These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

CCP - promoting AFK mining and botting with the new barges.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#221 - 2012-07-25 20:49:46 UTC
Justin Thyme wrote:
Ganking should have a higher consequence than it does. You blow up a guys ship. And then come back and loot the body while the cops watch. Really.
Removing insurance was a good first step.
It shouldn't ever be impossible to gank someone.
But it should cost you if really need to do it.



hi the consequence will never be "high enough" until suicide ganking somebody automatically forces the cost of their ship + all of your remaining ISK to the wallet of the ~victim~ and then you get permabanned from the game

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
Charles Baker
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#222 - 2012-07-25 20:50:56 UTC
Richard Desturned wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
the difference is, concord is the only defense that high sec miners have. high sec will never have intel on par with alliance intel channels in null, rarely will you have people ready to warp to you in combat ships if you really mess up and get tackled, etc.

there's a difference between "never being ganked" and "requires some effort/drawback to claim the free kill"


balancing the game around the fact that hiseccers refuse to work together and refuse to fit their ships properly is dumb


And balancing it around the fact that Nullseccers can't coordinate their ganks and work as a group, can't fit a ship to do the job properly and demand Barges be nerfed so they can continue their immensely cheap killing spree?
Pipa Porto
#223 - 2012-07-25 20:52:53 UTC
Dave stark wrote:

except a destroyer isn't really comparable to a tank in this analogy. because the tank is radically more expensive and bigger than a digger. see the point? if a destroyer cost 300m and such i really wouldn't bother arguing the point.


An RPG-7 can destroy a Digger in under a second. It costs a lot less than the digger, and it's used up in the process. Just like a catalyst.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#224 - 2012-07-25 20:54:12 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
Dave stark wrote:

except a destroyer isn't really comparable to a tank in this analogy. because the tank is radically more expensive and bigger than a digger. see the point? if a destroyer cost 300m and such i really wouldn't bother arguing the point.


An RPG-7 can destroy a Digger in under a second. It costs a lot less than the digger, and it's used up in the process. Just like a catalyst.



You made me lol, you know why Blink

brb
Toroup
Prometheus Deep Core Mining and Salvage
#225 - 2012-07-25 20:54:45 UTC
Richard Desturned wrote:
Justin Thyme wrote:
Ganking should have a higher consequence than it does. You blow up a guys ship. And then come back and loot the body while the cops watch. Really.
Removing insurance was a good first step.
It shouldn't ever be impossible to gank someone.
But it should cost you if really need to do it.



hi the consequence will never be "high enough" until suicide ganking somebody automatically forces the cost of their ship + all of your remaining ISK to the wallet of the ~victim~ and then you get permabanned from the game



A suicide gank ship should cost as much as the ship that it's ganking. So if you want to spend 300M to fit a gank ship to gank a 300M Hulk, I would call that fair.
Xercodo
Cruor Angelicus
#226 - 2012-07-25 20:56:14 UTC
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
, costumers come and costumers go, and the more crying bitches go the better costumers you get Blink


What's yours? Mine is just a white bed sheet with holes in it

..... All I got on short notice....

The Drake is a Lie
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#227 - 2012-07-25 20:56:43 UTC
Charles Baker wrote:
And balancing it around the fact that Nullseccers can't coordinate their ganks and work as a group, can't fit a ship to do the job properly and demand Barges be nerfed so they can continue their immensely cheap killing spree?


as opposed to demanding that every barge be capable of tanking like a damnation while being capable of getting 5000 m3/minute without any fitting sacrifices?

if you think that we can't coordinate ganks, look at all the freighters we killed during burn jita

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
Pipa Porto
#228 - 2012-07-25 20:57:02 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Fuujin wrote:
On the one hand, I'm against these changes since hisec mining with these ridiculous tanks now redefines "risk-free activity," which to me is antithetical to the design of eve (a risk-filled universe).

Now the balm to this is that with the return of the mining bot (they never really left) to full strength the cost of low ends will plummet. Enjoy your 10-15M per hour grinding existence.


Risk vs. reward.

Low risk = low reward.


Mining in .9 with a Skiff will have 0 risk. How much reward should you get?

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#229 - 2012-07-25 20:57:33 UTC
Toroup wrote:
A suicide gank ship should cost as much as the ship that it's ganking. So if you want to spend 300M to fit a gank ship to gank a 300M Hulk, I would call that fair.


that's a stupid idea because cost isn't a balancing factor in this game, never was

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
Barbara Nichole
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#230 - 2012-07-25 20:58:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Barbara Nichole
Richard Desturned wrote:
Barbara Nichole wrote:
no, the appropriate response as to nerf barges to paper thin so the tiniest cheap combat ship only would have to breath on them hard to for a kill. Roll


the appropriate response was to leave them alone because they're working as intended

"oh, you got blown up by a catalyst? welcome to EVE, fit a tank"

unless you're a hisec miner, of course, because they're the protected class

only if they nerf the way you want them to.. I don't have a problem fitting a tank and no I was not blown up.; I never said I was.. I've been playing longer than you.,so yes I know about tanking thanks.

Doesn't change the fact that your last post about under use was incorrect - retrievers,covetors, and skiffs are under-used so yes they needed attention. their training space was messed up as well.. with the unacceptably high risk values in high sec ccp could either raise values back up in high sec or increase the survival of these ships. They chose the later.


(again with the sec bigotry? Roll) ...or unless you are a cloistered null seccer - because not only do they operate nearly risk free but also they have the high -do nothing- earning power and the bull horn representation on the CSM.

  - remove the cloaked from local; free intel is the real problem, not  "afk" cloaking -

[IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG]
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#231 - 2012-07-25 21:00:16 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Fuujin wrote:
On the one hand, I'm against these changes since hisec mining with these ridiculous tanks now redefines "risk-free activity," which to me is antithetical to the design of eve (a risk-filled universe).

Now the balm to this is that with the return of the mining bot (they never really left) to full strength the cost of low ends will plummet. Enjoy your 10-15M per hour grinding existence.


Risk vs. reward.

Low risk = low reward.


Mining in .9 with a Skiff will have 0 risk. How much reward should you get?



It's not 0 risk, pick enough ships and snipe it with a single shot. Or just start killing haulers, empty haulers, doesn't matter they can't shoot back anyway and you can also do that in a catalyst, gak is just for lols right? -start ganking haulers :p

Lol

brb
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#232 - 2012-07-25 21:00:25 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Fuujin wrote:
On the one hand, I'm against these changes since hisec mining with these ridiculous tanks now redefines "risk-free activity," which to me is antithetical to the design of eve (a risk-filled universe).

Now the balm to this is that with the return of the mining bot (they never really left) to full strength the cost of low ends will plummet. Enjoy your 10-15M per hour grinding existence.


Risk vs. reward.

Low risk = low reward.


Mining in .9 with a Skiff will have 0 risk. How much reward should you get?

So it's been rendered invincible?
Werst Dendenahzees
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#233 - 2012-07-25 21:00:45 UTC
Xercodo wrote:



...except that this is as much a nerf to suicide ganking as the ibis pilot is a contributor to total DPS in a CTA fleet...


You clearly haven't seen the results of our 200 man ibis fleets.
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#234 - 2012-07-25 21:01:10 UTC
Barbara Nichole wrote:
I've been playing longer than you.,so yes I know about tanking thanks.


"i've been playing longer than you" is the eve equivalent of "my regdate"

considering that i've seen '04 players who think that dual-tanked ravens are baller, well, longevity doesn't mean anything there

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
Pipa Porto
#235 - 2012-07-25 21:03:42 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
Richard Desturned wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
... and it was so stupid that CCP implemented mining ships?


and then decided that they should never be ganked ever because, as they have shown through their actions (repeated concord buffs, removal of insurance from concord kills, mining barge HP buff) hisec miners are a protected class


the difference is, concord is the only defense that high sec miners have. high sec will never have intel on par with alliance intel channels in null, rarely will you have people ready to warp to you in combat ships if you really mess up and get tackled, etc.

there's a difference between "never being ganked" and "requires some effort/drawback to claim the free kill"


There's nothing stopping miners from setting up intel channels or organizing defense fleets.

Very few miners in Null have the luxury of a combat fleet on standby, but there's nothing stopping HS miners from setting that up either.

You're complaining that people in nullsec gain advantages from working together. Seriously?

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Toroup
Prometheus Deep Core Mining and Salvage
#236 - 2012-07-25 21:03:49 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Fuujin wrote:
On the one hand, I'm against these changes since hisec mining with these ridiculous tanks now redefines "risk-free activity," which to me is antithetical to the design of eve (a risk-filled universe).

Now the balm to this is that with the return of the mining bot (they never really left) to full strength the cost of low ends will plummet. Enjoy your 10-15M per hour grinding existence.


Risk vs. reward.

Low risk = low reward.


Mining in .9 with a Skiff will have 0 risk. How much reward should you get?


Consumers determine the reward not the producers. I don't mine Trit and then tell you what to pay for it. I mine it and then put it on the market for what people are willing to pay for it. You determine the reward, not me.
Barbara Nichole
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#237 - 2012-07-25 21:03:58 UTC
Richard Desturned wrote:
Barbara Nichole wrote:
I've been playing longer than you.,so yes I know about tanking thanks.


"i've been playing longer than you" is the eve equivalent of "my regdate"

considering that i've seen '04 players who think that dual-tanked ravens are baller, well, longevity doesn't mean anything there


while this is a valid point I was living in null sec when you were in grade school.. and I don't fly ravens... or anything with a "dual tank" attached.

  - remove the cloaked from local; free intel is the real problem, not  "afk" cloaking -

[IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG]
Xercodo
Cruor Angelicus
#238 - 2012-07-25 21:04:42 UTC
Werst Dendenahzees wrote:
Xercodo wrote:



...except that this is as much a nerf to suicide ganking as the ibis pilot is a contributor to total DPS in a CTA fleet...


You clearly haven't seen the results of our 200 man ibis fleets.


I was talking about the single ibis pilot.

Even in your 200 man Ibis fleet the one guy is hardly a difference between 199 Ibises

The Drake is a Lie
Werst Dendenahzees
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#239 - 2012-07-25 21:05:07 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Fuujin wrote:
On the one hand, I'm against these changes since hisec mining with these ridiculous tanks now redefines "risk-free activity," which to me is antithetical to the design of eve (a risk-filled universe).

Now the balm to this is that with the return of the mining bot (they never really left) to full strength the cost of low ends will plummet. Enjoy your 10-15M per hour grinding existence.


Risk vs. reward.

Low risk = low reward.


Mining in .9 with a Skiff will have 0 risk. How much reward should you get?

So it's been rendered invincible?


Well you will need 10+ tornados to destroy one. Unlike a freighter (the other ship that requires this kind of coordination to kill), it can't contain 10 billion isk of loot. Hence, no one is going to pay a billion isk in tornados to kill a 100m isk ship.
Barbara Nichole
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#240 - 2012-07-25 21:06:54 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Fuujin wrote:
On the one hand, I'm against these changes since hisec mining with these ridiculous tanks now redefines "risk-free activity," which to me is antithetical to the design of eve (a risk-filled universe).

Now the balm to this is that with the return of the mining bot (they never really left) to full strength the cost of low ends will plummet. Enjoy your 10-15M per hour grinding existence.


Risk vs. reward.

Low risk = low reward.


Mining in .9 with a Skiff will have 0 risk. How much reward should you get?

So it's been rendered invincible?


no, if this were true no one would ever be able to gank an orca much less a freighter and we know this is not the case.. right?

  - remove the cloaked from local; free intel is the real problem, not  "afk" cloaking -

[IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG]