These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

why does it seem like CCP is castrating high sec content creators

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tisiphone Dira
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#321 - 2016-05-06 11:57:20 UTC
lol people sending mails thanking you for your valiant posting on eve forums? I call bull.

There once was a ganker named tisi

A stunningly beautiful missy

To gank a gross miner

There is nothing finer, cept when they get all pissy
Memphis Baas
#322 - 2016-05-06 12:15:10 UTC
Geronimo McVain wrote:
Without minerals no ships or modules. If you can't make a buck with mining where do you think the minerals will come from?


This is a bit of a tangent to the topic in this thread, but minerals come from reprocessing all the junk loot we keep getting. Couple years ago, CCP actually had to nerf reprocessing loot because nobody was mining anymore, the junk was sufficient.

Nowadays, arguably a little mining is necessary for the economy, but:

1. The desirable ships and modules are actually T2, T3, and various meta and officer loot, so the game requires salvage, moon goo, PI mats, and the rats to keep dropping the good stuff, much more than it requires mining the base minerals.

2. "A little mining is necessary" does not mean it has to be high-sec mining. Null sec players have to grind all sorts of PVE to improve the administrative ratings of their home constellations so that the space is more difficult to take, and with the rich ores in 0.0, a few hours of mining in null can sustain the T1 ship production economy for months.

High sec mining, which is one side of the argument in this thread, is completely unnecessary to the economy. They're arguing about the profitability of mining and the availability of miners as gank targets, when in fact it's a situation similar to lowsec being "empty" (full of pirates, no carebears can be convinced to go there).

Now, if CCP could accomplish making all other high-sec activities completely unnecessary to the economy, easily supplanted by low or null or wormhole activities, then we'd have something.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#323 - 2016-05-06 12:28:54 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:


Actually the Goons were funding CODE, we know differently.


Problem with this argument is code didn't exist back then.


OK lets deal with that one:

http://www.minerbumping.com/2012/12/any-day-now.html

And the first sentence is:

Nearly five months ago, I declared I was taking command of the ice field in Halaima. Since then, my Agents and I have been endlessly threatened and conspired against by our enemies. For some reason, though, the Big Attack never seems to occur.

So July 2012.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#324 - 2016-05-06 12:35:04 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
So in the span of a page we went from 1 destroyer to 2 and now to 4. Is 8 next?


The 3 to four was to show how to make profit by T1 fits proving that your comment was false, not the number needed to kill a Hulk. I stood corrected on the 1 Catalyst, but I knew that this was a fit that was tank and yield that could be ganked by a single catalyst, not an issue for me if you spin it on absolutes, or make a troll comment to try to be smart. Though next thing we will have you saying not making efforts to protect themselves. grammer record and stuck needle and all that...

As for the curse I did mention spped, well missed yet again...

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#325 - 2016-05-06 12:36:23 UTC
Tisiphone Dira wrote:
lol people sending mails thanking you for your valiant posting on eve forums? I call bull.


People have sent me mails saying well done and thanks for standing up on the forums, I had two this week. It is fine taht you do not believe me.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#326 - 2016-05-06 12:40:22 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Dracvlad wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:


Actually the Goons were funding CODE, we know differently.


Problem with this argument is code didn't exist back then.


OK lets deal with that one:

http://www.minerbumping.com/2012/12/any-day-now.html

And the first sentence is:

Nearly five months ago, I declared I was taking command of the ice field in Halaima. Since then, my Agents and I have been endlessly threatened and conspired against by our enemies. For some reason, though, the Big Attack never seems to occur.

So July 2012.


Bat Countrys Ice interdiction, February 2012.

Hulkageddon started in 2009.

Code wasnt a power until after the barge changes when people joined its rank in protest of CCP removing their professions and content.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#327 - 2016-05-06 13:06:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
baltec1 wrote:
Ganks happen, profitable ganks don't.
Sure they do, just not apparently by you because your target selection and attack methods are flawed because you're lazy.

baltec1 wrote:
No you didn't. This is just like when you "saw" people bumping freighters for an hour or when "saw" no freighters making it past the famous choke points.
Yes I did. Feel free to look up the recent orca kill by Manjiro within the last few days on zkb.

At the end of the day you're still banging on about procurers and skiffs as if they are the only barges used, ignoring the fact that by choosing them the pilot is choosing to tank (thus are not untanked), and you're still pretending the only method of pirating people in highsec is ganking and that ganking isn't profitable which is demonstrably false. You are a prime example of the type of player you claim to hate. HTFU.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#328 - 2016-05-06 13:20:29 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Ganks happen, profitable ganks don't.
Sure they do, just not apparently by you because your target selection and attack methods are flawed because you're lazy.

baltec1 wrote:
No you didn't. This is just like when you "saw" people bumping freighters for an hour or when "saw" no freighters making it past the famous choke points.
Yes I did. Feel free to look up the recent orca kill by Manjiro within the last few days on zkb.

