from enjoying aspects of the game other than pvp. I have only ever mined in lowsec (and only briefly at that). I don't get all the hate toward miners. I wonder if all pvpers start life as asteroids? Maybe that would explain it...

How dare you miners get anything to make your non-pvp ships more useful!
Mr Management
Anger Management
#2542 - 2012-08-01 12:56:30 UTC
I'm smelling bady Goon tears and I'm loving it ...

Maybe BoB killed you too many times that your only outlet is shooting unarmed ships in Hi Sec.

CCP Changed the War dec System when you cried about Hi Sec +1 to the Goons

CCP Changed the Mining Ships -1 Goons

Call it even ...



___________________________________________________________________________

Goons the only alliance so bad in Eve that the opposition left and played another game.
Yeep
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#2543 - 2012-08-01 12:58:43 UTC
Mr Management wrote:
I'm smelling bady Goon tears and I'm loving it ...

Maybe BoB killed you too many times that your only outlet is shooting unarmed ships in Hi Sec.

CCP Changed the War dec System when you cried about Hi Sec +1 to the Goons

CCP Changed the Mining Ships -1 Goons

Call it even ...



___________________________________________________________________________

Goons the only alliance so bad in Eve that the opposition left and played another game.


Did you even read the thread? There were a couple of pages of "CCP probably buffed mining barges too much" then hundreds and hundreds of "Waaaa CCP didn't overbuff mining barges enough"
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#2544 - 2012-08-01 12:58:43 UTC
Danny Diamonds wrote:
It boggles my mind how some of the seasoned players spend so much effort to prevent others from enjoying aspects of the game other than pvp. I have only ever mined in lowsec (and only briefly at that). I don't get all the hate toward miners. I wonder if all pvpers start life as asteroids? Maybe that would explain it...

As mentioned previously (hundreds of times, in fact so many times, that we can't find a spoon large enough to spoon-feed this information to you people), we don't try to prevent others from enjoying non-pvp aspects of the game. We are however trying to prevent people from removing the non-consensual pvp aspect of this game.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Big Bossu
Primal Instinct Inc.
The Initiative.
#2545 - 2012-08-01 13:09:09 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Danny Diamonds wrote:
It boggles my mind how some of the seasoned players spend so much effort to prevent others from enjoying aspects of the game other than pvp. I have only ever mined in lowsec (and only briefly at that). I don't get all the hate toward miners. I wonder if all pvpers start life as asteroids? Maybe that would explain it...

As mentioned previously (hundreds of times, in fact so many times, that we can't find a spoon large enough to spoon-feed this information to you people), we don't try to prevent others from enjoying non-pvp aspects of the game. We are however trying to prevent people from removing the non-consensual pvp aspect of this game.


You are a firm advocate of removing local from the game, I presume?
Danny Diamonds
Fabricated Reality
#2546 - 2012-08-01 13:09:20 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Danny Diamonds wrote:
It boggles my mind how some of the seasoned players spend so much effort to prevent others from enjoying aspects of the game other than pvp. I have only ever mined in lowsec (and only briefly at that). I don't get all the hate toward miners. I wonder if all pvpers start life as asteroids? Maybe that would explain it...

As mentioned previously (hundreds of times, in fact so many times, that we can't find a spoon large enough to spoon-feed this information to you people), we don't try to prevent others from enjoying non-pvp aspects of the game. We are however trying to prevent people from removing the non-consensual pvp aspect of this game.


The proposed changes in no way prevent people from shooting other people. Not one bit. It just reduced the "easy win" situation. Don't try and pretend that this stops you from starting a fight. It doesn't.

If this was removing the ability to aggress in Hisec, then you can pull that argument out. But it isn't.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#2547 - 2012-08-01 13:17:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Destiny Corrupted
Each of these changes moves the game closer and closer to their logical conclusion. I don't know how long you've been around, but I can tell you with certainty that due to the numerous CONCORD buffs, security status buffs/nerfs (depending on perspective), insurance removal, war nerfs, miscellaneous game mechanic nerfs (stuff like fleet aggression transfer), it's much more difficult to kill a player when he doesn't want to be killed today than it was in the years prior. The game has been moving along this unidirectional path for a long, long time now.

I mean, I can see the point you're trying to make here: "nothing changes, everything is the same because CCP hasn't yet made it impossible to shoot people in high-sec, so there's no need to worry." But it doesn't work like that. Wouldn't you be even remotely concerned if for example your government would follow the same pattern in diminishing your ability to express yourself? Or would you say "nah, everything is fine until they put troops on the street and tell us over loudspeakers that we can't talk anymore"?

