These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Barge Fairy Tale

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Skippermonkey
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#421 - 2012-07-26 15:52:52 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
Skippermonkey wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
neither. the profitability of suicide ganking in this context has nothing to do with cargo value, stop thinking it does.

Roll

are you really that dumb?


really? because ganking a 17k cargo space hulk for it's cargo means using a ship worth less than about 2-3m even a cheap destroyer would struggle to find profit in the dropped cargo. unless of course there was a source of income from that suicide gank other than the cargo....

I think you need to realise that suiciders gank people FOR MORE THAN ONE REASON AT ONCE

jeez

COME AT ME BRO

I'LL JUST BE DOCKED IN THIS STATION
Dave Stark
#422 - 2012-07-26 15:54:19 UTC
Skippermonkey wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
Skippermonkey wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
neither. the profitability of suicide ganking in this context has nothing to do with cargo value, stop thinking it does.

Roll

are you really that dumb?


really? because ganking a 17k cargo space hulk for it's cargo means using a ship worth less than about 2-3m even a cheap destroyer would struggle to find profit in the dropped cargo. unless of course there was a source of income from that suicide gank other than the cargo....

I think you need to realise that suiciders gank people FOR MORE THAN ONE REASON AT ONCE

jeez


what does people's reasons for ganking have to do with it's profitability? are you really that dumb?
Adrenalinemax
Lap Dancers
Brothers of Tangra
#423 - 2012-07-26 15:57:05 UTC
Arvantis Sauril wrote:
Skippermonkey wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
Skippermonkey wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
yeah because a destroyer destroying a t2 ship worth close to 300m in a matter of seconds is perfectly balanced? ok.
When you stop attributing survivability to ship cost we might take you seriously


a ship destroying another ship who's modules are worth more than the ganker's ship in a matter of seconds is perfectly balanced?

ccp just stated they don't want you suicide ganking for profit, deal with it.

CCP shouldnt be in the business of saying what they do and dont want us to do. Their only responsibility is to maintain a fair and balanced sandbox for us to decide what we should be doing. Profitability of ganks is entirely situational.

Now, i can see how it could be argued that the current 'status quo' is biased against the miner, and as such I am not against changes to the stats of ships miners would use. (they buffed destroyers a bit, so i dont mind a mining barge buff in equal measure)

My problem is the current proposed stats, as they currenty are, pushes the balance far to much the other way.

Also, for all our sakes, stop using the 'my ship is more expensive than yours, you shouldnt be able to kill me' argument, it doesnt wash, this isnt WoW Battlegrounds or diablo3.



100% agree.


If these changes go live, something needs to counterbalance the nigh invulnerability of these mining ships. As others have said, I fear it will have unintended consequences. You devs may be trying to help out the "little guy" but all this will do is make that "little guy's" miner subscription evaporate when their profit sinks to **** as they cannot compete with the hordes of multi account /AFK/ bot miners.


IMO, everything in EVE should be about player interaction, not pushing us all into little pockets of space. Is this game a sandbox or is it a theme park? Is it an economic and space warfare simulator or is it a "farm and stat boost" role playing game?


I propose a heavy tax on all activity in Hi-Sec. Missions, mining, production, everything. I severely doubt the US gov't and all the powerful corporations in the us would allow me to go mining for gold wherever I wanted somewhere in New Jersey and that if I did find something that I wouldn't immediately be pressured/sued/incarcerated into selling the rights to the land or never going near where I found the gold again. Something needs to sustain these empires and Concord, right? If you want to AFK mine, fine, go ahead, but if you do so in Hi-Sec you should net very little if any profit after huge taxes for doing so in Empire space. It is their asteroid after all.


Or just keep segregating us. I made an account last summer, played the game for a month or 2, had almost zero interaction with anyone else, got bored, and quit. I came back last month, and while FW has been fun, and I plan on finding an actual human corp whenever I get some more free time to do so, I am telling you that as someone who cares about gameplay, rewarding those who stubbornly and ignorantly refuse to adhere to the current gameplay is a terrible idea. All you will be left with in a year's time will be mining bots.

I'm pretty sure that isn't working out well for Zynga...



When/IF these changes go live, what is stopping you from ganking ever Exhumer and mining barge in new eden? NOTHING

Nothing has changed, except you won't be able to use a Thrasher anymore, you will need quite a few friends

NOTHING ELSE HAS CHANGED
Istyn
Freight Club
#424 - 2012-07-26 15:57:36 UTC
CCP SOUNDWAVE -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAXqwewejwU&feature=player_embedded#t=1670s

I'LL FORGIVE YOU IF YOU LET ME DO THIS TO MINERS IN STATIONS.

