These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

So, Barge Info?

Author
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#401 - 2016-08-23 11:33:08 UTC
Dirty Forum Alt wrote:

Since Marauders can not receive RR in bastion mode - and non-marauders are better if not using bastion mode... I'm guessing they run local tanks.


Im talking about incursion fleets, don't try to muddy the argument by now trying to reference different ships to what you quoted.
Dirty Forum Alt wrote:

You also keep referencing mission ships... But the few missioners who actually do bring RR alts along on their missions get made fun of almost as much as miners who get ganked - because they are "doing it wrong"...


That is in an argument over EHP, not in argument over logi rep amount. Again, stop trying to confuse the two arguments to deliberately try and sow confusion.


Dirty Forum Alt wrote:

As for what PvP gangs do in high-sec... I don't think you'll get any objections from the miners if you use *those* ships as the baseline...

That would be, what.. Anywhere between 150k-500k ehp? Plus RR on top of that?

Yeah, I think they'd be happy with that... Blink


Feel free to show me a 150k-500k ehp svipul.
Dirty Forum Alt
Forum Alts Anonymous
#402 - 2016-08-23 11:38:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Dirty Forum Alt
baltec1 wrote:
Feel free to show me a 150k-500k ehp svipul.

Just as soon as *you* show *me* a 90k ehp svipul.

Because that is *your* number.

Now who is trying to muddy the argument?

RollPRoll


We were talking about *high sec* PvP Ships.

Like this one

The dead swans lay in the stagnant pool. They lay. They rotted. They turned Around occasionally. Bits of flesh dropped off them from Time to time. And sank into the pool's mire. They also smelt a great deal.

Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings (Sussex)

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#403 - 2016-08-23 11:48:28 UTC
Dirty Forum Alt wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Feel free to show me a 150k-500k ehp svipul.

Just as soon as *you* show *me* a 90k ehp svipul.

Because that is *your* number.

Now who is trying to muddy the argument?

RollPRoll


We were talking about *high sec* PvP Ships.

Like this one


Shock horror you decide to go for the most broken ship class in the game, the t3C.

My 90k EHP is based upon heavy assault cruisers, a realistic number. A number that brings the skiff into the same range as mission battleships and marauders.
Dirty Forum Alt
Forum Alts Anonymous
#404 - 2016-08-23 11:54:48 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Dirty Forum Alt wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Feel free to show me a 150k-500k ehp svipul.

Just as soon as *you* show *me* a 90k ehp svipul.

Because that is *your* number.

Now who is trying to muddy the argument?

RollPRoll


We were talking about *high sec* PvP Ships.

Like this one


Shock horror you decide to go for the most broken ship class in the game, the t3C.

My 90k EHP is based upon heavy assault cruisers, a realistic number. A number that brings the skiff into the same range as mission battleships and marauders.

I went for the most common ehp-based ship type used for high sec pvp, since that was your example. Most HACs that the high-sec wardec groups are currently flying seem to be active-repper fit...


And I never disagreed with your comparison to heavy assault cruisers - I merely pointed out that it is silly to compare them to mission ships and marauders, since those ships only survive due to their *active repairs* - not their ehp. You are comparing apples to oranges and saying they are about the same size... Well good for you, but they aren't the same in any other way...

The dead swans lay in the stagnant pool. They lay. They rotted. They turned Around occasionally. Bits of flesh dropped off them from Time to time. And sank into the pool's mire. They also smelt a great deal.

Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings (Sussex)

Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#405 - 2016-08-23 12:05:26 UTC
Dirty Forum Alt wrote:

I went for the most common ehp-based ship type used for high sec pvp, since that was your example.

Are Svipuls more common than buffer T3C amongst the wardeccers?

Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#406 - 2016-08-23 12:07:42 UTC
Dirty Forum Alt wrote:



And I never disagreed with your comparison to heavy assault cruisers - I merely pointed out that it is silly to compare them to mission ships and marauders, since those ships only survive due to their *active repairs* - not their ehp. You are comparing apples to oranges and saying they are about the same size... Well good for you, but they aren't the same in any other way...


They are the same in terms of EHP.

Frankly, if battleships are getting by just fine with 60-80k ehp then the is no reason at all why the skiff will also not get by with 80-90k ehp.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#407 - 2016-08-23 12:10:47 UTC
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Dirty Forum Alt wrote:

I went for the most common ehp-based ship type used for high sec pvp, since that was your example.

Are Svipuls more common than buffer T3C amongst the wardeccers?


Svipuls are more common everywhere, hence why they get called cancer. All of the T3s are horribly overpowered so we should never be basing anything off their stats.
Dirty Forum Alt
Forum Alts Anonymous
#408 - 2016-08-23 12:10:50 UTC
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Dirty Forum Alt wrote:

I went for the most common ehp-based ship type used for high sec pvp, since that was your example.

Are Svipuls more common than buffer T3C amongst the wardeccers?

It depends who you look at.

The more active roaming groups (such as marmite) obviously prefer small, mobile ships - so their top ships tend to be the svipul and garmur at present.

The static camping groups (Vendetta, Archetype, etc) tend to heavily favour their tanky ships - so their #1 choice is the proteus (yes, it even beats out the fast-tackle svipul)

Ironically although the proteus is a close 2nd, P I R A T is shifting towards a slightly more mobile Cynabal setup lately - so that is their preferred ship recently - and probably has somewhere around the 90k ehp that baltec is talking about. But it is the exception, not the rule.

The dead swans lay in the stagnant pool. They lay. They rotted. They turned Around occasionally. Bits of flesh dropped off them from Time to time. And sank into the pool's mire. They also smelt a great deal.

Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings (Sussex)

Dirty Forum Alt
Forum Alts Anonymous
#409 - 2016-08-23 12:11:47 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Dirty Forum Alt wrote:

I went for the most common ehp-based ship type used for high sec pvp, since that was your example.

Are Svipuls more common than buffer T3C amongst the wardeccers?


Svipuls are more common everywhere, hence why they get called cancer. All of the T3s are horribly overpowered so we should never be basing anything off their stats.

The top 10 most used ships for the past 7 days for Vendetta Mercenary Group:

Top Ships

Proteus
Proteus 120
Phobos 89
Stratios 70
Legion 67
Dramiel 44
Loki 40
Machariel 35
Svipul 30
Ishtar 24
Broadsword 15

The dead swans lay in the stagnant pool. They lay. They rotted. They turned Around occasionally. Bits of flesh dropped off them from Time to time. And sank into the pool's mire. They also smelt a great deal.

Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings (Sussex)

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#410 - 2016-08-23 12:17:27 UTC
Dirty Forum Alt wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Dirty Forum Alt wrote:

I went for the most common ehp-based ship type used for high sec pvp, since that was your example.

Are Svipuls more common than buffer T3C amongst the wardeccers?


Svipuls are more common everywhere, hence why they get called cancer. All of the T3s are horribly overpowered so we should never be basing anything off their stats.

The top 10 most used ships for the past 7 days for Vendetta Mercenary Group:

Top Ships

Proteus
Proteus 120
Phobos 89
Stratios 70
Legion 67
Dramiel 44
Loki 40
Machariel 35
Svipul 30
Ishtar 24
Broadsword 15


Shock horror, the jita campers use station camping, over tanked ships.

Moving the goalposts around like this doesn't change anything. An 80k-90k skiff is still on par with mission battleships which get plenty of EHP.
ChromeStriker
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#411 - 2016-08-23 12:22:06 UTC  |  Edited by: ChromeStriker
baltec1 wrote:
An 80k-90k skiff is still on par with mission battleships which get plenty of EHP.


Il confirm that just to stop the stupid argument. why gank a T2 fit skiff when you can blap a deadspace fit mission runner lol

No Worries

Dirty Forum Alt
Forum Alts Anonymous
#412 - 2016-08-23 12:25:14 UTC
ChromeStriker wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
An 80k-90k skiff is still on par with mission battleships which get plenty of EHP.


Il confirm that just to stop the stupid argument. why gank a T2 fit skiff when you can blap a deadspace fit mission runner lol

Ah well that is a philosophical question, and you would have to ask the gankers involved... Be prepared for a sermon P


@ Baltec - I'm not the one moving goal posts around, I'm just throwing your own stupid examples back in your face. If you want the goal-posts to stop moving I'm afraid *you* will need to put them down and stop carrying them around with you. P

The dead swans lay in the stagnant pool. They lay. They rotted. They turned Around occasionally. Bits of flesh dropped off them from Time to time. And sank into the pool's mire. They also smelt a great deal.

Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings (Sussex)

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#413 - 2016-08-23 12:37:38 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Dirty Forum Alt wrote:

@ Baltec - I'm not the one moving goal posts around, I'm just throwing your own stupid examples back in your face. If you want the goal-posts to stop moving I'm afraid *you* will need to put them down and stop carrying them around with you. P



I say give the skiff 80-90k ehp with a t2 fit.

Bears say thats not enough.

I point out its the same as mission battleship have

They say the marauder gets big reps

I say you can get that by fleeting up and using the new logi mack.

They say you cant do that in highsec because nasty people could then attack.

I point out incursion fleets and pvp fleet get by just fine under these mechanics.

You enter and start going on about station campers in max tank t3c.


This is how the convo just went, me answering their concerns and them bringing up more pathetic excuses that everyone else has adapted to. In the end, these people are arguing that they are literally too stupid to fit the skiff for themselves, to cowardly to fly a ship with 80k EHP and too shallow minded to think outside of the fraction of barges that get killed by gankers.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
#414 - 2016-08-23 12:52:53 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Dirty Forum Alt wrote:

@ Baltec - I'm not the one moving goal posts around, I'm just throwing your own stupid examples back in your face. If you want the goal-posts to stop moving I'm afraid *you* will need to put them down and stop carrying them around with you. P



I say give the skiff 80-90k ehp with a t2 fit.

Bears say thats not enough.

I point out its the same as mission battleship have

They say the marauder gets big reps

I say you can get that by fleeting up and using the new logi mack.

They say you cant do that in highsec because nasty people could then attack.

I point out incursion fleets and pvp fleet get by just fine under these mechanics.

You enter and start going on about station campers in max tank t3c.


This is how the convo just went, me answering their concerns and them bringing up more pathetic excuses that everyone else has adapted to. In the end, these people are arguing that they are literally too stupid to fit the skiff for themselves, to cowardly to fly a ship with 80k EHP and too shallow minded to think outside of the fraction of barges that get killed by gankers.


Roll

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

Solecist Project
#415 - 2016-08-23 13:16:26 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Dirty Forum Alt wrote:

@ Baltec - I'm not the one moving goal posts around, I'm just throwing your own stupid examples back in your face. If you want the goal-posts to stop moving I'm afraid *you* will need to put them down and stop carrying them around with you. P



I say give the skiff 80-90k ehp with a t2 fit.

Bears say thats not enough.

I point out its the same as mission battleship have

They say the marauder gets big reps

I say you can get that by fleeting up and using the new logi mack.

They say you cant do that in highsec because nasty people could then attack.

I point out incursion fleets and pvp fleet get by just fine under these mechanics.

You enter and start going on about station campers in max tank t3c.


This is how the convo just went, me answering their concerns and them bringing up more pathetic excuses that everyone else has adapted to. In the end, these people are arguing that they are literally too stupid to fit the skiff for themselves, to cowardly to fly a ship with 80k EHP and too shallow minded to think outside of the fraction of barges that get killed by gankers.


No. Wbat is happening is argueing over details ...
... to make you give up.

Their goal is to make you give up, which to them feels like a win.
The topic itself is completely irrelevant. Has been for a few pages already.

As long as they distract you and keep you from making the proper thread in f&i ...
... they win. But i'm starting to think you don't even want to do that ...
... which makes the whole activity here a co plete waste of time.

You need to up your troll-fu, you are falling for it for days now.
You yourself will appreciate it later on when you just listen to me.

Sorry.

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia

Dirty Forum Alt
Forum Alts Anonymous
#416 - 2016-08-23 13:22:00 UTC
Solecist Project wrote:
No. Wbat is happening is argueing over details ...
... to make you give up.

Their goal is to make you give up, which to them feels like a win.
The topic itself is completely irrelevant. Has been for a few pages already.

As long as they distract you and keep you from making the proper thread in f&i ...
... they win. But i'm starting to think you don't even want to do that ...
... which makes the whole activity here a co plete waste of time.

You need to up your troll-fu, you are falling for it for days now.
You yourself will appreciate it later on when you just listen to me.

Sorry.

You are describing both sides of the discussion sadly - just trolls trolling trolls for the most part at this point...

Yes I shouldn't add to it I suppose... Sometimes it is hard to resist - and I figure a little mild trolling does less damage on threads like this that are already dead, zombified corpses shambling in circles... Good place to get it out of the system. Oops

The dead swans lay in the stagnant pool. They lay. They rotted. They turned Around occasionally. Bits of flesh dropped off them from Time to time. And sank into the pool's mire. They also smelt a great deal.

Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings (Sussex)

Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#417 - 2016-08-23 13:25:13 UTC
Dirty Forum Alt wrote:
Ah well that is a philosophical question, and you would have to ask the gankers involved... Be prepared for a sermon P

@ Baltec - I'm not the one moving goal posts around, I'm just throwing your own stupid examples back in your face. If you want the goal-posts to stop moving I'm afraid *you* will need to put them down and stop carrying them around with you. P

Baltec's examples are fine and on-target; there's nothing to throw back in his face. He (rightly) pointed out that multi-billion-isk ships, often carrying expensive modules, that provide very nice killmails, do just fine avoiding ganks with the EHP allotment they have.

In an ironic twist, you yourself pointed out a massive active tank bonus and inferred that was a reason they don't get ganked as often, when that is not the case. For someone proclaiming stupid examples, you sure are living in a glass house methinks.

But your post also reveals a profound misunderstanding at the issues at play here. Yourself and Dracvlad could do well to sit back and think about what is really going on because you both seemed to have missed the point to such an extent I have to quote Solecist Project's signature quoting Tippia.

Tippia wrote:
That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds.
. I hope I formatted that correctly.

But I'm not here merely to be condescending, I also try to help so I don't have to witness another bout of posting the likes of which you and Dracvlad just subjected us to.

The short and very simple version of a much longer point is this: EHP is the last resort of a miner who is is unaware. If you are aware, you can get away with almost no EHP and never have trouble. If you are unaware, no amount of EHP is ever going to be enough.


You know why mission runners don't get ganked as often? Because they pay attention. It's not active tank, because a cheap batch of Tornadoes disagree with any assertion you thought you had about active tank. It's not even EHP as much as you think (keywords there), because it provides an obstacle you have to overcome, but it can easily be done if you wanted to. Mission runners are actively engaged with the game. That's literally the extent of it.

It's not a mystery or a philosophical debate. It doesn't need a sermon (as you put it). It's just a difference in the way people interact with the game. I'm not even claiming one way or the other is right, "more" right, "correct", "the way devs intended", or somesuch nonsense. It's not even me advocating for Code philosophies, it's merely a fact of the game. Mining is boring.

Miners simply want more EHP as a substitute for paying attention to the game. I don't blame them either. I used to mine. It is terminally boring. But you can't fix bad gameplay mechanics with a bandaid solution like padding EHP to prevent people from having consequences of not engaging with the game. If you can't pay even the most basic attention to the 200-million-isk vessel you field, you don't have any rights to complain about it getting blown up.

Even some miners have asked on the forums for more interactive mining. If there were some way to grant their wish, most of their ganker troubles would literally vanish overnight. Because then they could justify staring at the screen for hours like mission runners or PvPers do, because the game is interacting back with them. And they would be aware. But mining in this game is quite like being a security guard who simply stares at video feed monitors. There's only so much people can take before their attention lapses. And I don't blame them. This wasn't their design. They didn't make this. This isn't their fault..

The blame here is squarely on the mechanics of mining, not on the miners, and not on the gankers either. Both are playing the game equally, and as equals.

Mining needs to be balanced around the yields needed to fuel the economy. That's it. No skill or role bonus should ever substitute a pilot's responsibility to know how the game works or let him isolate himself in a vast, single-shard, fully-PvP MMORPG.

So stop making claims about "moving goalposts". The goalposts aren't being moved. Baltec is pointing out the folly of the EHP argument. EHP isn't the problem; the game mechanics are the problem because they discourage being at the keyboard for stretches of time while your ship is out in space. EHP does, however, become a problem in a game like this if it helps prevent you from being interdictable while not even engaged with the game.

Everyone has to be interdictable. What should separate the wheat from the chaff (am I using that axiom correct? I'm not completely familiar with it) is people's awareness, knowledge of the game & mechanics, and initiative. Having the Great Wall of China as EHP with Concord to cover you, circumvents that and allows behavior that is ultimately detrimental to yourself and your game experience.
Gunrunner1775
Empire Hooligans
#418 - 2016-08-23 13:32:20 UTC
a few flaws in your argument about the skiff compared to battleships / marauders...

the biggest flaw, is those ships have the ability to fight back.....

my current skiff fit = 91k effective hitpoints vs omni tank (but i obviously set it up specific to hybrid tank, so that puts it at roughly 110 k effective hitpoints)..... this is by far less then the tank on my scorpion navy issue has (148k omni / 190k hybrid)

in comparison,. my miner set up for the Rokh class battleship. cranks 83k effective hp omini tank ( 110k hybrid tank) and mines at about 66% of the rate of the skff .... but... it can fight back, and repair itself.....

you can not just compare effective hit points of one ship vs another ship either.... you have to also consider the environment wich those shps will be used and how they will be used, and the offensive nature vs defensive nature of various ships

yes, the rokh can mine... yes, it sucks at mineing...

but, considering the hazards of the environment, that is a preferable option to a nurfed skiff

combat shps / missions ships used offensive weapons and manuverability and various other methods that enhance their defense or offense.... tactics which can not be used in comparison to mineing operations be they solo or small fleet mining operations.

the difference in tactis for both high sec and null sec must also be considered as well

haveing logistics or other combat ships provide overwatch protection is not a viable tactic in high sec, and not a profitable one either

to put it bluntly... no matter what you say or do, no matter how you change the miners in this pass,

no matter how you try and phrase is Baltec1, no matter how you want to provide more "options" for the mining ships...

quite a few miners out there... will ALWAYS choose tank over yield and profits

- nurf the skiff.. and the miners will use battleships... period, its gonna happen, and not a damn thing the gankers can do about it other then wine and cry that they now can no longer gank miners with 1-2 catalysts anymore because the miners are now mining in batleships (hell, most of those T1 battleships are cheaper in price in the T2 Exhumers)
Dirty Forum Alt
Forum Alts Anonymous
#419 - 2016-08-23 13:36:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Dirty Forum Alt
Khan Wrenth wrote:
-Way too long to actually quote all that P-

I think you have missed many of the more subtle elements of the ongoing discussion. That is fair enough, as it has spanned many threads now, this is merely the latest one.

There are more than 2 sides to this discussion, despite what you seem to think - and I'm a lot closer to Baltec's side on this issue than Dracvlad's (ironically enough)...

However Baltec has a tendency to post examples which are either entirely unrelated to the points he is trying to make (as I said, apples and oranges may be the same size, but they aren't the same) - or he tends to simply *make up* statistics to favour his own viewpoint. And I dunno...I enjoy poking holes in such flimsy, ridiculous arguments - even if I agree with his core argument.


I think the primary problem that most people are suffering from here is thinking that this argument is relevant to anything or has any hope of solving anything... None of the sides are even listening to the others, so there is no possible chance of changing anybody's minds here... And CCP isn't reading this **** - they *might* at best skim it briefly just to confirm it is the same old garbage being repeated yet again.

While I do try to remain factually accurate, and unfortunately may have slipped across the line into trolling and used a few weak examples myself here...I think I did better than you give me credit for - if you actually *read* what I wrote, and pay attention. But ultimately this entire argument is, as Solecist stated, a pointless waste of time... The sooner you accept that, the happier you will be P

The dead swans lay in the stagnant pool. They lay. They rotted. They turned Around occasionally. Bits of flesh dropped off them from Time to time. And sank into the pool's mire. They also smelt a great deal.

Paula Nancy Millstone Jennings (Sussex)

Geronimo McVain
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#420 - 2016-08-23 13:48:32 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
They are the same in terms of EHP.

Frankly, if battleships are getting by just fine with 60-80k ehp then the is no reason at all why the skiff will also not get by with 80-90k ehp.

You realise that a BS can shoot back to reduce incoming damage? I have some doubts about exhumers there. And you can show me the trick to find mission ships just using the D-Scan, which doesn't alert the target like combat probes.