These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#61 - 2012-07-26 04:23:45 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Something tells me that unless this thread is locked soon, it will reach fifty pages in half a day. A dev slinging a comment like that is nothing less than the **** storm of the season.


It was inevitable really, suprised ya didn't see it coming really. It will be a shitstorm, a boring one. Suppose you will have fun though, trying to get a troll started.

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne
Pipa Porto
#62 - 2012-07-26 04:24:50 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Zagdul wrote:
Gone are the days where EVE is a dangerous place.

I seem to have missed the part when they made all player ships immune to damage.


That won't happen as long as I'm around, btw.

Suicide ganking wasn't designed to be profitable, it's meant to be an option that let's you punish someone else at your expense. The money you paid for a ship to gank with compared to the money lost by your target was completely off and this change should bring that to a better spot. That said, the numbers can still be adjusted.


Suicide Ganking is only profitable if the Miners don't bother to tank their Hulks. Just like it's only profitable when Freighter Pilots and Industrial Pilots fill their ships with more stuff than their tank can protect.

Didn't you guys learn your lesson about Cost being used as a balancing factor after introducing Titans and Supers?

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Denidil
Cascades Mountain Operatives
#63 - 2012-07-26 04:25:33 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Suicide ganking wasn't designed to be profitable, it's meant to be an option that let's you punish someone else at your expense. The money you paid for a ship to gank with compared to the money lost by your target was completely off and this change should bring that to a better spot. That said, the numbers can still be adjusted.

Tell that to the triple-digit billions I've made from ganking haulers and freighters carrying ungodly amounts of crap without a second though given to defense. I can safely say that I've caused many of those people to quit in anger. But go ahead, "adjust the numbers" if you need help with your mortgage payments.



i think that the fact that it is profitably to suicide haulers above a certain cargo value to ehp ratio was an unintended side effect of suicide ganks being possible - but not an undesirable one.

However the suiciding the hulk was profitable on a cost-of-suicider vs profit-from-building ratio and that was undesirable - especially when the permanent state of war vs mining combined with removal of dronepoo caused a lot of ship value inflation making PvP more costly.

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

The point is, we're not going to stop ganking until you remove aggression in high-sec, which I'm sure you'll do within the next couple of years (it's the only logical conclusion to the gradual progression that's been going on). Until that happens, we'll continue doing what we do, either by using more people, or using different, valid game mechanics. All your actions are reactionary, and are only responses to the need for short-term subscription increases. Face the facts: we know more about this game than a whole lot of people currently in charge of maintaining it, and you guys are really regretting the whole "non-consensual pvp" thing in this here year 2012. If you really want that sub spike, stop beating around the bush with these gradual let-downs, and change the game in one fell swoop. At least that way you'll leave with a bang, and a nice bonus in the bank.



now you're just QQ'ing like a *****.

Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design.
pussnheels
Viziam
#64 - 2012-07-26 04:25:54 UTC
First i resent the fact that you are calling a certain group of players stupid pigs and i will report you for that

Second the new barges are NOT gankproof far from , only difference is that you will need more teamwork to get one down it is a MMO afterall right
and the hulk is unchanged and there always will be miners going for max yield

Thirdly Something had to be done to get people mining again especialy now when you can't mine with your guns anymore

So dear OP take your butthurt whinning somewhere else and accept the fact that there are other people who play different

I do not agree with what you are saying , but i will defend to the death your right to say it...... Voltaire
CCP Soundwave
C C P
C C P Alliance
#65 - 2012-07-26 04:26:29 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Suicide ganking wasn't designed to be profitable, it's meant to be an option that let's you punish someone else at your expense. The money you paid for a ship to gank with compared to the money lost by your target was completely off and this change should bring that to a better spot. That said, the numbers can still be adjusted.

Tell that to the triple-digit billions I've made from ganking haulers and freighters carrying ungodly amounts of crap without a second though given to defense. I can safely say that I've caused many of those people to quit in anger. But go ahead, "adjust the numbers" if you need help with your mortgage payments.

The point is, we're not going to stop ganking until you remove aggression in high-sec, which I'm sure you'll do within the next couple of years (it's the only logical conclusion to the gradual progression that's been going on). Until that happens, we'll continue doing what we do, either by using more people, or using different, valid game mechanics. All your actions are reactionary, and are only responses to the need for short-term subscription increases. Face the facts: we know more about this game than a whole lot of people currently in charge of maintaining it, and you guys are really regretting the whole "non-consensual pvp" thing in this here year 2012. If you really want that sub spike, stop beating around the bush with these gradual let-downs, and change the game in one fell swoop. At least that way you'll leave with a bang, and a nice bonus in the bank.


I don't want you to stop ganking nor am I going to remove aggression in high sec vOv
Zagdul
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#66 - 2012-07-26 04:27:08 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Zagdul wrote:
Gone are the days where EVE is a dangerous place.

I seem to have missed the part when they made all player ships immune to damage.


That won't happen as long as I'm around, btw.

Suicide ganking wasn't designed to be profitable, it's meant to be an option that let's you punish someone else at your expense. The money you paid for a ship to gank with compared to the money lost by your target was completely off and this change should bring that to a better spot. That said, the numbers can still be adjusted.


It's all good dude. Minerals for my supercap armada will be dirt cheap now.

I thank you for these changes. Gone are the days of expensive titans and super carriers!

Dual Pane idea: Click!

CCP Please Implement
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#67 - 2012-07-26 04:27:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Destiny Corrupted
Also, I just thought of something. If suicide-ganking wasn't meant to be profitable, wouldn't it make more sense to simply remove T2 salvage from exhumer wrecks, instead of giving them more EHP than the average armor-buffer T3 pvp fit?

Denidil wrote:
now you're just QQ'ing like a *****.

So you equate my promise that I will adapt to these changes and continue my activities to whining? Way to grasp at straws, little buddy.

CCP Soundwave wrote:
I don't want you to stop ganking nor am I going to remove aggression in high sec vOv

You most definitely will if marketing tells you to.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Herr Hammer Draken
#68 - 2012-07-26 04:34:54 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Also, I just thought of something. If suicide-ganking wasn't meant to be profitable, wouldn't it make more sense to simply remove T2 salvage from exhumer wrecks, instead of giving them more EHP than the average armor-buffer T3 pvp fit?

Denidil wrote:
now you're just QQ'ing like a *****.

So you equate my promise that I will adapt to these changes and continue my activities to whining? Way to grasp at straws, little buddy.

CCP Soundwave wrote:
I don't want you to stop ganking nor am I going to remove aggression in high sec vOv

You most definitely will if marketing tells you to.


No because you are only looking at this from one perspective that of the ganker.

Herr Hammer Draken "The Amarr Prophet"
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#69 - 2012-07-26 04:36:34 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Zagdul wrote:
Gone are the days where EVE is a dangerous place.

I seem to have missed the part when they made all player ships immune to damage.


That won't happen as long as I'm around, btw.

Suicide ganking wasn't designed to be profitable, it's meant to be an option that let's you punish someone else at your expense. The money you paid for a ship to gank with compared to the money lost by your target was completely off and this change should bring that to a better spot. That said, the numbers can still be adjusted.


What about punishing people who fit poorly? This suicide ganking ship:ship ratio is only off because people refuse to change. This is a social problem not a balance problem.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#70 - 2012-07-26 04:36:37 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Denidil wrote:
now you're just QQ'ing like a *****.

So you equate my promise that I will adapt to these changes and continue my activities to whining? Way to grasp at straws, little buddy.

CCP Soundwave wrote:
I don't want you to stop ganking nor am I going to remove aggression in high sec vOv

You most definitely will if marketing tells you to.

Maybe someone else will do it instead.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#71 - 2012-07-26 04:37:40 UTC
Herr Hammer Draken wrote:
No because you are only looking at this from one perspective that of the ganker.

You're making a very large assumption right there.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#72 - 2012-07-26 04:37:56 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Zagdul wrote:
Gone are the days where EVE is a dangerous place.

I seem to have missed the part when they made all player ships immune to damage.


That won't happen as long as I'm around, btw.

Suicide ganking wasn't designed to be profitable, it's meant to be an option that let's you punish someone else at your expense. The money you paid for a ship to gank with compared to the money lost by your target was completely off and this change should bring that to a better spot. That said, the numbers can still be adjusted.


What about punishing people who fit poorly? This suicide ganking ship:ship ratio is only off because people refuse to change. This is a social problem not a balance problem.

Using the balancing tool to compensate for a social problem is the way to go when you can put in the numbers but can't change the way people think/behave.

Unless you want to try "re-educating" them..

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
CCP Soundwave
C C P
C C P Alliance
#73 - 2012-07-26 04:38:00 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Also, I just thought of something. If suicide-ganking wasn't meant to be profitable, wouldn't it make more sense to simply remove T2 salvage from exhumer wrecks, instead of giving them more EHP than the average armor-buffer T3 pvp fit?

Denidil wrote:
now you're just QQ'ing like a *****.

So you equate my promise that I will adapt to these changes and continue my activities to whining? Way to grasp at straws, little buddy.

CCP Soundwave wrote:
I don't want you to stop ganking nor am I going to remove aggression in high sec vOv

You most definitely will if marketing tells you to.


rofl
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#74 - 2012-07-26 04:38:40 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
Didn't you guys learn your lesson about Cost being used as a balancing factor after introducing Titans and Supers?


This needs to be emphasized. Cost should never be used as a balancing factor.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#75 - 2012-07-26 04:40:43 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Zagdul wrote:
Gone are the days where EVE is a dangerous place.

I seem to have missed the part when they made all player ships immune to damage.


That won't happen as long as I'm around, btw.

Suicide ganking wasn't designed to be profitable, it's meant to be an option that let's you punish someone else at your expense. The money you paid for a ship to gank with compared to the money lost by your target was completely off and this change should bring that to a better spot. That said, the numbers can still be adjusted.


What about punishing people who fit poorly? This suicide ganking ship:ship ratio is only off because people refuse to change. This is a social problem not a balance problem.

Using the balancing tool to compensate for a social problem is the way to go when you can put in the numbers but can't change the way people think/behave.

Unless you want to try "re-educating" them..


Education is a good thing a simple fitting tutorial or mission involving some fitting choices would good. At least its something different from shooting red crosses with 0 risk involved.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#76 - 2012-07-26 04:41:40 UTC
nobody suicide ganks hulks for a profit, it's for sport

but "suicide ganking shouldn't be profitable" is a bit of a newsflash when the game has these ship/cargo scanner boondongles that allow you to find officer-fit vexors carrying titan bpos

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#77 - 2012-07-26 04:42:19 UTC
Suqq Madiq wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
Suqq Madiq wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
I'm saying they don't need a tank buff because they're fine as they are.


Clearly they aren't fine as they are or CCP wouldn't be devoting their time to re-balancing them. I know, I know, you and your ilk are far better equipped to determine what CCP should be devoting their time to than the people who actually run the company, but you're just regurgitating the same tired rhetoric over and over at this point. Don't you get tired of being wrong all the time?



Wow remember Incarna just because CCP does something doesn't mean its the right thing to do.


Given the choice between you and your ilk determining ship redesigns or CCP taking on that role I think it's pretty obvious who the level-headed among us would choose.

Protip: It isn't you.


It certainly isn't npc alts either. Which alliance were you in that we killed?

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Zagdul
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#78 - 2012-07-26 04:43:38 UTC
I mean... Hulks probably could have used a little more powergrid and CPU. Fitting those things was rough.

But this... this is comically overboard.

With the increased hull/shield/armor and these new fangdangled ore holds, will the cost to produce them also increase? I mean, their mass must have gone up with all this additional weight meaning more materials should be needed to produce them. The new bonuses must have added new sensory arrays to give them such awesome mining power.

Actually... no.. keep em cheap. I want another titan or 10.

Dual Pane idea: Click!

CCP Please Implement
Pipa Porto
#79 - 2012-07-26 04:44:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Pipa Porto
CCP Soundwave wrote:
I don't want you to stop ganking nor am I going to remove aggression in high sec vOv


You got the Insurance Nerf.
You got the Suddenly CONCORD fix to aggro kiting.
You got the wardec changes that Dramatically favor the defenders.
You got the proposed Crimewatch changes that make it essentially impossible to loot the cargo of a ganked Freighter.
You got the proposed Crimewatch changes that were originally going to allow RR with CONCORD protection.

It all paints a picture, no matter what your stated objectives are.

Hulks can be fit such that they are not profitable to gank right now. The others need roles to fill, but if one ship's going to have the role of Tankey Miner, why are they all getting buffs that take away from that role bonus?

To fit the roles, the Skiff should have a great Tank, a middling Yield, and a smallish Cargo.
The Mackinaw should have a small Tank, a middling Yield, and a Great Cargo.
The Hulk should have a small Tank, a Great Yield, and a smallish Cargo.

You're giving the Skiff an insane Tank, a middling Yield, and a very good Cargo.
The Mackinaw a great Tank, a middling Yield, and a Great Cargo.
The Hulk a great Tank, a Great Yield, and a smallish Cargo.

When the Mack can have ~60k EHP, why bother with the Skiff?
When the Hulk can have ~45k EHP, why bother with the Skiff?

35k EHP is already unprofitable to Gank. The Extra 10k will remove Exhumer ganking entirely.


Oh, and the other 2 Exhumers with max MLUs should be able to out-mine a 0 MLU Hulk. Otherwise people are going to keep using the Hulk and tanking it (probably badly).

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
#80 - 2012-07-26 04:44:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Herr Wilkus
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Zagdul wrote:
Gone are the days where EVE is a dangerous place.

I seem to have missed the part when they made all player ships immune to damage.


That won't happen as long as I'm around, btw.

Suicide ganking wasn't designed to be profitable, it's meant to be an option that let's you punish someone else at your expense. The money you paid for a ship to gank with compared to the money lost by your target was completely off and this change should bring that to a better spot. That said, the numbers can still be adjusted.


First: Its a bit disingenuous to say, "Shrug, they aren't immune, you can still attack them, high-sec aggression still exists..."
Straw man, yeah? Gankers aren't disputing the 'possiblility' to shoot these new Exhumers.

After all, one can take a potshot at the Chribbas Veldnaught with a Tornado.
That doesn't mean (sane) people are going to participate in the activity......

Second, remember - three pigs. Don't balance based on the pigs making the bad/greedy choices.

Lets see, a Well-tanked Hulk in 0.8 Space requires at least 3 T2 Tornados to take down.
Thats 300M ISK in Tornados spent to kill 300M ISK in Hulk. Seems balanced (if you insist on balancing that way...)

A badly tanked Hulk, on the other hand, requires one T2 Tornado to destroy. Thats 100M ISK to kill a 300M ISK ship. Consider it a penalty for failure to fit, orbit - or simply failure to pay attention.

And really, ganking Exhumers in Tornados actually stopped 'being profitable' when the Boomerang was nerfed. Since then, Its always been a net loss.

Catalysts, being destroyers, are a different animal, but they only thrive in 'low' high sec. They become massively inefficient above 0.7 space.

If relative ISK loses between ganker and gankee are the balancing factor, at least consider what the current capability of the Exhumers ARE - not pigs building their houses out of Straw or Sticks....'