EVE General Discussion

you're still working from a flawed basis.

a similar question would be to ask 'how many f1 vehicles have won a rally race?' or 'how many rally cars have won a f1 race?' it's a case of apples and oranges that doesn't resolve the way it appears you believe it should.

if taken purely as a case of function, then the mining barges were never intended to be suitable to run level 4 missions. the reverse is also true, your tengu was never meant to ice mine, and would do a **** poor job of it if pushed into such a service.

the point that is also being regularly missed in these discussions is whether you would 'afk mission' in said tengu, as compared to 'afk mining' in an exhumer.

the suggestion of providing such ships with ungankable tanks is really a strawman to reinforce your beliefs that risk vs reward is unbalanced. perhaps if all mining activities required agents and missioning type instanced space/ time frames to achieve the same isk gains you'd be happier, rather than being as openly discoverable (asteroid/ice belts easily warped to) as they are right now.

Apostle, alot of time they offer prizes and rewards for the kills. So yes they get concorded but with prizes and money from rewards, thay can actually make isk with this event. Like it can be easier to suicide gank. Plus maybe goons will offer bounties like they do now. So there is no penalty for a suicide gank. Insurance plus bounties for a kill = carebear suicide ganking festival.

errr... I'm responding to a pretty broad claim that miners have "similar" tanks thus making them "equal" targets. I totally refute that as even a suggestion let alone as a fact.

L4 missions are ridiculously easy and high reward v risk compared to mining reward v risk - under current mechanics and under current "gank popularity".

Miners are expected to stfu if ganked but a mission runner says "please don't touch the mechanic" knowing full well that the likelihood of a successful gank against a mission vessel VERSUS the likelihood of a Hulk gank is virtually nil.

The vast majority of effective mission running fits are paper thin active tanks using specific resists. They are mostly trivial to gank.
It just takes a litte more effort to find them than juicy miners at warpable asteroid / ice belts.

A Hulk can be a tough cookie to crack, and EHP wise can easily be more than a match for most mission ships.

No. 50 possible miners that are just as likely to be something else. 300 possible high traffic kills that might be god-knows-what. 153 possible mission ships that could be just about anything.
Not really, no. Or, rather, if you want to make those kinds of assumptions, then you need to have some basis for them, and that's the whole problem here: you don't. You're begging the question.

Your assumption is that the mining system kills are mainly ganks (never mind that this is not part of the campaign area) because you assume that miners are always being ganked a lot more than the mission runners (never mind that mission runners have always been highly valued targets for ganks), and based on that assumption, you say that kills in mining systems must be miner-ganks, whereas kills in mission systems must be something else, and this somehow proves that your assumption is correct…

…except that it's entirely circular.
No, they are probably just people passing through those systems, because the whole region is a high-traffic area and these systems, while not as huge transport nodes as Uedama, still sit right in the pipeline between some major (and minor) trading hubs.

The one thing that points towards (some of) them being miner ganks is that these systems have unusually high amounts of pod kills — 10–15% as opposed to 0 — which just screams “bot kill”… but then again, we're not really talking about miners at that point.
No, it's not at all a high likelihood of that. Those are still just your assumption that miners are being unproportionally targeted compared to other far more lucrative targets (targets who, unlike miners, have a long history of consistently and continuously being targeted without the need for any special player-driven events going on).

Well, I think it is perfectly reasonable to allow exhumers to fit a mission specific tank.

I mean, some of those Omber roids can get pretty frisky this time of year.



Maybe some thermal resists for all the Ice miners?


IT'S ONLY FAIR.

Not true lady. According to our resident experts, Hulks started off with equal tank as a mission BS.

As we've progressed our Hulks now have better tanks than a mission battleship so nope, no change needed.

You can advise Mittens to stand down. No cause for alarm.

Yep. Said this. A mining vessel should NEVER, EVER, EVER, be fitted as a mining vessel.

And ego. Me?

If I was worried about "ego" "likes" and "popularity" I'd post like all the "cool guys".

I post to BE controversial (hence I use my name because I KNOW it will get a good smacking around). There's been way too much kiss, kiss on the status quo from a very few posters around here. If we ALL agreed on every point we wouldn't actually need a forum would we? We could use a Valentine site instead.

Psst.... I DID say a while back that I am on the fence on this. I quoted a comment by Mittani and said "discuss". I am curious if it would have the ramifications *I* think it will have.

tbh: I'm yet to be convinced ANY post in this thread is conclusive - INCLUDING my own.

No, it's not particularly fair, because you have no idea how many of those kills are miners.
Maybe if we were talking about newbies in L1 missions. These are L4 mission hubs, so no, that's not particularly likely.
Why is that needed?

They're your implications assumptions, not mine, and they're still begging the question.
Yes. L4s are among the most risk-free things you can do in EVE, and by the time you can do them, you know how to stay alive against classic NPCs (to say nothing of using guides to keep you even more safe).