At the end of the day you're still banging on about procurers and skiffs as if they are the only barges used, ignoring the fact that by choosing them the pilot is choosing to tank (thus are not untanked), and you're still pretending the only method of pirating people in highsec is ganking and that ganking isn't profitable which is demonstrably false. You are a prime example of the type of player you claim to hate. HTFU.


I have twice now shown you the maths on this, twice I have shown you that its a loss making operation. If there was money to be had we wouldn't be in the situation where code is the only organisation ganking miners.

We also should not be in the situation where CCP are pre fitting our ships for us.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#329 - 2016-05-06 13:33:52 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:


Actually the Goons were funding CODE, we know differently.


Problem with this argument is code didn't exist back then.


OK lets deal with that one:

http://www.minerbumping.com/2012/12/any-day-now.html

And the first sentence is:

Nearly five months ago, I declared I was taking command of the ice field in Halaima. Since then, my Agents and I have been endlessly threatened and conspired against by our enemies. For some reason, though, the Big Attack never seems to occur.

So July 2012.


Bat Countrys Ice interdiction, February 2012.

Hulkageddon started in 2009.

Code wasnt a power until after the barge changes when people joined its rank in protest of CCP removing their professions and content.


Bat County was Goons, hi Endie..., James 315 was is a Goon, do you remember Gobby's screen print of his thefts and how many of the ships including Talos's and Brutix's were called John Maddens whatever.

Hulkageddon was started by a non-Goon, but that matters not.

Code was operating before the buff to tank on mining ships, they were especially active in Gallente and Caldari space and that was linked in with certain top level Goons having lots of Gallente ice. I rather like that as a reason to gank mining ships, to put the price up of Gallente ice.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Geronimo McVain
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#330 - 2016-05-06 13:46:31 UTC
Memphis Baas wrote:
Geronimo McVain wrote:
Without minerals no ships or modules. If you can't make a buck with mining where do you think the minerals will come from?

High sec mining, which is one side of the argument in this thread, is completely unnecessary to the economy. They're arguing about the profitability of mining and the availability of miners as gank targets, when in fact it's a situation similar to lowsec being "empty" (full of pirates, no carebears can be convinced to go there).

Now, if CCP could accomplish making all other high-sec activities completely unnecessary to the economy, easily supplanted by low or null or wormhole activities, then we'd have something.

Just take a look at the economic Report: mining. And have a look which Null/low regions are in the upper tiers: None. Why not? You pointed out yourself that the ores are much better.

Eves strength is, that there is something for everybody. Do you really think that all miners will go to Null/Low or will they just cancel their account? IMHO this would be a fatal step towards a pure shooter and not a living breathing universe with a niche for everybody.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#331 - 2016-05-06 14:04:24 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
I have twice now shown you the maths on this, twice I have shown you that its a loss making operation. If there was money to be had we wouldn't be in the situation where code is the only organisation ganking miners.

We also should not be in the situation where CCP are pre fitting our ships for us.
No you haven't, you simply stated that it's not then pointed at the tankiest mining barges and said "those can't be ganked for profit if they are empty, therefore highsec piracy is dead". People do gank other exhumers and barges for profit and there's other methods of piracy that also work.

Code already aren't the only group that gank miners, there's plenty of independent gankers, code are just the loudest because their entire existence comes from someone complaining about change and refusing to adapt.

We aren't in a situation where CCP fit our ship for us, different ships simply have different base statistics helping them excel at different tasks. The Ares for example has a better ability to point a target while the Taranis has more damage output naturally. It's the same for barges, there's one that naturally has more yield, one that naturally has more capacity and one that naturally has more tank, then you can build whatever you want into that hull. Your entire problem comes down to being upset that if someone chooses a ship that favours tank over yield that they become more difficult to gank. You're sad that there's not enough stupid people for you to be able to fill your boots with gank victims loot. Get better at piracy.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#332 - 2016-05-06 16:14:14 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Tisiphone Dira wrote:
lol people sending mails thanking you for your valiant posting on eve forums? I call bull.


People have sent me mails saying well done and thanks for standing up on the forums, I had two this week. It is fine taht you do not believe me.




Same thing happens to me. Though not as much.





Bring back DEEEEP Space!
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#333 - 2016-05-06 16:20:27 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:


Code was operating before the buff to tank on mining ships, they were especially active in Gallente and Caldari space and that was linked in with certain top level Goons having lots of Gallente ice. I rather like that as a reason to gank mining ships, to put the price up of Gallente ice.


Gal ice got targeted because of the bottleneck in POS operations, not because of anything code may or may not have been up to. These attempts are reworking history isn't going to work any better than your claims that barges were profitable to kill no matter what they fitted.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#334 - 2016-05-06 16:22:04 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
No you haven't, you simply stated that it's not then pointed at the tankiest mining barges and said "those can't be ganked for profit if they are empty, therefore highsec piracy is dead". People do gank other exhumers and barges for profit and there's other methods of piracy that also work.


I used the hulk because not only was that the ship everyone was flying back then but also because it was the ship with the most potential profit.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#335 - 2016-05-06 16:24:19 UTC
Geronimo McVain wrote:

Just take a look at the economic Report: mining. And have a look which Null/low regions are in the upper tiers: None. Why not? You pointed out yourself that the ores are much better.

Eves strength is, that there is something for everybody. Do you really think that all miners will go to Null/Low or will they just cancel their account? IMHO this would be a fatal step towards a pure shooter and not a living breathing universe with a niche for everybody.


EVE grew for a decade while miners were profitable to gank and while jetcan theft operated. Your argument is a hollow one.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#336 - 2016-05-06 16:26:31 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:


Code was operating before the buff to tank on mining ships, they were especially active in Gallente and Caldari space and that was linked in with certain top level Goons having lots of Gallente ice. I rather like that as a reason to gank mining ships, to put the price up of Gallente ice.


Gal ice got targeted because of the bottleneck in POS operations, not because of anything code may or may not have been up to. These attempts are reworking history isn't going to work any better than your claims that barges were profitable to kill no matter what they fitted.


Well that was also because the best Super and the best carrier in terms of DPS were Gallente. And the rumour was that certain Goons had a stockpile, a lot of people had taht view or understanding, of course I don't know if those Goons had a stockpile, but it seemed plausible.

As for your second point, T1 fitted Catalysts for the profit...

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#337 - 2016-05-06 16:39:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
baltec1 wrote:
I used the hulk because not only was that the ship everyone was flying back then but also because it was the ship with the most potential profit.
Where did you use the hulk? An untanked hulk can be killed by what, 2 gankers in 1.5-2m isk catalysts (and much cheaper if built in bulk) and as a T2 fit ice miner will carry a minimum of 10m in modules and upgrades, not to mention that half of the gankers fit will also drop. Hell, a T2 ganker can drop a hulk solo and get 5m from the hulk and 3.5m back from the catalyst quite happily at a cost of about 8m, and that's if you don't even bother shopping around or building your ships.

Not to mention that this is still irrelevant since ships aren't balanced on "their ability to be profitable when ganked empty", and there's a whole array of other ways to commit highsec piracy against miners and profit even more.

Ed: Oh and just so you know, a quick check on osmium tells me that the zealot and the hulk have the same EHP without modules, so since you were using the zealot as the "Oh but this can be ganked" ship, that argument pretty much falls apart when comparing it to the hulk.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#338 - 2016-05-06 17:01:29 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
profitable ganks don't.




That does not mean much unless you somehow manage to prove that the game is supposed to be in a state where ganking is supposed to be profitable. If it's not intended, then piracy, profitable or not is all piracy. Saying it does not happen is also blanketing all the possible stupid fit that can get ganked profitably.

At the end of the day, until someone whose word hold any real weight actaully state if it should be a thing or not, no one can really say if the current or the previous situation is more "normal" than the other.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#339 - 2016-05-06 17:09:21 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
I used the hulk because not only was that the ship everyone was flying back then but also because it was the ship with the most potential profit.
Where did you use the hulk? An untanked hulk can be killed by what, 2 gankers in 1.5-2m isk catalysts (and much cheaper if built in bulk) and as a T2 fit ice miner will carry a minimum of 10m in modules and upgrades, not to mention that half of the gankers fit will also drop. Hell, a T2 ganker can drop a hulk solo and get 5m from the hulk and 3.5m back from the catalyst quite happily at a cost of about 8m, and that's if you don't even bother shopping around or building your ships.

Not to mention that this is still irrelevant since ships aren't balanced on "their ability to be profitable when ganked empty", and there's a whole array of other ways to commit highsec piracy against miners and profit even more.

Ed: Oh and just so you know, a quick check on osmium tells me that the zealot and the hulk have the same EHP without modules, so since you were using the zealot as the "Oh but this can be ganked" ship, that argument pretty much falls apart when comparing it to the hulk.


The hulk got its HP buffed, it was enough to push it out of profitable territory. If you actuly read and retain what people say to you you wouldn't look like an idiot having to have the same basic points made to you time after time after time.


This all boild down you your goal which is perfect safety, protest all you want everything you post shows thats what you want. I am calling for a return to where people fitting the worst possible tank on their ships (aka all cargo expanders and no tank most at all) should be profitable to gank. I am calling for the fitting of the ship to matter and for CCP to not be fitting your ship for you. You can avoid any risk of being profitable to tank simply by fitting a single invuln field or damage control. But here you are, kicking up a stink and deliberately telling lies to stop any chance of that happening because in your book any risk is too much risk and you won't be happy until that risk is gone. You don't give a **** about balance, neither of you do.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#340 - 2016-05-06 17:11:19 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
profitable ganks don't.




That does not mean much unless you somehow manage to prove that the game is supposed to be in a state where ganking is supposed to be profitable. If it's not intended, then piracy, profitable or not is all piracy. Saying it does not happen is also blanketing all the possible stupid fit that can get ganked profitably.

At the end of the day, until someone whose word hold any real weight actaully state if it should be a thing or not, no one can really say if the current or the previous situation is more "normal" than the other.


This thread is about CCP removing content and in this case they have. To me thats not a good thing to be doing, especially given that pvp is the only content mining has.