These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
 

Buff Ganking--Nevermind, Nerfed Again

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#261 - 2012-10-05 07:01:24 UTC
Bart Starr wrote:


EDIT 2: And yes, I ganked because they didn't tank. Because I generally didn't have enough firepower to crack a tanked Exhumer. 'Lazy' never really factored into it. Either they failed to tank and I was capable of killing them, or they tanked and I could not kill them. As it was, I was triple boxing, and had a lot of practice. 3 accounts, max skilled chars - Hardly sounds 'lazy'.

pfftt....

I quad-boxed 3 Hulks and an Orca and worked harder for longer than you EVER would on a gank. (and I STILL did not tank - no point).

CCP GAVE you guys free ganks and AWESOME TOOLS to do it. They took it away because you got lazy, greedy and stupid about it.

Ya just dont get it do you? THE MAN gotta take it away because somebody has to pay the Ferryman and if they're all gone - who will?

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#262 - 2012-10-05 07:06:53 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
Touval Lysander wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
If I want a brick armour tank, I have to sacrifice speed, agility & dps.
If I want heavy dps, I have to sacrifice speed, agility & tank.
If I want a fast nano ship, I have to sacrifice tank & dps.
If I want to mine in complete safety, all I have to do is fill my low slots with mining yield mods, warp to ice belt then go afk for an hour. There is no sacrifice there which happens to be one of the core principals of EVE.

He's a MINER ya knob.

If I was a SOLDIER I would EXPECT to wear a helmet and carry a gun because I might get killed.
If I was a POLICEMAN I would EXPECT to wear a vest and carry a gun because I might get killed.
If I was SAILOR I would EXPECT to wear a lifejacket and an EPIRB because I might drown.

If I was a MINER, I'd try wearing a bloody HARDHAT.

And even if I WAS given a HARDHAT, a life jacket, a vest, an EPIRB and 3 guns, I'm STILL dead if the mine blows up.

So I go in with my biggest tractor and jackhammer and I mine like crazy and GTFO as fast as possible because THAT'S WHAT MINERS DO.

They're MINERS and the EXPECTATION of risk isn't there. You're applying a "gaming mechanic" in an UNREALISTIC scenario.

As a MINER my greatest risk SHOULD be having an asteroid BLOW UP IN MY FACE. Except they don't.

Now that WOULD make a miner TANK because it would be EXPECTED - IN HIS LINE OF WORK.

MINING ITSELF must be dangerous if you want behavourial change - getting ganked by some sad and lonely fatboy is just well, odd.


And you could have worn a Hardhat pre-buff. That's called tanking your ship.

You could have gone in with a max yield ship and stayed perfectly ungankable, but you'd have had to look at your overview to do so. (Seriously, "look at the overview" is the amount of effort miners were entirely unwilling to expend to protect their investment).

Instead, CCP performed surgery to replace your skull with a steel one (that happens to hold twice as much ore).... to stretch the metaphor a bit.

Nice metaphor actually.


And if CCP made MINING dangerous - in it's EXPECTED FORM - miners would tank. I know it sounds strange but the perception of danger is different.

I never tanked because I simply did not mine where the gankers were. You wanna make me tank WHEREVER I am - make ALL asteroids asplode.

GANKING STILL GONNA BE UNPROFITABLE.

"I've always been mad, I know I've been mad, like the most of us...very hard to explain why you're mad, even if you're not mad..."
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#263 - 2012-10-05 07:08:31 UTC
Touval Lysander wrote:
Bart Starr wrote:


EDIT 2: And yes, I ganked because they didn't tank. Because I generally didn't have enough firepower to crack a tanked Exhumer. 'Lazy' never really factored into it. Either they failed to tank and I was capable of killing them, or they tanked and I could not kill them. As it was, I was triple boxing, and had a lot of practice. 3 accounts, max skilled chars - Hardly sounds 'lazy'.

pfftt....

I quad-boxed 3 Hulks and an Orca and worked harder for longer than you EVER would on a gank. (and I STILL did not tank - no point).

CCP GAVE you guys free ganks and AWESOME TOOLS to do it. They took it away because you got lazy, greedy and stupid about it.

Ya just dont get it do you? THE MAN gotta take it away because somebody has to pay the Ferryman and if they're all gone - who will?

You're fond of bringing up the days of 2 ISK Tritanium and saying that it was cool because people still mined back then.

Well, hey! Guess what! Ganking was cool too, because during Evergeddon people still mined effectively in spite of ganks.

Thanks for playing.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#264 - 2012-10-05 07:08:39 UTC
Touval Lysander wrote:
CCP GAVE you guys free ganks and AWESOME TOOLS to do it. They took it away because you got lazy, greedy and stupid about it.


And at the same time they gave us those tools, they nerfed insurance making it more expensive to gank than ever. So it still ultimately comes down to miners making themselves profitable targets.

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.
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#265 - 2012-10-05 07:14:51 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Touval Lysander wrote:
CCP GAVE you guys free ganks and AWESOME TOOLS to do it. They took it away because you got lazy, greedy and stupid about it.


And at the same time they gave us those tools, they nerfed insurance making it more expensive to gank than ever. So it still ultimately comes down to miners making themselves profitable targets.

Not to mention miners telling gankers "what they were given" as some type of object lesson is the pinnacle of farcical.

I mean the medieval farces were literally not as rich as this "accusation" of what gankers were "given" in comparison with miners. Roll

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#266 - 2012-10-05 07:16:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
A trillion in hulks were killed during Hulkageddon.

Back during the height of the whining I challenged anyone in support of a EHP buff to post a killmail of a fully tanked hulk that died during the event. Strangely, none were found. Only miners feel entitled to failfit their ships.

edit: still holds true: http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=14791511
TharOkha
0asis Group
#267 - 2012-10-05 07:31:53 UTC  |  Edited by: TharOkha
Frostys Virpio wrote:
TharOkha wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:

No they say your ship should not be tanked just by default. Leaving all slots empty should not meant your exhumer is tanked


Battleships used in L4 missions are also tanked by default againist catalyst (all slots empty). Now are you going to whine that "nerf BS HP because they shouldnt be tanked just by default?


No ****? You think a ship built specifically just to be efficient a mining should be just as resilient as a ship built specifically for fighting other ship?


No, im just telling that it is logical that they have same base HP as cruisers now. And they have "best in the class" base HP because random cruiser has 1000-1500 PG, mining shis has 43 PW only so they are not able to fit large armor/shield extenders.

Darth:
You just want to sit in high-sec all day and activate modules on targets that won't shoot back for profit in easy-mode.

you just want to fit cheap catalyst and shoot miners that wont shoot back for profit in easy-mode (hint: you still can, you just need to fit ship scanner on your talos and search for miners with expensive modules- like you do it with ganking l4 mission boats and freighters. (btw im not miner Blink )

I said it's not efficient (ganking mining ships) and that I can't help the game for fun efficiently anymore

...you just need to fit ship scanner on your talos and search for miners with expensive modules. No more easy-mode ganking.

inmrmessy
So you're saying a BC should not die to 10 cruisers?
No. we just saying that a BC shouldnt die to one catalyst in few shots (like they dont). As well as mining ships.

Pipa:
Unfitted Mining Barges can't be profitably ganked either.
No but they were shot just for LoL. Because gank was extremely cheap and killmails were 100-200m just for hull loss. And because you didnt do it for LoL (but for profit) it does not mean that bunch of other players didnt do it too.

T2 Cruisers can be profitably ganked..... they're even more profitable than Hulks are. Fortunately for them, their pilots aren't brain dead and thus they're usually flown with a tank


Fortunately for them T2 (even T1) cruisers have 1000-1500 PG. Mining ships has only 43 PG.

Because now that Macks are unprofitable to gank without any sacrifice for the tank

As well as any other ships in eve

CCP buffed miners because they were unable to learn that

CCP buffed miners to eliminate cheap lol ganks and because goons declared open season, not just on hulks but on every barge in the EvE (even T1). . Its your own fault. "They should tank it" wouldnt work any more, because even "well tanked hulk" was shot down by 2-3 catalysts and still it was profitable.). If you would had kept hulkageddon on half-year or quarterly-year basics only, then nobody would notice..CCP buffed (fixed) barges by your own fault. Now you cry becasue of your actions... deal with it and learn.

Mallak:
Ganking exhumers with destroyers was only profitable because the victims made it profitable.

read post above....

CODE. Venture hunt contest in a nutshell
Amber Coldheart
Doomheim
#268 - 2012-10-05 07:33:58 UTC
Where exactly does it become "unprofitable"..

Amazingly, i've never gotten ganked (yet.. im sure its just a matter of time). I still use my Hulk's that i've had for years, and have never piloted a Mack (or mined Ice for that matter).

My Hulk's have 15k'ish EHP, with shield resists all in the 60+ range, which most certainly isnt "safe" by any means (i would imagine). If it would be "profitable" to kill on the other hand, i have no clue. Apart from the strips themselves, there is nothing expensive in the fit (other than the salvage of the ship itself i guess)..

I am geniunely curious as the people in this thread seems to have all the answers P
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#269 - 2012-10-05 07:41:01 UTC
Amber Coldheart wrote:
Where exactly does it become "unprofitable"..

Amazingly, i've never gotten ganked (yet.. im sure its just a matter of time). I still use my Hulk's that i've had for years, and have never piloted a Mack (or mined Ice for that matter).

My Hulk's have 15k'ish EHP, with shield resists all in the 60+ range, which most certainly isnt "safe" by any means (i would imagine). If it would be "profitable" to kill on the other hand, i have no clue. Apart from the strips themselves, there is nothing expensive in the fit (other than the salvage of the ship itself i guess)..

I am geniunely curious as the people in this thread seems to have all the answers P

The answer to that is a floating number depending on security status of the target system and the specific fit for the Hulk.

At the end of the day if the number of ships required to alpha the EHP plus fittings costs more than the potential drops from the target vessel before CONCORD arrives is too high, there is literally no margin to pay for the ships and fittings, and therefore the gank is not profitable.

Miners who mined aligned and paid attention pre-gank were never profitable to gank. That's because attempting it was always a waste of time.

So the numbers are quite elusive, depending on so many factors as to be systemic.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom
Amber Coldheart
Doomheim
#270 - 2012-10-05 07:49:19 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:

The answer to that is a floating number depending on security status of the target system and the specific fit for the Hulk.

At the end of the day if the number of ships required to alpha the EHP plus fittings costs more than the potential drops from the target vessel before CONCORD arrives is too high, there is literally no margin to pay for the ships and fittings, and therefore the gank is not profitable.

Miners who mined aligned and paid attention pre-gank were never profitable to gank. That's because attempting it was always a waste of time.

So the numbers are quite elusive, depending on so many factors as to be systemic.

I see, thanx for the quick and thorough answer :)
Bart Starr
Aggressive Structural Steel Expediting Services
#271 - 2012-10-05 08:42:44 UTC
Touval Lysander wrote:
Bart Starr wrote:


EDIT 2: And yes, I ganked because they didn't tank. Because I generally didn't have enough firepower to crack a tanked Exhumer. 'Lazy' never really factored into it. Either they failed to tank and I was capable of killing them, or they tanked and I could not kill them. As it was, I was triple boxing, and had a lot of practice. 3 accounts, max skilled chars - Hardly sounds 'lazy'.

pfftt....

I quad-boxed 3 Hulks and an Orca and worked harder for longer than you EVER would on a gank. (and I STILL did not tank - no point).

CCP GAVE you guys free ganks and AWESOME TOOLS to do it. They took it away because you got lazy, greedy and stupid about it.

Ya just dont get it do you? THE MAN gotta take it away because somebody has to pay the Ferryman and if they're all gone - who will?


You keep insisting that there was 'no point' to tanking an Exhumer.
How about survival?

I see what you are doing, though. Its a common denial strategy for miners.

-First, you fit your Exhumer for Max yield or Cargo, motivated by greed. (more Ore = more ISK)
-Then you rationalize that risky choice by pretending that its 'the only choice'. ('no point' in tanking)
-Then when a single T2 Catalyst smokes you, you claim its 'no fair' and demand buffs.

Had you tanked properly, (a solo properly tanked T2 Mack can survive 3 Cats in 0.7 - A Hulk survives 4, genius.) you might have not been attacked at all, because A) not all gankers travel in packs, and even if they do - why would they use 3+ 20M ISK Cats on a single target - when they could just as easily kill 3 fail-tanked Exhumers for the same cost?
Pipa Porto
#272 - 2012-10-05 10:58:03 UTC
Touval Lysander wrote:

Nice metaphor actually.


And if CCP made MINING dangerous - in it's EXPECTED FORM - miners would tank. I know it sounds strange but the perception of danger is different.

I never tanked because I simply did not mine where the gankers were. You wanna make me tank WHEREVER I am - make ALL asteroids asplode.

GANKING STILL GONNA BE UNPROFITABLE.


Mining is Dangerous for the exact same reasons every other PvE activity in EVE is dangerous. Other Players. Grab some friends and run C6 sites on SISI. After a half dozen tries (or less), you'll never lose a ship again if you're paying attention. Same with Incursions, Same with Missions, Same with Ratting.

Here's the big point that you're missing. If all miners tanked their ships (pre-buff, ofc), Ganking wouldn't be profitable. However, the miners who were brave or clever would reduce their tanks in order to fit yield or cargo modules. They would net a larger income than the brick tanked miners, but they'd expose themselves to the risk of a profit-based gank. Either they'd decide the risk was low enough and accept losses, or they'd take active measures to keep themselves safe.

Now here's the problem with the current situation. The Mackinaw is unprofitable to gank. The Mackinaw has the second highest yield. The Mackinaw has the largest Cargo Hold. That places it:
Tied for first in Tank (after the magic unprofitable number, Tank's not worth squat),
Roaring ahead in first for Convenience (aka Cargo),
And a close second in Yield (equivalent to the Cargo Hulk pre-buff.

The Skiff is:
Tied for First in Tank
A Distant Second in Convenience
And Dead last in Yield.

So nobody uses it. Because the Mackinaw does the Skiffs job as well as the Skiff does while doing its own job better than the Skiff does.

The Hulk has similar problems.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#273 - 2012-10-05 11:04:07 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
The Skiff is:
Tied for First in Tank


With what? Mack? Or do you mean subcap ships in general (that would mean Proteus/Damnation)?

But anyway. I want to see 100k EHP Mack fit now.
Pipa Porto
#274 - 2012-10-05 11:11:23 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
The Skiff is:
Tied for First in Tank


With what? Mack? Or do you mean subcap ships in general (that would mean Proteus/Damnation)?

But anyway. I want to see 100k EHP Mack fit now.


Feel free to read the whole post next time.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#275 - 2012-10-05 11:14:03 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
The Skiff is:
Tied for First in Tank


With what? Mack? Or do you mean subcap ships in general (that would mean Proteus/Damnation)?

But anyway. I want to see 100k EHP Mack fit now.


Feel free to read the whole post next time.


So, with Mack...

Now that 100k EHP Mack you promised...
Pipa Porto
#276 - 2012-10-05 11:53:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Pipa Porto
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
So, with Mack...

Now that 100k EHP Mack you promised...


Almost there. Remember, parentheticals don't bite.



Oh, and Quote and Link where I promised a 100k EHP Mack.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#277 - 2012-10-05 12:31:36 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
Oh, and Quote and Link where I promised a 100k EHP Mack.


Here ya go.

Pipa Porto wrote:
The Skiff is:
Tied for First in Tank


https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2007410#post2007410
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#278 - 2012-10-05 12:58:39 UTC  |  Edited by: TheGunslinger42
CCP: The glories of the sandbox! So long as the sandbox is nice and kind to the terrible hisec bears and wowtard crowd. Wouldn't want to upset them.

To be honest, I'm not a fan of the direction EVE is going. War mechanics, failwatch, mining barges with massive holds AND great tanks, upcoming pos changes, etc

all bad stuff imo
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#279 - 2012-10-05 13:03:45 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
Oh, and Quote and Link where I promised a 100k EHP Mack.


Here ya go.

Pipa Porto wrote:
The Skiff is:
Tied for First in Tank


https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2007410#post2007410


You still haven't linked this mythical 100k EHP Mack post.

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.
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#280 - 2012-10-05 13:31:20 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
You still haven't linked this mythical 100k EHP Mack post.


If ganker says Mack and Skiff both can have same EHP tanked then ganker should have something to prove this claim.