HOP TO IT.
Jed Bobby
Doomheim
#425 - 2012-07-26 15:58:43 UTC
what if they're buffing up ships to introduce super mega huge new death rays and stuff
Xercodo
Cruor Angelicus
#426 - 2012-07-26 15:59:37 UTC
Aryth wrote:
CCP Soundwave wrote:


If I wanted to remove aggression, I'd just shut it off, instead of going through all these hoops to keep it alive. The reality is that suicide ganking is an integral part of the game that I quite like, but every now and then we need to make changes because the current setup doesn't work.


This has swung too far in the other direction. Doubling-Tripple EHP was most likely going to be the sweet spot. Increasing EHP 4-10x or more is hilariously skewed too far.


Wait....where?

You mean on the skiff right?

Cause the hulk didn't gain very much. And the tank is now the skiff's specific role...

The Drake is a Lie
Ditra Vorthran
Caldari Imports and Exports
#427 - 2012-07-26 16:00:10 UTC
Why is it okay for gankers to tell miners that we should bring 'moar tank,' but when miners tell gankers to bring 'moar dps' they're somehow out of line?

"Miners mine so I don't have to." ~Metal Icarus
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
#428 - 2012-07-26 16:01:30 UTC
Dave stark wrote:

i don't disagree on some points; i do think the skiff's ehp is a little overkill. in reality all the hulk needs is enough cpu/pg to fill all of its slots without HAVING to have a fitting mod to fit a tank.



I can't take it anymore - You keep saying that Hulks need to fit 'fitting mods' to survive a Catalyst gank.

This is utter bullcrap and you need to stop repeating it.

Dave Stark- let me introduce you to the Damage Control II.

Damage Control II: meet the Hulk.

Hulk - you now have enough EHP to survive a T2 Catalyst gank with perfect skills in highsec - and you STILL have 1 Low slot, 4 mid slots and two rig slots left to work with.

So dispense with the misinformation, please.
Danny Diamonds
Fabricated Reality
#429 - 2012-07-26 16:02:50 UTC
Ditra Vorthran wrote:
Why is it okay for gankers to tell miners that we should bring 'moar tank,' but when miners tell gankers to bring 'moar dps' they're somehow out of line?


Crazy ideas you have. Logic does not work against the few vocal gankers here in GD.
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#430 - 2012-07-26 16:03:25 UTC
Ditra Vorthran wrote:
Why is it okay for gankers to tell miners that we should bring 'moar tank,' but when miners tell gankers to bring 'moar dps' they're somehow out of line?

Because....uhhh...they're miners? And...MINERS ARE DUMB, OKAY?!

Blink

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
gfldex
#431 - 2012-07-26 16:05:26 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
the modules dropped from an exhumer exceeds the cost of the ship destroying it. is that the same with a freighter?


Well, yes?

If you take all the sand out of the box, only the cat poo will remain.
Pipa Porto
#432 - 2012-07-26 16:05:30 UTC
TheSkeptic wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
Danfen Fenix wrote:
Wait, the dev blog about this has been up for weeks...

Why has the complaining only started now ? Straight


The numbers hit SISI, so we've been shown that all of the Exhumers are getting a massive, free, tank buff.


Marginal tank buff for mining ships just rebalances things after the destroyer damage buff.


Destroyer buff was the counter to insurance nerf. Pre-Crucible, people used Thoraxes which cost less to gank with than T2 Destroyers and put out more DPS.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Pipa Porto
#433 - 2012-07-26 16:08:40 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
Skippermonkey wrote:
Alexzandvar Douglass wrote:
As a Ice miner I welcome the update, as finally CCP recognizes you should have some ability to not instantly die the minute anything shoots you.

All I see is miles upon miles of butthurt, with no end in sight.


Would you pvp in an untanked ship?

Would you run a mission in an untanked ship?

What makes miners so special that they think they dont need to fit a tank?


no because you're intending to go in to a combat situation, tanks are for combat. mining ships are not a combat ship.

that's like saying "would you wear a coat in the middle of summer?" "well the eskimos have to, so why don't you have to?"


EVE is a combat situation. If you didn't bother to bring a gun to the gunfight, whose fault is that?

When the forecast calls for rain and you don't bring an umbrella, whose fault is it that you get wet?

