These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Gallente Ice Interdiction Resumes

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#161 - 2012-10-16 14:08:26 UTC
Taiwanistan wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
[Mackinaw, Tough Cookie]
Damage Control II
Power Diagnostic System II
Power Diagnostic System II

Medium Shield Extender II
Medium Shield Extender II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II

[empty high slot]
[empty high slot]

Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I


Hobgoblin II x5
Hobgoblin II x5

Here is the current Mackinaw setup I am using. You do need a +3% power grid implant for it to work. Also I picked up a +3% to shield amount. Toss in Tengu and Loki bonuses, have your shield hardeners preoverloaded, but not turned on. Mine ice until very upset gankers come for you, then turn on the hardeners. You now have 79,777 EHP with a 188m signature radius. If you don't have access to bonuses then you still have a solid 59,207 EHP. Once Concord has made short work of them, scoop the loot and return to station to drop off your ice, loot and repair your hardeners. Rinse, repeat, enjoy.

Most importantly, be sure to save any kind of local smack they dish at you in your notepad. As you can see from this very thread, even though they complain about miners not tanking their ships, when you do tank it, they still complain. Straight

christ stop cockblocking our party, not that they'd listen


Actually that was the wrong fit so I posted the correct one. And yes, from what I have seen, just like the last Gallente ice interdiction, no one seems to be fitting a tank. So feel free to party like it's 1999 good sir! Big smile
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#162 - 2012-10-16 14:10:46 UTC
TharOkha wrote:


I mentioned this a thousand times. Extremely low PowerGrid. While HAC could fit large tank extenders, miners couldnt.


Which is why we asked for more fitting room, not more base EHP. Right now the Mack is unbalanced because of its base EHP.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#163 - 2012-10-16 15:25:36 UTC
captain foivos wrote:
Man, Marlona is still really mad about being banned from kugu by Mittens.


This here is another important post.

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
Vanyr Andrard
VacuumTube
#164 - 2012-10-16 15:35:38 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
TharOkha wrote:


I mentioned this a thousand times. Extremely low PowerGrid. While HAC could fit large tank extenders, miners couldnt.


Which is why we asked for more fitting room, not more base EHP. Right now the Mack is unbalanced because of its base EHP.


If CCP had done this then a bunch of people would have posted various utility fits for the procurer and skiff and hurf-blurfed about combat barges. I understand that in your mind an intrinsic part of balance is maintaining a certain consistency in "ease to gank" a completely untanked ship of different types...but I question why you think anyone else, CCP or otherwise, would share that opinion. I certainly don't--noncombat ships are given less fitting flexibility to impede their ability to be fitted for combat, and therefore are 'balanced' with higher base EHP compared to combat ships. CCP has followed this plan for years--but for some reason intentionally made mining ships, compared to other industrials, extra fragile. I can guess that this reason was to make ganking mining bots easier, and have bots/afk miners be vulnerable. You guys started exploiting this fact to kill ATK miners, and CCP changed their philosophy, as one could have easily predicted.

I certainly can't stop you from continuining to hurf-blurf about this fictitious brand of balance, but rest assured that CCP that whatever option they chose, a different subset of forum-posters would complain about it, and that they planned on ignoring this specific group of complaints years before you even made them.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#165 - 2012-10-16 16:09:40 UTC
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
If CCP had done this then a bunch of people would have posted various utility fits for the procurer and skiff and hurf-blurfed about combat barges.

This makes no sense.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#166 - 2012-10-16 16:14:02 UTC
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
TharOkha wrote:


I mentioned this a thousand times. Extremely low PowerGrid. While HAC could fit large tank extenders, miners couldnt.


Which is why we asked for more fitting room, not more base EHP. Right now the Mack is unbalanced because of its base EHP.


If CCP had done this then a bunch of people would have posted various utility fits for the procurer and skiff and hurf-blurfed about combat barges. I understand that in your mind an intrinsic part of balance is maintaining a certain consistency in "ease to gank" a completely untanked ship of different types...but I question why you think anyone else, CCP or otherwise, would share that opinion. I certainly don't--noncombat ships are given less fitting flexibility to impede their ability to be fitted for combat, and therefore are 'balanced' with higher base EHP compared to combat ships. CCP has followed this plan for years--but for some reason intentionally made mining ships, compared to other industrials, extra fragile. I can guess that this reason was to make ganking mining bots easier, and have bots/afk miners be vulnerable. You guys started exploiting this fact to kill ATK miners, and CCP changed their philosophy, as one could have easily predicted.

I certainly can't stop you from continuining to hurf-blurf about this fictitious brand of balance, but rest assured that CCP that whatever option they chose, a different subset of forum-posters would complain about it, and that they planned on ignoring this specific group of complaints years before you even made them.

Its at this point I point out the the mack did get a buff to fitting room
Vanyr Andrard
VacuumTube
#167 - 2012-10-16 17:22:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Vanyr Andrard
baltec1 wrote:

Its at this point I point out the the mack did get a buff to fitting room


It is at this point I point out that the majority of ships in the game are getting a buff to fitting room, either already, or in the near future. This is not, however, relevant to the point I was making, that is a separate balancing issue, as is the mack change you refer to--which was not large enough to be the kind of fitting room buff that was discussed earlier, in essence making your point fallacious equivocation.

