EVE General Discussion

In case you did not read the thread or any of my posts in it, I have not suggested that tiericide be undone. CCP Greyscale made that quote within ~7 days, I think that's far more recent than anything else CCP has done. I've posted already about PG/CPU/slots you can go reread those posts or go on one of your hilarious meltdown-rants about lobbies, either works for me.

It is possible for them to make each ship have a unique role, cargo/tank/yield and also allow each ship to specialize for each area. That would leave us with 9 different specializations you could have and leave plenty of trade-offs to be made when selecting tools for mining. It would follow directly with EVE design philosophy as stated recently by CCP Greyscale.

If they did as I have suggested and that lead to everyone flying skiffs then gankers would not have a leg to stand on when arguing against mining ship tank/EHP. The miners chose safety when they picked the skiff and are compromising their yield as well as cargo for it. That is literally EVE working as intended.

Ganking will evolve from what it is and the game will go on, if one thing is certain it's that gankers can and will adapt. They've had to in order to cope with the highsec aggression nerfs. Don't believe me? Go look up Herr Wilikus big list of highsec aggression nerfs.

No, EvE is intended to have ships BLOW not into having everyone flying an unbreakable fortress.

Assuming CCP won't do anything, I prefer seeing bad designed Macks that one can still gank with 3-4 dessies than 150 in local (like today) where you can't kill a single one because they all sport battleship tank.... and call it "fair". Fair my ass, ships HAVE TO BLOW, not to suck terribly but be unkillable for "fair game".

Besides it's a bit my RL job, it does not take a lot of guessing to predict you'll come back complaining. I don't recall seeing you NOT complaining for more than 2-3 days.



Your "find brick tanked hulks on killboard" was your argument, don't try steer off that with this excuse.
You don't find brick tanked hulks because nobody used them, not because they were so impervious nobody killed them. It's a bit different.

That's why I said this thread reminds me the "Hide your ISK". A CCP representative / developer explicitly states how they mean the mechanics to behave (in this case that empty ships should not be profitable to gank) and people proceed diligently ignoring what he states and demand the opposite.




It's not the only ship that has a superior cargohold. Before you force everybody back into some pathetic Hulks they have so many fall back intermediate ships also sporting superior tank that you are going to achieve a fat nothing anyway.




Then you'd vouch for a replacement of the preset too big tank with a set of empty slots so that who's diligent can re-create today's tank and who's not becomes fodder. Not for a downright nerf and good bye.





I said "you and your two acolytes", not just you.

Giving terrible choices that force you basically to fly the equivalent of a lower tier ship is like forcing someone buying a Vagabond that to stand a chance has to downfit till it becomes a Stabber. Sure, it still shoots .


What's totally DUMB is that exhumers are damn ships. Damn *T2* ships, including the cost.
Why do most T1 and T2 ships come with ample ability to fit whatever the owner feels like to, while mining ships seem to be the "differently able" ships?

Imagine an old Osprey: it could shoot. It could mine (with bonus). It could shield rep (with bonus). It could gas mine. Was it imbalanced? Clearly not. Did it lose ANY freedom of fitting? No, the owner could put lots of shield or mining scanner or whatever the heck he wanted. Did it lack of slots? No. Did its PG and CPU royally SUCK? No. Could it be cargo expanded? Yes.

So why does a T2 mining ship have to suck? It specializes in mining, thus it loses the ability to shoot. It also won't fit any utility slot. That's it! Leave the rest like any other damn ship in the game. If I want to fill 5 mid slots with buffer then let me do it, like the same guy who spent a risible fraction for an Osprey! If I want to expand it or to put a scanner then let me do it. A guy doing this in an Osprey would not have to cut his balls because he wanted to replace one of 5 hardeners / buffer with 1 scanning mod. The freedom also makes it possible for a ganker to actually loot many more mods than when ganking a built in super tank current ship.

But no, mining ships in general and exhumers in particular seem dumbs made. And people like you call for linear nerfs on them with no in depth analysis of economy, consequences, alternatives. As Baltec says, "miners are my PvE".

At least, he's straight and makes his point clear and I wish I could help him in some way. In a way fair for everyone.
Because the current status of the mining ships is better in some ways but grossly pathetic and I don't like "pathetic" said about anything regarding EvE.

The simple fact here is that the barge lineup is broken and far from balanced.

We aren't arguing over ships blowing up being part of EVE as intended, ships will still be exploding after any changes CCP makes. I have no idea why you decide to always go off on tangents whenever you are losing an argument but I'm going to go back to the point of this thread.

If the miner decides to opt for safety by picking a skiff and fitting it for tank then EVE is working as intended. The miner picked the low cargo hold, low yield, and high safety ship. They minimized their risk and their reward. They made trade-offs of cargo hold and yield for increased tank. That is literally EVE working as intended and gankers have no leg to stand on when complaining about that. All of the above is assuming a rollback of the unwarranted EHP buffs to the hulk and mackinaw.

E: From the OP.



Right now how the mining ships are balanced completely removes the need for any fitting trade-offs.

And you keep failing to get that an empty Hulk was never profitable to gank. Only when miners filled it with valuable mods without increasing their tank (or while decreasing it) did they become profitable to gank.

CCP Soundwave's statement is directly at odds with reality (suicide ganking has always been profitable and suicide ganking fit, untanked T2 ships is still quite profitable except for Exhumers), CCP Greyscale's vision of how ships should be balanced (see the OP), and practice (name for me a significant source of risk for HS miners aside from the industrialized ganking that is possible when ganking FITTED, UNTANKED exhumers).



Which is why I've mentioned that, should the Mackinaw be rebalanced so that it is no longer overpowered, the Skiff's cargo bay would have to be reduced. It's almost like you've decided what you think I'm going to say and what I actually say doesn't matter.



If you want a large tank, USE A SKIFF.
"Exhumers, like their mining barge cousins, were each created to excel at a specific function, the Skiff's being durability." -Skiff description.

You're literally arguing against the tiericide principle (you want the Mackinaw to be able to do everything instead of saying "use a different hull when you want a different function).



1) You're still accepting as gospel this idea that miners should never have to give up anything to achieve safety.
2) You're still arguing that "I don't like a choice" is equivalent to "that choice does not exist"
3) I fit all of my ships with some intentional balance of "ability to do their job" and "ability to not die while doing it." Why shouldn't miners? 1 MLU Hulks were also ganked much less often than untanked ones (because they were less/not profitable to gank).



Because there are only 3 stats that actually matter to a mining ship in HS. Yield, Tank, and Cargo Space.
And tank only matters in relation to how much it costs to kill it (because everything is gankable, even the 1m EHP Damnation), so once you get enough tank that it is unprofitable to kill you, the rest doesn't matter.
The Mackinaw has enough tank that it is unprofitable to kill it. Therefore, the rest of the tank (which could have been provided by the Skiff) doesn't matter.

The only real AFK mining that goes on is ice mining. Highsec roids don't support anything beyond a couple minutes of being AFK (with combat drones deployed).

Now behind the sea of blue with no threats other then the occasional rat I could see a decent amount of AFK mining possibility in null..



Basically this argument comes down to people wanting free easy gankable targets so they can make an easy buck. They don't want to harden up and do what is needed to properly suicide gank a tanked exhumer. Well sorry but your days of ganking exhumers with a couple day old throw away alt is over.


EDIT ; Wow ruby wants to turn the mackinaw into a more expensive retriever lol..

See there's the problem. Why should an untanked exhumer also not be profitable to gank?
And If a Mackinaw is safe enough that mountains of them can sit AFK at an ice belt for 45 minutes at a time, what is the point of the Skiff?