EVE General Discussion

One question... is it possible to buff Concord any further without causing them to kill the attacker's ship before his guns have fired?

Where did I say there were Ice Belts in .9 or 1.0 systems? Good try.

Where were you telling miners to ?

Because now that Macks are unprofitable to gank without any sacrifice for the tank, what adaptions do you propose would allow profitable ganking?

Almost 10 years is a pretty good ride, but "All good things..."

Looks like ninja-salvaging is finally done, if I understand the Crimewatch devblog correctly, anyway.

No, he wouldn't tell miners to do that.
He LIKES his totally risk-free, effort-free ISK in his unbalanced Mackinaw.

Not convinced that guys that don't mine and live in 0.0 alliances should even be talking about mining in highsec., but meh, keeps 'em off the streets.

But there's one thing I am kinda confused on. I'll start by saying I have mined in 0.0, in WH's (ninja style and POS'd up). I've mined in lowsec. I've also mined in highsec.

And I made absolute bucketloads mining ABC in 0.0 and WH's. I'm calling a lot of this dumbing down of the reality (to a miner) of the money to be made there as BS. It's all relative.

For me, highsec was simply where I mined when I was doing RL dev work.

Even then, regardless of where I was, I never "tanked for the gank" in ANY of the systems apart from rat tank. The threat of the gank to me was a NON-ISSUE - BECAUSE it was as good as fait accompli...

i.e.

1) pesky annoying destro gank attempts were exactly that and my rat tank held.
2) serious, "you're gonna die" ganks were untankable anyway so it was moot to tank.

It's the bit you NON-MINERS haven't got yet. For many it has nothing to do with stupidity but an acceptance of the inevitable as it was "back then". Tanking was irrelevant for MOST situations, period. It was risk-managment versus efficiency.

The ONLY decent tank worth bothering with was faction fit and that MADE me a target. Think about it.

All this waffle about stupid miners, tanks, bla bla, is faffing into a stiff north wind.

And if CCP said they buffed to "help stupid miners" then you make sure you remember the threats that were made BY MANY that the greed and stupidity of gankers was GOING TO BITE THEM. It all came true. You were told. You were warned. You persisted. You lost. Deal with it.


And let's get couple of very significant points ABSOLUTELY CLEAR.

If gankability is now limiting YOUR profits - just remember that TANKING was limiting THEIRS.

And if EVERY single miner HAD suddenly followed your advice THEN AND NOW, they would STILL be gankable and it would STILL be UNPROFITABLE - THEN AND NOW.

The whole topic is just pissing in the wind.

If you were SERIOUS about being nice to miners to "save them from themselves", **** off out of highsec, stop whining and fight somebody that can fight back.

And if losing CHEAP ships (because of low mineral proices) removes the "thrill" for yáll - gank with a Loki ffs.

If I want a brick armour tank, I have to sacrifice speed, agility & dps.
If I want heavy dps, I have to sacrifice speed, agility & tank.
If I want a fast nano ship, I have to sacrifice tank & dps.
If I want to mine in complete safety, all I have to do is fill my low slots with mining yield mods, warp to ice belt then go afk for an hour. There is no sacrifice there which happens to be one of the core principals of EVE.

The entire argument that you ganked BECAUSE they didn't tank is void.

If they HAD tanked >>>> GANKING WOULD HAVE BEEN UNPROFITABLE.
They didn't - CCP changed it all up >>>> GANKING IS STILL UNPROFITABLE.

All the whining is because CCP took away THE LAZY GANKER way of killing THE LAZY MINER.

If LAZY MINER wasn't LAZY, LAZY GANKER couldn't be LAZY either....

You CAN still gank them.

Just stop being so damn LAZY about it.

He's a MINER ya knob.

If I was a SOLDIER I would EXPECT to wear a helmet and carry a gun because I might get killed.
If I was a POLICEMAN I would EXPECT to wear a vest and carry a gun because I might get killed.
If I was SAILOR I would EXPECT to wear a lifejacket and an EPIRB because I might drown.

If I was a MINER, I'd try wearing a bloody HARDHAT.

And even if I WAS given a HARDHAT, a life jacket, a vest, an EPIRB and 3 guns, I'm STILL dead if the mine blows up.

So I go in with my biggest tractor and jackhammer and I mine like crazy and GTFO as fast as possible because THAT'S WHAT MINERS DO.

They're MINERS and the EXPECTATION of risk isn't there. You're applying a "gaming mechanic" in an UNREALISTIC scenario.

As a MINER my greatest risk SHOULD be having an asteroid BLOW UP IN MY FACE. Except they don't.

Now that WOULD make a miner TANK because it would be EXPECTED - IN HIS LINE OF WORK.

MINING ITSELF must be dangerous if you want behavourial change - getting ganked by some sad and lonely fatboy is just well, odd.

What a load of bull-****.
It shows that you really know nothing about how ganking works. I mean, 'only tank worth fitting is faction?' LOL.

Tanking was NEVER irrelevant.
Gankers generally scan their targets. If you are heavily tanked, they go for softer targets.

The success of an Exhumer tank isn't measured in 'ganks survived' - its measured in the number of ganks that were never attempted. Generally if the gank attempt occurs, it meant you were dead because they already did the math.

A stronger tank meant the gankers did the combat math, it didn't work out, and the gankers left you alone.
Hint: there are ALWAYS softer targets.

And you could have worn a Hardhat pre-buff. That's called tanking your ship.

You could have gone in with a max yield ship and stayed perfectly ungankable, but you'd have had to look at your overview to do so. (Seriously, "look at the overview" is the amount of effort miners were entirely unwilling to expend to protect their investment).

Instead, CCP performed surgery to replace your skull with a steel one (that happens to hold twice as much ore).... to stretch the metaphor a bit.