Lord Zim wrote:

This makes no sense.


Well, it actually happened, to a lesser degree than if CCP had vastly increased fitting room. So while I feel bad for you that the universe as it actually exists doesn't make sense to you, I don't think there's much I can do to mitigate this for you.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#168 - 2012-10-16 17:30:07 UTC
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:

This makes no sense.


Well, it actually happened, to a lesser degree than if CCP had vastly increased fitting room. So while I feel bad for you that the universe as it actually exists doesn't make sense to you, I don't think there's much I can do to mitigate this for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndWUlntJ58U

Tell me why anyone would look at this and think it was anything other than awesome.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Vanyr Andrard
VacuumTube
#169 - 2012-10-16 17:36:31 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Vanyr Andrard wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:

This makes no sense.


Well, it actually happened, to a lesser degree than if CCP had vastly increased fitting room. So while I feel bad for you that the universe as it actually exists doesn't make sense to you, I don't think there's much I can do to mitigate this for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndWUlntJ58U

Tell me why anyone would look at this and think it was anything other than awesome.


1. Someone fighting under difficult circumstances isn't the same thing as reducing the difficulty of said circumstances, that's a false analogy.

2. Why ask me to explain to you why other people think what they think? Ask them.
Random McNally
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
#170 - 2012-10-16 17:38:05 UTC
So the mining ships get a major buff in EHP. Fitting expansion to mount a pretty decent tank. Ore holds so that one does not need to use rigs to expand them but considerable nonetheless.

And this still isn't enough?

Host of High Drag Podcast. http://highdrag.wordpress.com/

Space music http://minddivided.com

I G Channel HighDragChat

Broadcast4Reps
Vanyr Andrard
VacuumTube
#171 - 2012-10-16 17:39:21 UTC
Random McNally wrote:
So the mining ships get a major buff in EHP. Fitting expansion to mount a pretty decent tank. Ore holds so that one does not need to use rigs to expand them but considerable nonetheless.

And this still isn't enough?


Enough for what?
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#172 - 2012-10-16 17:41:01 UTC
Okay, I'm not going to bother trying to make sense out of you, then. vOv

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Vanyr Andrard
VacuumTube
#173 - 2012-10-16 17:46:29 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Okay, I'm not going to bother trying to make sense out of you, then. vOv


'The better part of Valour, is Discretion; in the which better part, I haue saued my life.'
Random McNally
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
#174 - 2012-10-16 17:54:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Random McNally
Sorry, I thought this was another "mining ships are OP/why am I still getting ganked" thread.

Instead, it's a "swallow a dictionary and activate the double talk generator" thread.

Stupid me.

Host of High Drag Podcast. http://highdrag.wordpress.com/

Space music http://minddivided.com

I G Channel HighDragChat

Broadcast4Reps
Vanyr Andrard
VacuumTube
#175 - 2012-10-16 18:26:10 UTC
Random McNally wrote:
Sorry, I thought this was another "mining ships are OP/why am I still getting ganked" thread.

Instead, it's a "swallow a dictionary and activate the double talk generator" thread.

Stupid me.


You seem to be laboring under a misapprehension, I would actually like it if Baltec's changes were implemented. I'm attempting to reason why there's not much chance CCP would ever do that. I enjoy mining, but I'm in a wormhole so personally Baltec's proposed solution is optimal for me. If you think I've swallowed a dictonary and am double talking, by all means, supply a better explanation for the way things are.
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#176 - 2012-10-16 18:45:53 UTC
Random McNally wrote:
Sorry, I thought this was another "mining ships are OP/why am I still getting ganked" thread.

Instead, it's a "swallow a dictionary and activate the double talk generator" thread.

Stupid me.



No change, same smack wording same moaners and same "olol I'm better than all of you idiots"

Mining barges got a buff, instead of one catalyst now you need two. This is a nice improvement, nothing else to say Lol

brb
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#177 - 2012-10-16 19:03:13 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndWUlntJ58U

Tell me why anyone would look at this and think it was anything other than awesome.


Combat barges are the best barges, <3 that video you're right it's awesome.

I use a Procuror for mining, can get 69k EHP out of it and still pack 100dps worth of drones if you decide to use it for nefarious purposes, plenty of room to fit a scram if you drop a midslot.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
captain foivos
State War Academy
Caldari State
#178 - 2012-10-17 01:15:27 UTC
Oh man, 100 dps
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#179 - 2012-10-17 01:24:21 UTC
captain foivos wrote:
Oh man, 100 dps

for a barge, its respectable, especially a t1 barge P

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Touval Lysander
Zero Wine
#180 - 2012-10-17 02:27:41 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
captain foivos wrote:
Touval Lysander wrote:
And really, she got in on the KM, even a "Concord" mail is a little tick against the ganker and a little tick for the gankee. It's wonderful stuff.


Killboard's green, go go go, amirite?

I couldn't find a single tornado death, in highsec, from Concord, in the CFC, anywhere on the killboards. Anywhere. Perhaps you could point me in the right direction by finding these tornadoes Marlona speaks of?

Watch as Touval Lysander suddenly goes silent on this particular topic.

You STILL posting on your 0.0 alt and not on your highsec FW, indy, mining alt.

In that case, I'll show the respect you desire deserve.

bite me.

"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..."