These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#321 - 2013-02-16 22:42:23 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:

You brought up the comparison. And you, as usual, keep trying to shove words in my mouth.


You do just fine by yourself like here:


RubyPorto wrote:

Where did I say they should be immovable. Where did I say all Exhumers should be fragile? The Mack and the Hulk should be because otherwise there is no reason in the world to use a Skiff.



RubyPorto wrote:

The Skiff is meant to provide you safety through tank. The Mackinaw is not.


[Tippia voice] Which fortunately is the case, because Mackinaw does not provide safety through tank.

The subset of Mackinaw *proper fittings* provides *unprofitability* and not safety thorugh tank.

It's two very different things. Whereas a Skiff is impervious to all but concerted, heavy attacks, a Mack dies to Catalysts just fine, just not fine enough to let you farm them like they are PvE.


RubyPorto wrote:

Manuvers also work great. You can fit webs on your mining ship (and a friends) and both be fully aligned while moving no more than 7m/s (which takes about half an hour to cover 10km). You can be in warp long before a cloaked ship can bump you if you're paying attention.


In your long history of crap fittings, that one is one of the most glamorous. Yeah, give up all tank to fit webbers so the one time you had to sneeze or take a pee you get popped by a loner who started laughing 30 minutes earlier when he scanned you.


RubyPorto wrote:

You're the one claiming that Miners should have enormous cargoholds, great tank, and great yield all at once.


No, I am the one claiming that even if this did not apply any more, you CANNOT, I repeat CANNOT repeat a mining ships PvE alike mass scale farming any more. Because now all the mining ships are great, it's not like before tiericide, when they all sucked the more or the less. Now, you nerf Mack, people switch to Retriever for negligible loss in efficiency and hold and you have to harden up and eat your hat.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#322 - 2013-02-16 22:42:44 UTC
GreenSeed wrote:

your OP is baseless, people are telling you that macks die just as easily as before, except now they cost a good 60m extra at wholesale. and they drop better salvage...

the only anomaly is the ungankable, unbumpable 1mn perma mwd skiff, but that has to exist because of events like hulkgeddon, that kill supply and hurt the market, on an economy like the current one, where minerals are no longer "cheap"; both because of reduction of extraction (drone poo nerf) and because of a MASSIVE increase in consumption (the tiercide has been the best stealth nerf to highsec in years, and most people are still oblivious to it.) in this current market, any disruption can and will be harmful. CCP knows the eve market cant be a "lol free market" anymore, so they intervened in it and set a regulation, that regulation is the Skiff. the skiff is the "minimum yield" the market can expect.


if your thread were about how having a "minimum yield" is the equivalent of having a "maximum price" is an economy, and how that could in the long run be harmful, then we could have a conversation.

as it is, your arguments are not even clever.


Now judging by the quality of your post I think its more of a comprehension issue with you. I can't help you there but I'm going to leave this from the OP which makes all of those "words" you posted moot.

Quote:

1. Miners have to fit tanks or they will be ganked.

Directly from the CSM minutes from December 2012 (http://community.eveonline.com/council/transcripts/2012/CSM_CCP_Meetings_December_2012.pdf) "For reasons that are left as an exercise to the reader, Exhumers are now blowing up at historically low rates."

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
#323 - 2013-02-16 22:45:18 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:

CCP had the specific numbers, have the data and how do you know it was not CCP Fozzie who tiericided mining ships?

You want to leave the numbers and data. Yet when CCP did it, you did not like those numbers and data so you want a re-patch made to suit you. That's all.
Incidentally, it's now 3 days I am checking my The Forge system (I remote trade from there) and 3 days out of 3, there was Concord at the ice belt. Clearly no gank is getting done any more!


CCP Ytterbium claimed responsibility for it in a devblog so yes he did do it, I linked it earlier in the thread and I'm not going to rehash it for someone who is deliberately trying to strawman/derail the thread into oblivion.

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

Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#324 - 2013-02-16 23:56:31 UTC
If anything I am helping you. As you see besides 3-4 people, no one else is giving a *BEEP*

And always remember: I earn much more when mining ships explode. More enough that if there'd be an Hulkageddon I'd send ISK to sponsor some of it.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#325 - 2013-02-17 00:25:33 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
You do just fine by yourself like here:
RubyPorto wrote:

Where did I say they should be immovable. Where did I sayall Exhumers should be fragile? The Mack and the Hulk should be because otherwise there is no reason in the world to use a Skiff.


Missed a word there. Kind of an important one. And a Phrase. Kind of an important one too.

Words and Phrases: All of them Matter.

Quote:
[Tippia voice] Which fortunately is the case, because Mackinaw does not provide safety through tank.


The Mackinaw is unprofitable to gank with 3 MLUs. In what way is that not safe from significant sources of risk?
Not-For-Profit ganking is not a significant source of Risk. (Last time I did ::math:: the risk of being ganked at the height of HAG worked out to about 500k ISK/hr assuming something like an average of 1000 miners mining in HS). The risk now is insignificant (as you pointed out, ganks have fallen like a stone).

Quote:
In your long history of crap fittings, that one is one of the most glamorous. Yeah, give up all tank to fit webbers so the one time you had to sneeze or take a pee you get popped by a loner who started laughing 30 minutes earlier when he scanned you.

If you have to pee, dock/POS/cloak up. Just like everyone else has to if they want to stay safe. Or give your friend (who's webbing you) fleet command.


Quote:
No, I am the one claiming that even if this did not apply any more, you CANNOT, I repeat CANNOT repeat a mining ships PvE alike mass scale farming any more. Because now all the mining ships are great, it's not like before tiericide, when they all sucked the more or the less. Now, you nerf Mack, people switch to Retriever for negligible loss in efficiency and hold and you have to harden up and eat your hat.


As I have said before. Many times. I am perfectly fine with a result of people giving up things that matter (yield and cargo) to reduce their chance of loss (Skiff) or to reduce the loss they face (Retriever). I have no problem with that, and Never Have.

My problem is that they don't need to give up anything to use the Mack. Nothing at all. Compared to its equivalent pre-buff (the Cargo Hulk), it has More Cargo, a Higher Yield, and more than enough tank to be unprofitable to gank (thus it's immune to the industrialized ganking required to present miners with some actual risk).

"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

La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#326 - 2013-02-17 01:17:54 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
If anything I am helping you. As you see besides 3-4 people, no one else is giving a *BEEP*

And always remember: I earn much more when mining ships explode. More enough that if there'd be an Hulkageddon I'd send ISK to sponsor some of it.


Oh I know and I appreciate it but I'm not willing to rehash the thing several hundred times over, new points or no points.

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

turmajin
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#327 - 2013-02-17 01:52:52 UTC
Dont you just love a GOON crying because now he /they cant gank a miner in a cheap frig /dessie any more.But may have to use a BC .Why dont they just grow up,and realise the game isnt just for them .Its for thousands upon thoudands of players,each wanting to do different things in game.Ganking will never die in EVE unless they blue everyone,,but now they may have to put a bit of thought into it ,and risk.Strange how Goons are always saying high sec are risk adverse,but then the majority of high sec corps ect ,dont have ship replacement programes do they leaving the player to bear the cost /risk rather than his corp lol.Unlike Goonwaffe ,so whos risk adverse i wonder in the end.The lone player or small corp,or the monalith thats become GSF and CFC ect..With there endless ship replacements .
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#328 - 2013-02-17 02:00:11 UTC
turmajin wrote:
Dont you just love a GOON crying because now he /they cant gank a miner in a cheap frig /dessie any more.But may have to use a BC .Why dont they just grow up,and realise the game isnt just for them .Its for thousands upon thoudands of players,each wanting to do different things in game.Ganking will never die in EVE unless they blue everyone,,but now they may have to put a bit of thought into it ,and risk.Strange how Goons are always saying high sec are risk adverse,but then the majority of high sec corps ect ,dont have ship replacement programes do they leaving the player to bear the cost /risk rather than his corp lol.Unlike Goonwaffe ,so whos risk adverse i wonder in the end.The lone player or small corp,or the monalith thats become
GSF and CFC ect..With there endless ship replacements .


Read the op again you missed important stuff.

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

stoicfaux
#329 - 2013-02-17 02:22:05 UTC
Was the EHP buff given to barges/exhumers to
a) reduce suicide ganking, or
b) to give barges/exhumers more survivability in null as part of CCP's Master Plan to Make Null Minerals and Industry Relevant in Which Commerce Raiding is a Large Component.

In other words, is it correct to only think of the EHP buff in the context of high-sec suicide ganking?

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.

Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
#330 - 2013-02-17 02:22:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Abrazzar
Wasn't the whole point of the suicide ganking nerf back then to make suicide ganking no longer profitable with the few overloaded haulers an exception?
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#331 - 2013-02-17 02:24:07 UTC
stoicfaux wrote:
In other words, is it correct to only think of the EHP buff in the context of high-sec suicide ganking?


Considering all the love an attention given to null, the forum whining, and what went on in that thread it's safe to say it was to directly remove suicide ganking from highsec.

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

NEONOVUS
Mindstar Technology
Goonswarm Federation
#332 - 2013-02-17 02:29:24 UTC
Abrazzar wrote:
Wasn't the whole point of the suicide ganking nerf back then to make suicide ganking no longer profitable with the few overloaded haulers and exception?