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Danny Diamonds
Fabricated Reality
#2548 - 2012-08-01 13:25:35 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Each of these changes moves the game closer and closer to their logical conclusion. I don't know how long you've been around, but I can tell you with certainty that due to the numerous CONCORD buffs, security status buffs/nerfs (depending on perspective), insurance removal, war nerfs, miscellaneous game mechanic nerfs (stuff like fleet aggression transfer), it's much more difficult to kill a player when he doesn't want to be killed today than it was in the years prior. The game has been moving along this unidirectional path for a long, long time now.

I mean, I can see the point you're trying to make here: "nothing changes, everything is the same because CCP hasn't yet made it impossible to shoot people in high-sec, so there's no need to worry." But it doesn't work like that. Wouldn't you be even remotely concerned if for example your government would follow the same pattern in diminishing your ability to express yourself? Or would you say "nah, everything is fine until they put troops on the street and tell us over loudspeakers that we can't talk anymore"?



Stop taking it to extremes. *This* proposed change is *not* a Concorde buff, nor is it anything to do with "the government".

This is *not* some kind of infringement on your personal freedoms. It is a damn game. My God man, have you lost touch with reality? PIXELS.

I have been around for a few years, so I have seen quite a lot. I fit were more buffs to Concorde, I too would object. It isn't.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#2549 - 2012-08-01 13:31:48 UTC
I was simply making an analogy.

And while this buff might not be a CONCORD buff, it's literally identical to one, since decreasing CONCORD response time and increasing barge EHP both have the same effect of decreasing the amount of damage a single person can do to a barge before his own ship is destroyed. Either change results in an increase to the amount of people required to pull off a suicide-gank.

Logic is a very interesting and useful tool in argument. I find it to provide quite a bit more utility than ad hominem.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Mike Whiite
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2550 - 2012-08-01 14:07:39 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Mike Whiite wrote:
I could turn things arround and say CCP forces the big bad wolf, to use his brains.

I've no trouble with gankers as a whole I do hate the fact that with the current mining ships it's possible to create a trial account and shoot al but every mining ship in a week or so in a destroyer.


I don't mine but I consider that a expliot.

Would you consider it an exploit if 100 people rolled new characters, and after spending a few hours training some basic combat skills, went out and killed mining barges using Velators? How would you deal with this exploit? Would you prevent characters under a month old from aggressing anyone in high-sec? Because that would be very sandbox-like, right? But there would be no other way to deal with something that is essentially a numbers game, so what would you say to that?


And you think that is remotly a serious threat.

Split your hulk spoils with a 100 people, not to mention 100 people fleets are fairly easy noticed, i people are willing to put up with such a trouble to shoot a single hulk, be my guest.

yes things are easier with more people, things will become easier with more skillpoints as well, I still see oppertunities or a good SB pilot to bring one of these ships down without to much trouble, it just requires a person to put some effort in what they are doing like every other profesion in EVE.

Or find a hundred friends that all have time to hit one or two miners before they become an EVE twitter hit so to speak.

In my humble opinion, I think it will actualy make things easier for the dedicated ganker, those extra HP give a false feeling of security. Because no fake trial players sponserd by their borred main can accomplish this unless they come with 100 at once :), the miners will loose concentration Faster andgive you the oppertunity to sneak up on them.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#2551 - 2012-08-01 14:10:02 UTC
Mike Whiite wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Mike Whiite wrote:
I could turn things arround and say CCP forces the big bad wolf, to use his brains.

I've no trouble with gankers as a whole I do hate the fact that with the current mining ships it's possible to create a trial account and shoot al but every mining ship in a week or so in a destroyer.


I don't mine but I consider that a expliot.

Would you consider it an exploit if 100 people rolled new characters, and after spending a few hours training some basic combat skills, went out and killed mining barges using Velators? How would you deal with this exploit? Would you prevent characters under a month old from aggressing anyone in high-sec? Because that would be very sandbox-like, right? But there would be no other way to deal with something that is essentially a numbers game, so what would you say to that?


And you think that is remotly a serious threat.

I think you'll feel really silly in a couple of weeks.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Andoria Thara
Fallen Avatars
#2552 - 2012-08-01 14:14:32 UTC
Mike Whiite wrote:

Split your hulk spoils with a 100 people, not to mention 100 people fleets are fairly easy noticed, i people are willing to put up with such a trouble to shoot a single hulk, be my guest.


I doubt this will be done for profit, or spoils. This will be a group of people doing it for the "lulz".

I have to admit, it would be pretty damn funny to see 100 rookie ships ganking a barge.
Mirajane Cromwell
#2553 - 2012-08-01 14:23:22 UTC
So, now the buff to mining ships makes miners happy and gankers unhappy. Then in couple months with destroyer/cruiser balance the gankers will become happy and miners unhappy... such is the cycle in Eve... Roll
Mike Whiite
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2554 - 2012-08-01 14:28:17 UTC
Oh I'm sure people will try it, I just think it won't be very effective.

A crowd draws attention.

and there is no reason to stop you from using this tactic now, and how often is a PVE batleship ganked by a hundred noob ships?

that might be even worth the trouble.

so yeah it probable happen, but I doubt it will happen very often.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#2555 - 2012-08-01 14:28:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Destiny Corrupted
Nah, I really doubt that combat ship re-balancing is going to lead to dps increases on any ships that don't desperately need them (few do, and even then they wouldn't be used for ganking). We'll have to make do with what we have, and we're prepared to deal with that. The real downside is that there will be even more of these anti-gank changes when the carebears realize that the big bad wolf didn't go away.

Mike Whiite wrote:
Oh I'm sure people will try it, I just think it won't be very effective.

A crowd draws attention.

It won't draw any more attention than countless threads, local warnings, and dev blogs already do. Therefore, miner awareness to large groups is the least of our worries. These people are oblivious.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Cede Forster
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#2556 - 2012-08-01 14:38:09 UTC
maybe this excess energy against the mining barge changes (which will come anyway) should be channeled in something positive, such as suggesting a suicide / high sec piracy update.

Proposals:
Medium-Slot Module: Special Pirate Warp Scrambler Script - deactivates upon ISK transfer to the owners wallet.
High-Slot Module: Payload - Can only be installed in a Badger and allows you to ram into other ships to blow them up, loss of capsule on both sides included.

see, you need to work the system so the high sec piracy update is next! Lol
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
#2557 - 2012-08-01 16:14:41 UTC
Personally, if a EHP buff is unavoidable, I'd rather they swapped the EHP of the Hulk with the Mackinaw.

A) Hulk is 'traditionally' the toughest, and with its new Ore bay, its going to require micromanagement, or a script.
That means these miners are kept at their posts, moving Ore, swapping crystals, whatever.

B) People are already sitting down and figuring out the best 'AFK ice mining' set ups for the Mackinaw, how to best exploit its huge EHP and cargobay.


I think the best way to go - is keep the Hulk pilots in their seats with small cargo bays...

and keep Mackinaw pilots in their seats with lower EHP. (Besides, how well armored is a huge box in space going to be anyway?)

Give Hulks the EHP, and let them mine in groups.
Keep the AFK Mack pilots nervous by them more gankable.

Finally, nerf the yield of the Skiff a bit. Highest EHP, lowest yield, not 'tied with Mackinaw'.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#2558 - 2012-08-01 16:18:41 UTC
Mirajane Cromwell wrote:
So, now the buff to mining ships makes miners happy and gankers unhappy. Then in couple months with destroyer/cruiser balance the gankers will become happy and miners unhappy... such is the cycle in Eve... Roll


Nope, miners are unhappy with the changes because gankers can still kill them for profit.
Knight Cabbage
Doomheim
#2559 - 2012-08-01 16:35:53 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
I was simply making an analogy.

And while this buff might not be a CONCORD buff, it's literally identical to one, since decreasing CONCORD response time and increasing barge EHP both have the same effect of decreasing the amount of damage a single person can do to a barge before his own ship is destroyed. Either change results in an increase to the amount of people required to pull off a suicide-gank.

Logic is a very interesting and useful tool in argument. I find it to provide quite a bit more utility than ad hominem.


A CONCORD buff would apply to any attacks in high sec, while barge buffs apply only to ....
Anyways I don't understand what the fuzz is all about, can still can gank the barges and exhumers ... just bring bigger and better guns.
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#2560 - 2012-08-01 16:45:40 UTC
Knight Cabbage wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
I was simply making an analogy.

And while this buff might not be a CONCORD buff, it's literally identical to one, since decreasing CONCORD response time and increasing barge EHP both have the same effect of decreasing the amount of damage a single person can do to a barge before his own ship is destroyed. Either change results in an increase to the amount of people required to pull off a suicide-gank.

Logic is a very interesting and useful tool in argument. I find it to provide quite a bit more utility than ad hominem.


A CONCORD buff would apply to any attacks in high sec, while barge buffs apply only to ....
Anyways I don't understand what the fuzz is all about, can still can gank the barges and exhumers ... just bring bigger and better guns.



This

brb