These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Mining ships and EVE design philosophy.

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
ashley Eoner
#201 - 2013-02-13 16:50:54 UTC  |  Edited by: ashley Eoner
La Nariz wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:
The only real AFK mining that goes on is ice mining. Highsec roids don't support anything beyond a couple minutes of being AFK (hope your drones rock).

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..



Reread the op.
Re-read and it's still a post by a carebear crying about how it's too hard to gank exhumers with throw away alts.


Quote:
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?
Because CCP has stated many times that ganking them wasn't intended to be a profitable venture?

I don't see a problem with low ice prices. The skiff was always a terrible concept anyway. Nerfing the other exhumers isn't going to suddenly make it's ridiculous tank any better.

For highsec mining the skiff is about worthless because of it's one strip miner.


EDIT: Seriously what kind of fail are you involved in if you cannot gank an untanked exhumer in .5 while making a little profit?
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#202 - 2013-02-13 16:59:58 UTC
ashley Eoner wrote:

Re-read and it's still a post by a carebear crying about how it's too hard to gank exhumers with throw away alts.


Read it again, you are clearly not comprehending it.

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
Guttripper
State War Academy
Caldari State
#203 - 2013-02-13 17:00:13 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
(snipped...)

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) ...


Slight correction - CCP Greyscale was talking about a specific module that for years has had both an active and a passive resist included. Then out of the blue, he decided it needed to be changed, did not mention it until others noted the change, and then acted all nonchalant with a "whatever" attitude towards those criticizing the change.

Perhaps you can related that module design = ship design, but I see them as two different design philosophies.

Please carry on though. Thanks.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#204 - 2013-02-13 17:01:54 UTC
ashley Eoner wrote:
Because CCP has stated many times that ganking them wasn't intended to be a profitable venture?

I don't see a problem with low ice prices. The skiff was always a terrible concept anyway. Nerfing the other exhumers isn't going to suddenly make it's ridiculous tank any better.

For highsec mining the skiff is about worthless because of it's one strip miner.


EDIT: Seriously what kind of fail are you involved in if you cannot gank an untanked exhumer in .5 while making a little profit?


CCP said the hull alone shouldnt be profitable to gank. And it never has been.

The entire point of the skiff is to provide the tanky ship to avoid gankers. A job that the mack can do with better yeild and ore hold space. You are literally defending a broken line of ships and against balance.
ashley Eoner
#205 - 2013-02-13 17:04:21 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:

Re-read and it's still a post by a carebear crying about how it's too hard to gank exhumers with throw away alts.


Read it again, you are clearly not comprehending it.

Prior to the changes a tank on anything other then a hulk meant very little when being ganked. Hulks fared decently if you maximized the tank but even then it was still profitable to gank. Now people can fit a tank to the mids and have a good chance of surviving an el cheapo gank.

So once again we're back to a carebear upset that he can't use throw away alts and might have to deal with kill rights and losing isk when ganking a miner in an exhumer.
ashley Eoner
#206 - 2013-02-13 17:06:13 UTC  |  Edited by: ashley Eoner
baltec1 wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:
Because CCP has stated many times that ganking them wasn't intended to be a profitable venture?

I don't see a problem with low ice prices. The skiff was always a terrible concept anyway. Nerfing the other exhumers isn't going to suddenly make it's ridiculous tank any better.

For highsec mining the skiff is about worthless because of it's one strip miner.


EDIT: Seriously what kind of fail are you involved in if you cannot gank an untanked exhumer in .5 while making a little profit?


CCP said the hull alone shouldnt be profitable to gank. And it never has been.

The entire point of the skiff is to provide the tanky ship to avoid gankers. A job that the mack can do with better yeild and ore hold space. You are literally defending a broken line of ships and against balance.

You are clearly attempting to mischaracterize my post or you're hopelessly unable to understand basic English.

That being said there's a legion of throw away alts and exploded catalysts that would disagree with your statement about it never being profitable to gank exhumers..

I would like to add that when I said exhumer in my earlier post I was excluding skiffs. Obviously a skiff is not something you can gank easily and cheaply in .5.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#207 - 2013-02-13 17:07:59 UTC
Guttripper wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
(snipped...)

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) ...


Slight correction - CCP Greyscale was talking about a specific module that for years has had both an active and a passive resist included. Then out of the blue, he decided it needed to be changed, did not mention it until others noted the change, and then acted all nonchalant with a "whatever" attitude towards those criticizing the change.

Perhaps you can related that module design = ship design, but I see them as two different design philosophies.

Please carry on though. Thanks.


I know reading is hard for npc alts so I'm going to leave this here.

CCP Greyscale wrote:
EVE fitting is about trade-offs, not about having your cake and eating it.


Now to explain it in simple terms, the case I'm making is that the warped mining ship design completely ignores trade-offs which is against EVE design philosophy. If you read the underlined portion of the OP you would understand what the thread is about and how it has nothing to do with the hardener change.

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
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#208 - 2013-02-13 17:08:13 UTC
ashley Eoner wrote:
Prior to the changes a tank on anything other then a hulk meant very little when being ganked.


There's a reason why we're not saying "The mack was fine before the buff"


Quote:
Hulks fared decently if you maximized the tank but even then it was still profitable to gank.


Wrong.

Quote:
Now people can fit a tank to the mids and have a good chance of surviving an el cheapo gank.


That's what the Skiff is for.

Quote:
So once again we're back to a carebear upset that he can't use throw away alts


Recycling alts to avoid Sec penalties is a bannable offense. Got any evidence?

Quote:
and might have to deal with kill rights and losing isk when ganking a miner in an exhumer.


If there's not meant to be any significant risk of ganking for a Mackinaw, what's the point of the Skiff?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
ashley Eoner
#209 - 2013-02-13 17:09:54 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Guttripper wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:
(snipped...)

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) ...


Slight correction - CCP Greyscale was talking about a specific module that for years has had both an active and a passive resist included. Then out of the blue, he decided it needed to be changed, did not mention it until others noted the change, and then acted all nonchalant with a "whatever" attitude towards those criticizing the change.

Perhaps you can related that module design = ship design, but I see them as two different design philosophies.

Please carry on though. Thanks.


I know reading is hard for npc alts so I'm going to leave this here.

CCP Greyscale wrote:
EVE fitting is about trade-offs, not about having your cake and eating it.


Now to explain it in simple terms, the case I'm making is that the warped mining ship design completely ignores trade-offs which is against EVE design philosophy. If you read the underlined portion of the OP you would understand what the thread is about and how it has nothing to do with the hardener change.
You can still gank miners even if they run a full tank. You're just mad because it would require you to use a real character and not a throw away alt that took less then a week to train.

There's still a tradeoff involved. If you maximise yield you decrease the costs of ganking you greatly. If you run a full tank then you increase the costs greatly while decreasing your yield.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#210 - 2013-02-13 17:09:59 UTC
ashley Eoner wrote:

Prior to the changes a tank on anything other then a hulk meant very little when being ganked. Hulks fared decently if you maximized the tank but even then it was still profitable to gank. Now people can fit a tank to the mids and have a good chance of surviving an el cheapo gank.

So once again we're back to a carebear upset that he can't use throw away alts and might have to deal with kill rights and losing isk when ganking a miner in an exhumer.


We are in agreement, the T1 ships needed a lot of work and they got it. We are also in agreement a tanked hulk was not profitable to gank. The rest of your post is nonsense, please reread the thread as you've clearly missed quite a few things.

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
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#211 - 2013-02-13 17:12:48 UTC
ashley Eoner wrote:

You can still gank miners even if they run a full tank. You're just mad because it would require you to use a real character and not a throw away alt that took less then a week to train.

There's still a tradeoff involved. If you maximise yield you decrease the costs of ganking you greatly. If you run a full tank then you increase the costs greatly while decreasing your yield.


I have no idea where the ganker alt hate has come from I don't reference it in my OP or my posts in the thread. If you want to whine about ganker alts make your own thread. I'm not addressing your tangents anymore come back with substance or a hilarious meltdown.

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
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#212 - 2013-02-13 17:14:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Mallak Azaria
La Nariz wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:

Prior to the changes a tank on anything other then a hulk meant very little when being ganked. Hulks fared decently if you maximized the tank but even then it was still profitable to gank. Now people can fit a tank to the mids and have a good chance of surviving an el cheapo gank.

So once again we're back to a carebear upset that he can't use throw away alts and might have to deal with kill rights and losing isk when ganking a miner in an exhumer.


We are in agreement, the T1 ships needed a lot of work and they got it. We are also in agreement a tanked hulk was not profitable to gank. The rest of your post is nonsense, please reread the thread as you've clearly missed quite a few things.


Unless his definition of a maximised Hulk tank was loading it with as much faction/DS as possible, but that is just stupid.

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.
ashley Eoner
#213 - 2013-02-13 17:17:46 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:

Wow you contradicted yourself in your own post and you're too blinded by your hate that you cannot even see it.

So you say the mack wasn't fine before the buff because tanking it was irrelevant which you imply was bad. Then you turn around and say that the skiff is the one that's supposed to be immune to el cheapo ganks. So if the tank on the skiff is the one that's supposed to survive el cheapo ganks while the mack isn't then tell me how that isn't the same as where the mack was before the changes?

The skiff is a terrible design for highsec and I'm convinced they don't even want it used there. The single strip miner is capable of devastating the largest roids in one cycle in highsec. Even if the mack and hulk were given paper thin tanks it still wouldn't be worth using a skiff because the skiff wastes way too much time on empty roids.


I also like how you're like "WRONG!!!" and then when I'm like "wrong!" you're like "PROOF!!!!". So we're supposed to take what you type as the word of an eve god while the plebeian has no such right. You're hilarious ;0
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#214 - 2013-02-13 17:21:51 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
ashley Eoner wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:

Wow you contradicted yourself in your own post and you're too blinded by your hate that you cannot even see it.

So you say the mack wasn't fine before the buff because tanking it was irrelevant which you imply was bad. Then you turn around and say that the skiff is the one that's supposed to be immune to el cheapo ganks. So if the tank on the skiff is the one that's supposed to survive el cheapo ganks while the mack isn't then tell me how that isn't the same as where the mack was before the changes?

The skiff is a terrible design for highsec and I'm convinced they don't even want it used there. The single strip miner is capable of devastating the largest roids in one cycle in highsec. Even if the mack and hulk were given paper thin tanks it still wouldn't be worth using a skiff because the skiff wastes way too much time on empty roids.


I also like how you're like "WRONG!!!" and then when I'm like "wrong!" you're like "PROOF!!!!". So we're supposed to take what you type as the word of an eve god while the plebeian has no such right. You're hilarious ;0


Thats the point, the skiff tanks well but you sacrifice yeild, Its called tradeoffs. And no, the mack needed a little more powergrid and CPU when it was upgraded not an EHP buff.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#215 - 2013-02-13 17:22:02 UTC
ashley Eoner wrote:
I also like how you're like "WRONG!!!" and then when I'm like "wrong!" you're like "PROOF"


We know what we're talking about, you don't.

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.
Katran Luftschreck
Royal Ammatar Engineering Corps
#216 - 2013-02-13 17:23:56 UTC
I prefer to get my Goon propaganda from Mittani himself, thanks. His underlings lack the same flair.

http://youtu.be/t0q2F8NsYQ0
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#217 - 2013-02-13 17:27:09 UTC
ashley Eoner wrote:

Wow you contradicted yourself in your own post and you're too blinded by your hate that you cannot even see it.


Yet instead of calling him out on specific contradictions you decide to howl in impotent rage.

Pot, there's a kettle here calling you black:
ashley Eoner wrote:


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..

Re-read and it's still a post by a carebear crying about how it's too hard to gank exhumers with throw away alts.

Seriously what kind of fail are you involved in if you cannot gank an untanked exhumer in .5 while making a little profit?

So once again we're back to a carebear upset that he can't use throw away alts and might have to deal with kill rights and losing isk when ganking a miner in an exhumer.

You are clearly attempting to mischaracterize my post or you're hopelessly unable to understand basic English.

You're just mad because it would require you to use a real character and not a throw away alt that took less then a week to train.

I also like how you're like "WRONG!!!" and then when I'm like "wrong!" you're like "PROOF!!!!". So we're supposed to take what you type as the word of an eve god while the plebeian has no such right. You're hilarious ;0


Directly from the devblog about the skiff:
http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=73098 wrote:
The Procurer and Skiff are made for protection against suicide gank, or NPCs, by giving a large enough buffer to react to incoming attacks, while paying for that with a lower mining yield.


Yes the skiff is intended for tank, yes the mackinaw is intended for cargo hold, and yes the hulk is intended for yield. That is what CCP intended with the ship specializations. Your opinions on the suitability of the ships for highsec is against what CCP's choices for the ships specializations.

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
ashley Eoner
#218 - 2013-02-13 17:31:16 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:

Wow you contradicted yourself in your own post and you're too blinded by your hate that you cannot even see it.

So you say the mack wasn't fine before the buff because tanking it was irrelevant which you imply was bad. Then you turn around and say that the skiff is the one that's supposed to be immune to el cheapo ganks. So if the tank on the skiff is the one that's supposed to survive el cheapo ganks while the mack isn't then tell me how that isn't the same as where the mack was before the changes?

The skiff is a terrible design for highsec and I'm convinced they don't even want it used there. The single strip miner is capable of devastating the largest roids in one cycle in highsec. Even if the mack and hulk were given paper thin tanks it still wouldn't be worth using a skiff because the skiff wastes way too much time on empty roids.


I also like how you're like "WRONG!!!" and then when I'm like "wrong!" you're like "PROOF!!!!". So we're supposed to take what you type as the word of an eve god while the plebeian has no such right. You're hilarious ;0


Thats the point, the skiff tanks well but you sacrifice yeild, Its called tradeoffs. And no, the mack needed a little more powergrid and CPU when it was upgraded not an EHP buff.
When you max tank a mackinaw you lose yield too. So there's your trade off. You tank up you hurt your yield which is working as intended.
ashley Eoner
#219 - 2013-02-13 17:34:50 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:

Wow you contradicted yourself in your own post and you're too blinded by your hate that you cannot even see it.


Yet instead of calling him out on specific contradictions you decide to howl in impotent rage.

Pot, there's a kettle here calling you black:
ashley Eoner wrote:


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..

Re-read and it's still a post by a carebear crying about how it's too hard to gank exhumers with throw away alts.

Seriously what kind of fail are you involved in if you cannot gank an untanked exhumer in .5 while making a little profit?

So once again we're back to a carebear upset that he can't use throw away alts and might have to deal with kill rights and losing isk when ganking a miner in an exhumer.

You are clearly attempting to mischaracterize my post or you're hopelessly unable to understand basic English.

You're just mad because it would require you to use a real character and not a throw away alt that took less then a week to train.

I also like how you're like "WRONG!!!" and then when I'm like "wrong!" you're like "PROOF!!!!". So we're supposed to take what you type as the word of an eve god while the plebeian has no such right. You're hilarious ;0


Directly from the devblog about the skiff:
http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=73098 wrote:
The Procurer and Skiff are made for protection against suicide gank, or NPCs, by giving a large enough buffer to react to incoming attacks, while paying for that with a lower mining yield.


Yes the skiff is intended for tank, yes the mackinaw is intended for cargo hold, and yes the hulk is intended for yield. That is what CCP intended with the ship specializations. Your opinions on the suitability of the ships for highsec is against what CCP's choices for the ships specializations.
Of course CCP also said that none of those should be profitable to gank. So your el cheapo ganking alts are worthless. Deal with it.


Oh and I clearly pointed out his contradictions and that's why you're mad brah.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#220 - 2013-02-13 17:39:21 UTC  |  Edited by: La Nariz
ashley Eoner wrote:

Thats the point, the skiff tanks well but you sacrifice yeild, Its called tradeoffs. And no, the mack needed a little more powergrid and CPU when it was upgraded not an EHP buff. When you max tank a mackinaw you lose yield too. So there's your trade off. You tank up you hurt your yield which is working as intended.


You would have a point here if there was a need to tank a mackinaw. Currently with the unwarranted EHP buff there is not a need to tank a mackinaw it is intrinsically tanked.

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