Yes.
The idea was to encourage the usage of war decs and such (ignore that you can drop corp)
Actually maybe drop corp was the point.
In CCP's eyes dropping corp is you surrendering so solidly that you give up even your name.
In which case CCP sees it as wai .
Something for a CSM to ask, What does CCP consider victory in a war dec for each side and loss the same.
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#333 - 2013-02-17 02:50:17 UTC
stoicfaux wrote:
In other words, is it correct to only think of the EHP buff in the context of high-sec suicide ganking?


Considering that EHP is largely irrelevant for a mining ship outside of HS, yes.

Rats are best dealt with via active tanking, players are best dealt with by not getting tackled.

Speaking of, Nullsec miners manage to stay at the keyboard when they mine in order to protect their 200m investment. I wonder what lead to HS miners feeling that they shouldn't need to stay at the keyboard when they mine in order to protect their 200m investment?

"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

stoicfaux
#334 - 2013-02-17 02:57:18 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
stoicfaux wrote:
In other words, is it correct to only think of the EHP buff in the context of high-sec suicide ganking?


Considering all the love an attention given to null, the forum whining, and what went on in that thread it's safe to say it was to directly remove suicide ganking from highsec.

Would it be fair to say that suicide ganking in high-sec is a symptom or side-effect of a bigger problem, namely that null is too dependent on high-sec industry and minerals?

Meaning, if we fix the problem of null industry being inferior to high-sec, then we also fix the suicide ganking problem? Where fixing would probably mean people stop caring about high-sec suicide ganking because high-sec mining/industry is "small potatoes" relative to building out a null-sec industrial base. (With the implication that null is too busy attacking/protecting their industrial bases to be bothered about folks clowning around in high-sec.)

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.

La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#335 - 2013-02-17 03:07:15 UTC
stoicfaux wrote:

Would it be fair to say that suicide ganking in high-sec is a symptom or side-effect of a bigger problem, namely that null is too dependent on high-sec industry and minerals?

Meaning, if we fix the problem of null industry being inferior to high-sec, then we also fix the suicide ganking problem? Where fixing would probably mean people stop caring about high-sec suicide ganking because high-sec mining/industry is "small potatoes" relative to building out a null-sec industrial base. (With the implication that null is too busy attacking/protecting their industrial bases to be bothered about folks clowning around in high-sec.)


That's a train of thought I'm not willing to write off so yes I agree with you there that suicide ganking is potentially a symptom of a greater problem. There are always going to be people out there solely to ruin other people's day but like we've seen from the CSM minutes they aren't nearly as common as the forum whiners made them out to be. I think if CCP spent the time they spend currently combating a single play style on fixing problems in non-highsec areas it would make the game better and greatly alleviate the suicide ganking ~problem.~

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
#336 - 2013-02-17 04:02:54 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
turmajin wrote:
Dont you just love a GOON crying because now he /they cant gank a miner in a cheap frig /dessie any more.But may have to use a BC .Why dont they just grow up,and realise the game isnt just for them .Its for thousands upon thoudands of players,each wanting to do different things in game.Ganking will never die in EVE unless they blue everyone,,but now they may have to put a bit of thought into it ,and risk.Strange how Goons are always saying high sec are risk adverse,but then the majority of high sec corps ect ,dont have ship replacement programes do they leaving the player to bear the cost /risk rather than his corp lol.Unlike Goonwaffe ,so whos risk adverse i wonder in the end.The lone player or small corp,or the monalith thats become
GSF and CFC ect..With there endless ship replacements .


Read the op again you missed important stuff.


Just another crazy having a rant about goons because goons. Nothing new there.

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.

Aramatheia
Tiffany and Co.
#337 - 2013-02-17 07:27:30 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:
Aramatheia wrote:
All this on top of the fact that, a mining ship itself cant fight back, and in highsec especially any "protection" must wait untill the attack is started, aka they must wait and let thier barge be destroyed unless the gank fails to have enough dps - and how often does that happen, really?


Sure they can. ECM Drones are likely to screw up a gank.

A 650mm Nado can 2 shot a catalyst in about 4 seconds. A profitable catalyst gank (pre-buff) needed almost all of the ~20s of CONCORD's response time. The nado could kill 4-5 catalysts which is pretty much the entire gank squad for a hulk. You're also free to lock the catalysts before they go GCC, and you have the option of shooting them first in the extremely likely event that they are outlaws.

Plenty of ganks fail. Even more fail to be profitable. The first category isn't visible because they don't show up on killboards (duh). I have not idea why you can't see the second category.


fair enough i have always fitted my mining operations to be quite tanky and unprofitable to gank from the outset, I have never had combat ships watching over me though. I always had to rely on making myself a brick and just too difficult for any casual barge basher to worry about. I also run with a siege booster as well amplifying my already tanky fits. That said i havent mined much lately anyway if i mine i usually manage 2-3 weeks tops before i get bored of it and stop again lol
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#338 - 2013-02-17 07:39:34 UTC
RubyPorto wrote:

Speaking of, Nullsec miners manage to stay at the keyboard when they mine in order to protect their 200m investment. I wonder what lead to HS miners feeling that they shouldn't need to stay at the keyboard when they mine in order to protect their 200m investment?


You wrote the reason. "HS" and the strictly correlated concept of "I won't die and mine basic minerals and accept to earn less because of it". It's a sort of reverse risk and reward: they accept less reward for less risk.

Now don't begin with a tirade on me, I am just reporting someone else's mindset. And no, saying they are wrong is not going to steer a single one of them, they don't even read the forums, ever. Yet they are a majority.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#339 - 2013-02-17 08:02:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
RubyPorto wrote:


Missed a word there. Kind of an important one. And a Phrase. Kind of an important one too.

Words and Phrases: All of them Matter.


Skiff : Mack = Alchemy : Reactions.

Alchemy keeps reactions in check. Skiff is the T2 fallback ship in case Macks start getting killed.
Also, the flying characteristics make Skiff better for more hostile space.


RubyPorto wrote:

The Mackinaw is unprofitable to gank with 3 MLUs. In what way is that not safe from significant sources of risk?


No, that's safe from significant sources of farming. If you want to kill a Mack you can.
I see it happening every day, for the most different reasons, just not for the profitability any more.

Considering a CCP post stated ganking should not happen in those terms (that is, for making ISKs even off the bare hull) then not only you should expect this Mack behavior, but also that other T2 ships will be buffed (and they will) to make farming them not a business any more.

CCP are not stupid. They know that a well organized, huge corp WILL farm the others. In other games, farmed people (usually bads, but does not matter) tend to rapidly unsub and make the game fail. In EvE, since it's one of the few MMOs left still asking for a recurring sub, they are NOT going to let bads unsub to make you e-richer. Because like it or hate it, MMO means "massively multiplayer" and "massively" means "huge loads of people" and the majority are BAD (Sturgeon's Law) yet it's them who bring in the majority of the cash.

You knew this would be nerfed. Many years ago CCP nerfed an ancient corp farming people at the gates by implementing the current Concord. That day, the "I farm others for profit" people should have accepted it or quit EvE.


RubyPorto wrote:

If you have to pee, dock/POS/cloak up. Just like everyone else has to if they want to stay safe. Or give your friend (who's webbing you) fleet command.


"I bought an AFK friendly ship with huge cargo so I can dock at every sneeze and will use one of the two mining slots to fit a cloak". Yeah it seems smart.
What's next? "Fit a MWD on the Mack". Oh wait, it's already been suggested.


RubyPorto wrote:

As I have said before. Many times. I am perfectly fine with a result of people giving up things that matter (yield and cargo) to reduce their chance of loss (Skiff) or to reduce the loss they face (Retriever). I have no problem with that, and Never Have.

My problem is that they don't need to give up anything to use the Mack. Nothing at all. Compared to its equivalent pre-buff (the Cargo Hulk), it has More Cargo, a Higher Yield, and more than enough tank to be unprofitable to gank (thus it's immune to the industrialized ganking required to present miners with some actual risk).


And compared to post-buff Hulk it has less yield, less manouverability and tank than a skiff and more cost than a retriever.

The downsides are here, but - to repeat a post you did not understand and would have saved you pages and pages of posting:

"very simple First Law of the Miner:

"the mining ship with the largest ore hold is the king".

Second Law of the Miner:

"miners will forfeit earning > 20M per hour mining minerals while they'll be glad to AFK mine ice for 5M per hour".

Let me add the Third Law of the Miner:

"I will spend 200M to buy a ship with few percent bigger ore hold than a 30M one because it lets me AFK for 5 minutes longer".


CCP can't fix miners mentality. If stripped of all chances they WILL use a mining laser Iteron, because it got a large cargo hold. You have to forcibly kick every HS miner out of the game before they change.
And they won't change, because the terrible mining mechanic did not change.
4 hours of sitting somewhere silly, just to do what in most other games is achieved by hitting a rock 3 times. That's what creates AFK mining, not the miners.
Make mining a 30 seconds matter with an enforced designed scarcity of minerals and you'll see no AFK miner any more.
Kate stark
#340 - 2013-02-17 09:16:21 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:

Let me add the Third Law of the Miner:

"I will spend 200M to buy a ship with few percent bigger ore hold than a 30M one because it lets me AFK for 5 minutes longer".


i think this is complete crap.
retrievers mine more ore than mackinaws in high sec. clearly, people ARE using 30m ships instead of 200m ships.

also, consider the following; the difference in yield at max skill between the mack and ret means nothing unless you're short cycling with a survey scanner, and i doubt many people do that, especially if they're multiboxing.

Yay, this account hasn't had its signature banned. or its account, if you're reading this.