These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Has Hatred gone too far CCP?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#121 - 2012-06-02 17:53:46 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
So they are not being payed 10m ISK per Hulk anymore? Pretty sure you can buy and fit at least ten Catalysts per Hulk easily. So if the combined suicide ships cost less than 10 million ISK, suicide ganking a Hulk will always be profitable.


The only person who gets the 10mil isk for the Hulk is the person who lands the killing blow, everyone else gets squat. Bringing more people just cuts into already meager profits. Again, it's not a guaranteed deterrent (then again, nothing is once you've undocked), but it goes a long way for the cost of the tank (which is small, esp, compared to the price of a Hulk hull).


I like how you are attempting to spin what I said, but still fail miserably. As long as gankers do not have to spend more than 10 million ISK per gank in total ships and mods, it will be profitable. No amount of bullshit spin that spews from your mouth will change that fact. Unless of course goons stop paying the 100 million ISK per 10 Hulks killed and why would they do that?

In a way it is the same thing as mailbox's requiring most of the material to make being a specific type of steel. It is impossible to salvage anything else or recycle old mailbox's to get the steel. You happen to control one of the very few spots on the planet that has said steel. So you sell those mailbox's for crazy amount of money, $200+ each! Then you turn around hire every hoodlum you can find and pay them $10 for each mailbox they destroy.

The whole thing is extremely entertaining really. Between the complete exaggeration of all high sec dwellers demanding that high sec should be 100% safe to your joke of an argument that fitting a tank on the Hulk will make a real difference.

No possible tank can be fit on a Hulk with enough EHP to force suicide gankers to risk more than they profit. Not with the current game mechanics in combination with the ISK bounties paid out on them. Even with Tengu max shield gang bonuses, it is not enough.

All that said, I do NOT want one bit of high sec to be made safer or more profitable.

Anyways, carry on because I am getting rich off this event. Lol
Josef Djugashvilis
#122 - 2012-06-02 18:06:38 UTC
Ganking 101

Ganking will not end unless the gankers will make a loss.

Even at break even point, gankers would do it for the 'tears'

This is not a signature.
James 315
Experimental Fun Times Corp RELOADED
CODE.
#123 - 2012-06-02 18:12:41 UTC
AllUrIskRBelongToMeToo wrote:
Thats false on all accounts.

Not all miners are botters.

Not all miners are actually afk.

Certainly a large enough percentage to justify getting rid of the whole lot.

MinerBumping.com
Josef Djugashvilis
#124 - 2012-06-02 18:18:43 UTC
James 315 wrote:
AllUrIskRBelongToMeToo wrote:
Thats false on all accounts.

Not all miners are botters.

Not all miners are actually afk.

Certainly a large enough percentage to justify getting rid of the whole lot.



What percentage?

Provide evidence, or failing that, just be honest and say that you simply gank miners because you can.

This is not a signature.
James 315
Experimental Fun Times Corp RELOADED
CODE.
#125 - 2012-06-02 18:22:15 UTC
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
What percentage?

Provide evidence, or failing that, just be honest and say that you simply gank miners because you can.

Well we certainly wouldn't gank miners if we couldn't. Blink

As to your question of percentages, it is common knowledge that botting and going AFK are the norm for miners. If you have evidence to contradict common knowledge, I'd be interested in seeing it. Since extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, the burden of proof rests upon your shoulders. Good luck with that. Lol

MinerBumping.com
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#126 - 2012-06-02 18:25:31 UTC
James 315 wrote:
AllUrIskRBelongToMeToo wrote:
Thats false on all accounts.

Not all miners are botters.

Not all miners are actually afk.

Certainly a large enough percentage to justify getting rid of the whole lot.


Thought you were a Goebels apologist but I see you also learned Stalin.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Degren
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#127 - 2012-06-02 18:27:19 UTC
This subject is boring now.

Hello, hello again.
ashley Eoner
#128 - 2012-06-02 18:31:59 UTC
Richard Desturned wrote:
Denidil wrote:
Step 1: give hulk's much better buffer tanks


yes you can do this by fitting a Damage Control II, Micro Auxiliary Power Core II, Medium F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction, two Adaptive Invulnerability Field IIs, an EM or thermic hardener and two Medium Core Defense Field Extender Is
And you'll still get blown up in an alpha strike even in 1.0 space. thanks try again.
James 315
Experimental Fun Times Corp RELOADED
CODE.
#129 - 2012-06-02 18:35:08 UTC
ashley Eoner wrote:
Richard Desturned wrote:
Denidil wrote:
Step 1: give hulk's much better buffer tanks


yes you can do this by fitting a Damage Control II, Micro Auxiliary Power Core II, Medium F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction, two Adaptive Invulnerability Field IIs, an EM or thermic hardener and two Medium Core Defense Field Extender Is
And you'll still get blown up in an alpha strike even in 1.0 space. thanks try again.

By definition, any ship with a finite number of hitpoints can be killed by an alpha strike, even in the highest security space. Just ask the pilots of all those freighters blown up during Burn Jita. Clearly you would prefer hulks to have infinite hitpoints, since that's the only way you can guarantee invincibility while AFK... Roll

MinerBumping.com
Degren
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#130 - 2012-06-02 18:35:42 UTC
This required a new thread and seven pages of responses.

Hello, hello again.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#131 - 2012-06-02 18:36:09 UTC
ashley Eoner wrote:
And you'll still get blown up in an alpha strike even in 1.0 space. thanks try again.
No, you won't, unless the attackers choose to commit (and unavoidably lose) far more assets to the attack than the victim might lose should the attack succeed.

If “but it can still be alpha:d” is the argument against fitting various tanking mods, then it is also an argument against giving Hulks more buffer, because it's the same thing.

…or are you saying that Hulks should be invulnerable?
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#132 - 2012-06-02 18:37:33 UTC
ashley Eoner wrote:
Richard Desturned wrote:
Denidil wrote:
Step 1: give hulk's much better buffer tanks


yes you can do this by fitting a Damage Control II, Micro Auxiliary Power Core II, Medium F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction, two Adaptive Invulnerability Field IIs, an EM or thermic hardener and two Medium Core Defense Field Extender Is
And you'll still get blown up in an alpha strike even in 1.0 space. thanks try again.

Yeah, even a mega-buffered Abaddon can be alpha'd in 1.0 space. Just because it can be doesn't make it worth doing, though. When you require twice the ships or more than a regular Hulk needs to kill it, the gankers will simply go kill two other Hulks instead of killing you. At that point, your tank worked. And you didn't even have to get shot!

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)
ashley Eoner
#133 - 2012-06-02 18:51:24 UTC
Tippia wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:
And you'll still get blown up in an alpha strike even in 1.0 space. thanks try again.
No, you won't, unless the attackers choose to commit (and unavoidably lose) far more assets to the attack than the victim might lose should the attack succeed.

If “but it can still be alpha:d” is the argument against fitting various tanking mods, then it is also an argument against giving Hulks more buffer, because it's the same thing.

…or are you saying that Hulks should be invulnerable?

In this very thread you have people bragging about having billions in isk to throw away..


I actually had a Talos trying to track me down the other day. He even sent me a mail congratulating me on getting into spacedock before he could suicide my fully tanked hulk...

Tanking will save you from the shmucks but the real gankers won't be slowed a bit by a tank.







Oh wait I forgot all miners are afk so I'm completely making all of this up and now back to not watching my miner not mine..
Josef Djugashvilis
#134 - 2012-06-02 18:53:43 UTC
James 315 wrote:
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
What percentage?

Provide evidence, or failing that, just be honest and say that you simply gank miners because you can.

Well we certainly wouldn't gank miners if we couldn't. Blink

As to your question of percentages, it is common knowledge that botting and going AFK are the norm for miners. If you have evidence to contradict common knowledge, I'd be interested in seeing it. Since extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, the burden of proof rests upon your shoulders. Good luck with that. Lol


It is not 'common knowledge', it is merely the oft stated uninformed opinion of 'some' of the Eve community.

For all I know, in terms of facts, as opposed to opinion, my corp mates may be the only miners in Eve who are not afk whilst mining.

Botting, (except that is bad for our game) I have no thoughts on, as I would not know a botter if I fell over one.Smile

Folk should gank all they want, it is part of the Eve experience.

I just do not understand the need to perpetuate the following 'common sense' foolishness.

It is the miner's fault for not tanking properly. There is no Hulk tank that can survive a well planned gank.

It is the norm for miners to mine afk. It is impossible to know that any given miner is afk.

Botting is the norm for miners. No one, not even CCP have reliable figures on how many botters there are.

I for one, would be really interested to see what would happen if mining was virtually eliminatedSmile

This is not a signature.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#135 - 2012-06-02 18:55:10 UTC
ashley Eoner wrote:
Tanking will save you from the shmucks but the real gankers won't be slowed a bit by a tank.
…and again, by that reasoning, there's no point in giving Hulks more buffer to begin with.
Leto Atraities
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#136 - 2012-06-02 18:59:22 UTC
Tippia wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:
And you'll still get blown up in an alpha strike even in 1.0 space. thanks try again.
No, you won't, unless the attackers choose to commit (and unavoidably lose) far more assets to the attack than the victim might lose should the attack succeed.

If “but it can still be alpha:d” is the argument against fitting various tanking mods, then it is also an argument against giving Hulks more buffer, because it's the same thing.


no it's not against. and you just stated the reason why in your 1st sentence.

if a hulk was given enough pg to fit a large shield extender (example compared to all cruisers that use them) then would anybody be even contemplating to use of a catalyst(s) or thrasher(s)? hell no! it'd be brutix(s) and tornado(s) instead.

and if it really didn't matter if the hulk did get more pg to fit a bigger buffer (in fairness to cruiser fitting wise) then why all the resistance to it?

but you don't have to answer because fairness and balancing is all F'd up in this game. ships look pretty though Big smile
ashley Eoner
#137 - 2012-06-02 19:01:01 UTC  |  Edited by: ashley Eoner
Tippia wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:
Tanking will save you from the shmucks but the real gankers won't be slowed a bit by a tank.
…and again, by that reasoning, there's no point in giving Hulks more buffer to begin with.
That's what I said in the first place? Thanks for coming around?


Give them a real buffer and when people are forced into spending +100m and decent skills to suicide a hulk and you'll see a major difference. Right now a relatively fresh account can easily hop in a destroyer and gank some hulks (if the hulk is tanked then you'd need a few more alts to get the job done).



As for me my hulks are fully tanked and supported by an orca with shield harmonizer. I've debated on using support drones but their effectiveness is debatable at best.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#138 - 2012-06-02 19:04:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Leto Atraities wrote:
if a hulk was given enough pg to fit a large shield extender (example compared to all cruisers that use them) then would anybody be even contemplating to use of a catalyst(s) or thrasher(s)? hell no! it'd be brutix(s) and tornado(s) instead.
Yes, they would, because most likely, the miners would be as reticent to fit a tank as they are now, and they'd still die horribly and come back and ask for more…

You can already make a Hulk completely safe from any kind of destroyer. You can make it safe from a solo Tornado. Hell, with a bit of fidgeting, you can make it safe from two Tornadoes (and with help, as many as three or four).

Quote:
and if it really didn't matter if the hulk did get more pg to fit a bigger buffer (in fairness to cruiser fitting wise) then why all the resistance to it?
Because it's not needed. It can already have that bigger buffer, but for some reason, people refuse to make use of that option. Their choice is not a game design problem or a balancing issue.

ashley Eoner wrote:
That's what I said in the first place?
It rather seemed like you said that the Hulks should have a bigger buffer. I'm saying that following the logic you presented for not fitting one right now means that there is no reason to give them that bigger buffer.

Quote:
Give them a real buffer and when people are forced into spending +100m and decent skills to suicide a hulk and you'll see a major difference.
Again: you can already do this.
Degren
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#139 - 2012-06-02 19:04:21 UTC
ashley Eoner wrote:
Tippia wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:
Tanking will save you from the shmucks but the real gankers won't be slowed a bit by a tank.
…and again, by that reasoning, there's no point in giving Hulks more buffer to begin with.
That's what I said in the first place? Thanks for coming around?


Give them a real buffer and when people are forced into spending +100m and decent skills to suicide a hulk and you'll see a major difference. Right now a relatively fresh account can easily hop in a destroyer and gank some hulks (if the hulk is tanked then you'd need a few more alts to get the job done).


******* christ. "a few more alts" in destroyers can gank anything. Drop it.

Hello, hello again.
James 315
Experimental Fun Times Corp RELOADED
CODE.
#140 - 2012-06-02 19:04:24 UTC
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
It is not 'common knowledge', it is merely the oft stated uninformed opinion of 'some' of the Eve community.

Scare quotes or no, it's common knowledge.

Quote:
It is the miner's fault for not tanking properly. There is no Hulk tank that can survive a well planned gank.

Again, that's true of any ship with a finite number of hitpoints. It's not an excuse for not tanking, and it's certainly not an excuse for demanding a buff to hitpoints--indeed, it's an argument against it, since a "well-planned gank" could still kill buffed hulks.

Quote:
It is the norm for miners to mine afk. It is impossible to know that any given miner is afk.

They admit it. They revel in it. It's a status symbol for them to automate the mining process as much as possible. They think they're "cool" because they watch Netflix while mining.

MinerBumping.com