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Xercodo
Cruor Angelicus
#434 - 2012-07-26 16:09:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Xercodo
Herr Wilkus wrote:
Dave stark wrote:

i don't disagree on some points; i do think the skiff's ehp is a little overkill. in reality all the hulk needs is enough cpu/pg to fill all of its slots without HAVING to have a fitting mod to fit a tank.



I can't take it anymore - You keep saying that Hulks need to fit 'fitting mods' to survive a Catalyst gank.

This is utter bullcrap and you need to stop repeating it.

Dave Stark- let me introduce you to the Damage Control II.

Damage Control II: meet the Hulk.

Hulk - you now have enough EHP to survive a T2 Catalyst gank with perfect skills in highsec - and you STILL have 1 Low slot, 4 mid slots and two rig slots left to work with.

So dispense with the misinformation, please.


I think his point is the hulk's inability to fit two MSEs at once without powergrid mods, rigs, and implants.

Edit: correction, hulk can hardly fit one MSE it only has the power grid for fitting two SSEs

EFT says 27,151 EHP for all out tanking buffer.

The Drake is a Lie
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#435 - 2012-07-26 16:09:32 UTC
Ditra Vorthran wrote:
Why is it okay for gankers to tell miners that we should bring 'moar tank,' but when miners tell gankers to bring 'moar dps' they're somehow out of line?


because the miners did nothing for it?

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
Skippermonkey
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#436 - 2012-07-26 16:10:06 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
Skippermonkey wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
Skippermonkey wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
neither. the profitability of suicide ganking in this context has nothing to do with cargo value, stop thinking it does.

Roll

are you really that dumb?


really? because ganking a 17k cargo space hulk for it's cargo means using a ship worth less than about 2-3m even a cheap destroyer would struggle to find profit in the dropped cargo. unless of course there was a source of income from that suicide gank other than the cargo....

I think you need to realise that suiciders gank people FOR MORE THAN ONE REASON AT ONCE

jeez


what does people's reasons for ganking have to do with it's profitability? are you really that dumb?

Reasons to suicide a ship for:
THE LULZ
THE CARGO
THE MODS
THE SALVAGE
THE TEARS
ANNOYING A SHIPTOASTER FROM THE FORUMS

I really dont know what you are trying to argue anymore, other than your expensive ship shouldnt ever die to anything with a lower value?

COME AT ME BRO

I'LL JUST BE DOCKED IN THIS STATION
Dave Stark
#437 - 2012-07-26 16:10:20 UTC
gfldex wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
the modules dropped from an exhumer exceeds the cost of the ship destroying it. is that the same with a freighter?


Well, yes?


i meant modules dropped from ship's fittings, not from ship's cargo.
pussnheels
Viziam
#438 - 2012-07-26 16:11:01 UTC  |  Edited by: pussnheels
Richard Desturned wrote:
pussnheels wrote:
adapt or leave


ahahahaha that's the same advice we gave to the miners, "fit a tank" "try drones that don't mine" "try not going AFK" but they felt entitled to have their max-yield fits AND a damnation-sized tank so they cried to CCP

i didn't asked for your opinion nor do i want your opinion , eventually it will be crybabies and white trash teenagers , the ones your alliance is mostly made of will kill this game ,eventually , now sod off

I do not agree with what you are saying , but i will defend to the death your right to say it...... Voltaire
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#439 - 2012-07-26 16:11:03 UTC
How to properly tank a hulk.

You can increase your EHP by 150% from the base hulk. You just have to give up cargo expanders and the ~15% yield boost from MLUs. Welcome to balance, where you have to choose between productivity and security.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#440 - 2012-07-26 16:12:49 UTC
Dave stark wrote:
Skippermonkey wrote:
Dave stark wrote:
no, you fit your ship to do missions as efficiently as possible. that's the same thing as fitting to mine as efficiently as possible.

i have no problem with hulkaggedon, if you want to gank me i think you're perfectly entitled to do so; provided you actually have to put some effort in to it and not just use ships costing less than the contents of my jetcan. the tears from the gankers about this buff is the fact that they're no longer able to do it in throwaway ships and have to put some kind of investment in to ******* up some one's day. hard life isn't it?


So you are happy that CCP are effectively throwing ship balance out of the window to 'protect' hisec miners?

Of course, i shouldnt really expect people to care about game balance when you just chew on rocks for a living


yeah because a destroyer destroying a t2 ship worth close to 300m in a matter of seconds is perfectly balanced? ok.


yes, it is, if the guy in the 300m ship did nothing to repel that gank

CCP is literally throwing ship balance out the window.

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration