These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Two serious questions for the "Highsec Carebear"
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#581 - 2012-07-03 17:29:02 UTC
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Wrong, the belt replenishes itself.
…which doesn't make it wrong: the ore is no longer available to the latecomer and he has to try again when the competition reopens the next day. By your logic, sports is not competition because the tournaments and prizes replenishes themselves.

Quote:
Wrong, only if he does advanced sell option.
No, he affects the prices regardless — buy orders get fulfilled, removing them from the board, which activates new prices.

Whether or not there is another miner present in the belt is entirely irrelevant: the ore is gone and latecomers cannot extract it. The first miner got there first and got the prize (same goes for the buy orders he directly sells to).
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#582 - 2012-07-03 17:31:40 UTC
Thor Kerrigan wrote:
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Thor Kerrigan wrote:
I would like to ask two questions to anyone who considers him/herself a "highsec carebear".

So my questions are the following:

1. What exactly is a reasonable amount of risk? In other words, at which point would losing your most expensive ship (NPCs or Players, no matter) result in you going "Yep, I truly deserved to lose that ship and I can only blame myself". Showing emotion - sadness or rage - for such a lose is understandable; such is the nature of the game. So please, an honest response.

2. What exactly is a reasonable amount of profit you should be allowed to make? What is the maximum and the minimum isk/hour that should be available when you perform said activities under you ideal risk/reward ratio you thought of when answering question 1.


--- EDIT 1 --- (after 5 pages) (POST #91) ---

So anyways... 5 pages I there is barely anyone who actually responded to the questions. Is it because the real highsec dwellers simply adapted and are playing the game or because they do not exist?



--- EDIT 2 --- (after 24 pages) (POST #480) ---

I believe the hulk vs suicide ganker topic has been hammered out. Let's keep it to the OP topic please. What I am essentially asking highsec dwellers is :

What, in your opinion, is a proper counter to your "safer PVE" if not suicide ganking or wardeccing.

It easy to call something overpowered or not fair, but what is your idea of fair then? There are many activities in EVE and "getting your killmails" is not the only way to counter something.

I think 100% safety in highsec is not fair while you can still keep supplying isk and items into the economy. It would make highsec income grossly overpowered in regards to other sec regions.


So, after 24 pages the OP finally makes the intent of this thread clear.

In answer to your questions :

1 - NOYB
2 - NOYB

Since this is actually just another thread trying to promote or justify Suicide Ganking of Mining Ships in High Security, the only answer befitting this survey is None Of Your Business.

Now if this thread was actually about a real Suicide Gank, like 1/2 dozen Mercs in Battleships who spend weeks to months tracking a target, using Locator Agents and then scanning said target in system to hot drop and assassinate target in high security, then maybe it would be worth an answer.


If you took the time to read this thread up a little you would see I was trying to avoid the suicide ganking topic, but to your advantage I have decided to overlook the fact you were hasty as this thread has reached 20+ pages.

Let me ask you this though (while we are on the topic); won't nerfing suicide ganking only skew the suicide ganker population towards those who "do it for lols"?

There is 2 types of suicide gankers:

- Those who do it for profit (falls into "honorable" PVP)
- Those who do it for lols (falls into "griefing")

Which group do you think gets nerfed more when the cost increases?


I never advocated for the nerf of suicide ganking. What I advocate is a buff to mining ships pertaining to their defensive attributes to bring them more in balance with the recent buff to Destroyers damage attributes.

Actually, since Hulkagedden is now a constant event and is paying all suicide gankers for mining ships destroyed, you're asking a loaded question.

In my opinion the only 'honorable' suicide gankers are paid Mercs who spend time (days, weeks, months) tracking a target, using locator agents and scanning or camping a station resulting in a stealth hot drop and assassination of target in high security.

'The Plan' | California Eve Players | Proposal - The Endless Battle
Andoria Thara
Fallen Avatars
#583 - 2012-07-03 17:35:44 UTC
DeMichael Crimson wrote:

Wrong, the belt replenishes itself.


From the eve wiki:

Quote:

When you mine an asteroid down, whether it be to a pebble or nothing at all, its ore gets respawned elsewhere in the EVE world. It will regenerate in your own system when it's depleted elsewhere, though due to the mechanics of the regeneration (which I can't go into) it may take a while for the asteroid to resume its former size. There's no rhyme or reason to how quickly it'll respawn; it depends completely on how much ore of that type is mined elsewhere, and where in the respawn order your belt happens to land.


By mining the belt in your system, you could have caused ore to spawn 10 jumps away, that another miner harvests and turns into a catalyst, which then gets sold to a local ganker who ends up blowing you up 2 days later.

And that's what we call the butterfly effect.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#584 - 2012-07-03 17:36:38 UTC
Alaya Carrier wrote:
So, care to list what MMOs are PvE-only? By your definitions, no PvE MMO exist yet they are played by the majority of population.


Most of us don't really care about other games. EVE is the only decent game around.

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.
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#585 - 2012-07-03 17:37:05 UTC
Tippia wrote:
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Wrong, the belt replenishes itself.
…which doesn't make it wrong: the ore is no longer available to the latecomer and he has to try again when the competition reopens the next day. By your logic, sports is not competition because the tournaments and prizes replenishes themselves.

Quote:
Wrong, only if he does advanced sell option.
No, he affects the prices regardless — buy orders get fulfilled, removing them from the board, which activates new prices.

Whether or not there is another miner present in the belt is entirely irrelevant: the ore is gone and latecomers cannot extract it. The first miner got there first and got the prize (same goes for the buy orders he directly sells to).

OMG, you gotta be kidding. Talk about clutching at straws.

If you really think people are going to buy that load of snake oil,

Lol

'The Plan' | California Eve Players | Proposal - The Endless Battle
Thor Kerrigan
Guardians of Asceticism
#586 - 2012-07-03 17:38:20 UTC
DeMichael Crimson wrote:


I never advocated for the nerf of suicide ganking. What I advocate is a buff to mining ships pertaining to their defensive attributes to bring them more in balance with the recent buff to Destroyers damage attributes.

Actually, since Hulkagedden is now a constant event and is paying all suicide gankers for mining ships destroyed, you're asking a loaded question.

In my opinion the only 'honorable' suicide gankers are paid Mercs who spend time (days, weeks, months) tracking a target, using locator agents and scanning or camping a station resulting in a stealth hot drop and assassination of target in high security.


You say buff I say nerf. In the end, suicide ganking is harder to accomplish.

I too look forward to CCP's "buff" to barges but I fear miners will still go for the highest yield ship which will also happens to have the lowest tank.

While I do admire your opinion on "honorable suicide ganking", I doubt hot dropping is possible in highsec, just saying.
Thor Kerrigan
Guardians of Asceticism
#587 - 2012-07-03 17:41:30 UTC
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Tippia wrote:
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Wrong, the belt replenishes itself.
…which doesn't make it wrong: the ore is no longer available to the latecomer and he has to try again when the competition reopens the next day. By your logic, sports is not competition because the tournaments and prizes replenishes themselves.

Quote:
Wrong, only if he does advanced sell option.
No, he affects the prices regardless — buy orders get fulfilled, removing them from the board, which activates new prices.

Whether or not there is another miner present in the belt is entirely irrelevant: the ore is gone and latecomers cannot extract it. The first miner got there first and got the prize (same goes for the buy orders he directly sells to).

OMG, you gotta be kidding. Talk about clutching at straws.

If you really think people are going to buy that load of snake oil,

Lol



Again, I see no actual attempt at refuting the counter arguments presented.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#588 - 2012-07-03 17:42:24 UTC
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Please tell us about how mining is not PvP.


Miner is in system, goes to asteroid belt, mines Ore, takes it to station and refines it. No PvP in that. If there's another Miner in the same belt mining on the exact same asteroid, then that would be considered PvP.

Miner does quick sell of minerals on market. No PvP in that either. The character placing the buy order is the one doing the PvP with others. If the Miner sets his own price with advanced sell option or travels to sell minerals to highest buyer listed in market, then that's PvP.


Miner mining ore in a belt is taking ore out of the belt that another player could mine. That is PvP.

Miner selling minerals on the market affects the price of future minerals on the market. That is PvP.

Wrong, the belt replenishes itself.

Wrong, only if he does advanced sell option.

Guess you missed the parts where I said how mining actually does become PvP. If there's another Miner in the same belt mining on the exact same asteroid, then that would be considered PvP. If the Miner sets his own price with advanced sell option or travels to sell minerals to highest buyer listed in market, then that's PvP.


Yes the belt replenishes. Yes, it is still PvP. There is 23.5 available hours to play the game in a day & the belts only replenish once per day.

Regardless of advanced sell option, it will still affect costs. Even if the miner is doing it by proxy, he is still engaging in PvP within the game world.

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.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#589 - 2012-07-03 17:43:36 UTC
Thor Kerrigan wrote:
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Tippia wrote:
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Wrong, the belt replenishes itself.
…which doesn't make it wrong: the ore is no longer available to the latecomer and he has to try again when the competition reopens the next day. By your logic, sports is not competition because the tournaments and prizes replenishes themselves.

Quote:
Wrong, only if he does advanced sell option.
No, he affects the prices regardless — buy orders get fulfilled, removing them from the board, which activates new prices.

Whether or not there is another miner present in the belt is entirely irrelevant: the ore is gone and latecomers cannot extract it. The first miner got there first and got the prize (same goes for the buy orders he directly sells to).

OMG, you gotta be kidding. Talk about clutching at straws.

If you really think people are going to buy that load of snake oil,

Lol



Again, I see no actual attempt at refuting the counter arguments presented.


It's the usual DMC attitude, but don't mention anything about it because he'll claim it's a personal attack P

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.
Pipa Porto
#590 - 2012-07-03 17:45:16 UTC
DeMichael Crimson wrote:

I never advocated for the nerf of suicide ganking. What I advocate is a buff to mining ships pertaining to their defensive attributes to bring them more in balance with the recent buff to Destroyers damage attributes.

Actually, since Hulkagedden is now a constant event and is paying all suicide gankers for mining ships destroyed, you're asking a loaded question.

In my opinion the only 'honorable' suicide gankers are paid Mercs who spend time (days, weeks, months) tracking a target, using locator agents and scanning or camping a station resulting in a stealth hot drop and assassination of target in high security.


As far as Suicide ganking is concerned, the Dessie buff is the balance to the insurance nerf. You don't get two "balances" for one buff. In addition, you still have at least a half dozen suicide gank nerfs from before that (all the times CONCORD has been sped up, etc.). Which nerf is going to be enough? Because I remember much crow from the miners about the insurance nerf being the last one needed.


Yeah, not everyone roleplays. If you choose to gank like that, have fun. It's not everyone's cuppa.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#591 - 2012-07-03 17:50:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
OMG, you gotta be kidding. Talk about clutching at straws.

If you really think people are going to buy that load of snake oil,
…so you can't argue against it, huh? Unsurprising.

It's not snake oil. It's game mechanics. Please present an argument why the game mechanics do not work the way they do.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#592 - 2012-07-03 18:04:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Tippia wrote:
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
OMG, you gotta be kidding. Talk about clutching at straws.

If you really think people are going to buy that load of snake oil,
…so you can't argue against it, huh? Unsurprising.

It's not snake oil. It's game mechanics. Please present an argument why the game mechanics do not work the way they do.


It seems like you are confronting Backfire effect a lot when you post. Your logic tends to be unassailable on the merits....which is why people try to assail them so hard lol.

I do the same thing, especially when I know I'm right. At some point though Tip (may I call you Tip :) ) you've got to realize that arguing further actually damages your case, because these people will just dig till they get to China (namely, the EVE China Server :) ). It seems like giving up, like conceding , but it isn't.

After a pounding argument where the opposition is reduced to either insults or repeating the same flawed easily dismissed argument, I just declare victory and walk off, knowing deep down (where they can't admit it sadly) they know I made my point.
Rats
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#593 - 2012-07-03 18:05:10 UTC
Don't know why there is still an argument about balance.

CCP are already planning changes to mining ships due to the un balanced nature of the ganking (cost wise), plus a cheap way for douche bags to get their giggles greifing other players.

So CCP seems to agree that its currently un-balanced, changes are coming.

No more argument Lol

Tal

I Fought the Law, and the Law Won... Talon Silverhawk
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#594 - 2012-07-03 18:08:11 UTC
Rats wrote:
Don't know why there is still an argument about balance.

CCP are already planning changes to mining ships due to the un balanced nature of the ganking (cost wise), plus a cheap way for douche bags to get their giggles greifing other players.

So CCP seems to agree that its currently un-balanced, changes are coming.

No more argument Lol

Tal



Not at all, people will still complain after the change because the max yield ships (like the Hulk) will still (like all ships) be gankable. Those of us who say adapt will just say "CCP gave you some tanky mining ships, but you don't want to use them because they aren't hulks".

Nothing less than pvp-proof high sec will satisfy some.
Thor Kerrigan
Guardians of Asceticism
#595 - 2012-07-03 18:09:50 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Tippia wrote:
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
OMG, you gotta be kidding. Talk about clutching at straws.

If you really think people are going to buy that load of snake oil,
…so you can't argue against it, huh? Unsurprising.

It's not snake oil. It's game mechanics. Please present an argument why the game mechanics do not work the way they do.


It seems like you are confronting Backfire effect a lot when you post. Your logic tends to be unassailable on the merits....which is why people try to assail them so hard lol.

I do the same thing, especially when I know I'm right. At some point though Tip (may I call you Tip :) ) you've got to realize that arguing further actually damages your case, because these people will just dig till they get to China (namely, the EVE China Server :) ). It seems like giving up, like conceding , but it isn't.

After a pounding argument where the opposition is reduced to either insults or repeating the same flawed easily dismissed argument, I just declare victory and walk off, knowing deep down (where they can't admit it sadly) they know I made my point.


Wow that was unexpected. Probably the best post of this thread Cool
Cutter Isaacson
DEDSEC SAN FRANCISCO
#596 - 2012-07-03 18:10:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Cutter Isaacson
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
Thor Kerrigan wrote:
Thorn Galen wrote:
Posting in a thread where "Isk per hour" is the only reason people play this game.

I don't.

Nice to make ISK, yes, but if you're making it your bible, your only motive to play this game, then you fail at Eve.


False. I concede it is not the only reason.

Yet you must agree with me that all activities can be looked at from a isk/hour perspective and a balanced game is possible only if the isk/hour - risk/reward scales accordingly.


Posted: 2012.06.30 21:35

Your thread is built upon a lie and false premises.

Your questions are unlikely to have ever produced any usable statistics or data as it fails to take in to account those people who fall partly outside your narrow definitions of a high sec dweller. The reason I say it is based upon a lie is that judging from not only your reaction to certain posters, but your leading questions following on from their responses, that this thread is really a stealth "nerf high sec" whine thread.



And so, after all that, It seems I was right.

(quote taken from page 2 of this thread).

"The truth is usually just an excuse for a lack of imagination." Elim Garak.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#597 - 2012-07-03 18:11:01 UTC
Rats wrote:
CCP are already planning changes to mining ships due to the un balanced nature of the ganking (cost wise), plus a cheap way for douche bags to get their giggles greifing other players.
Yes. Let's look at those balance changes:

A way to mine relatively gank-proof, but with poor yield, much like what you can do now, but built into the ship.
A way to mine at massive yield, but being weak to attack, much like what you can do now, but built into the ship.
A way to mine solo, without a sufficient yield and a sufficient tank, much like what you can do now, but built into the ship.

…so as far as balance goes, it just reinforces what we have but makes it more difficult for the miners not to get the hint. Blink

And anyway, you know people will just go for the max yield and still complain that they explode in new and surprising the same way as always.
Soundwave Plays Diablo
Doomheim
#598 - 2012-07-03 18:18:05 UTC
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Andoria Thara wrote:
If they are pre-aligned, they can insta-warp the second anyone enters the belt. Staying aligned means moving towards a safe spot at 3/4 speed. So unless they aren't paying attention (which happens since mining is boring as @$!*), you won't have a chance to get in range to bump them before they warp off.


If Hulk moves at 3/4 of max speed Orca can't keep up with it. Hulk also runs out of strip miner range in around 5 minutes (max range bonus form Orca's range link).


Nifty trick: use webifiers to slow down your hulks. Fit one or two on each hulk and have them web each other. They'll move so slow they could mine aligned all day and instawarp at the first sign of trouble.

edit: also, deploy ECM drones while you mine. Those will ruin a ganker's day.


Soundwave Plays Diablo wrote:
Also, there is no hulk *debate*. The only chance of survival in a good hulk gank is the chance of an error on the part of the ganker, period. You can pre align all you want, when you get bumped by my "neutral alt", you aint warpin away, you're stayin' and dyin'.


If you're willing to throw away a pair of tornadoes to nuke a well-tanked hulk, sure. If you're doing it with a dessie...see the above part on ECM drones.

There are ways to counter every sort of gank but an alpha strike. The counter to those is to make it too expensive and let them pursue less hardened targets.


It cant happen, that's why they are revamping the mining ships. Dessies are ultra cheap, and a hulk can only carry 5 drones. You can block a single dessie from ganking you, maybe 2. 3 and you're dead, t1 fitted.
Soundwave Plays Diablo
Doomheim
#599 - 2012-07-03 18:19:32 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Rats wrote:
CCP are already planning changes to mining ships due to the un balanced nature of the ganking (cost wise), plus a cheap way for douche bags to get their giggles greifing other players.
Yes. Let's look at those balance changes:

A way to mine relatively gank-proof, but with poor yield, much like what you can do now, but built into the ship.
A way to mine at massive yield, but being weak to attack, much like what you can do now, but built into the ship.
A way to mine solo, without a sufficient yield and a sufficient tank, much like what you can do now, but built into the ship.

…so as far as balance goes, it just reinforces what we have but makes it more difficult for the miners not to get the hint. Blink

And anyway, you know people will just go for the max yield and still complain that they explode in new and surprising the same way as always.


Shitloads of people will use the tanked versions. you just won't hear about them, because they won't be crying.
Thor Kerrigan
Guardians of Asceticism
#600 - 2012-07-03 18:21:38 UTC
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
Cutter Isaacson wrote:
Thor Kerrigan wrote:
Thorn Galen wrote:
Posting in a thread where "Isk per hour" is the only reason people play this game.

I don't.

Nice to make ISK, yes, but if you're making it your bible, your only motive to play this game, then you fail at Eve.


False. I concede it is not the only reason.

Yet you must agree with me that all activities can be looked at from a isk/hour perspective and a balanced game is possible only if the isk/hour - risk/reward scales accordingly.


Posted: 2012.06.30 21:35

Your thread is built upon a lie and false premises.

Your questions are unlikely to have ever produced any usable statistics or data as it fails to take in to account those people who fall partly outside your narrow definitions of a high sec dweller. The reason I say it is based upon a lie is that judging from not only your reaction to certain posters, but your leading questions following on from their responses, that this thread is really a stealth "nerf high sec" whine thread.



And so, after all that, It seems I was right.

(quote taken from page 2 of this thread).


So if for some reason, this discussion leads to more people thinking highsec income is too high it would be automatically a wrong conclusion?

I discuss because I do not claim to know if highsec income is too low, balanced or too high.

You, on the other hand, limit yourself to only 2 out of 3 outcomes.