These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Miners Unite to Fight the New Order!

First post First post First post
Author
Anslo
Scope Works
#501 - 2012-10-30 16:14:00 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
Do you feel being displaced is a worthy reason to demand intervention from CCP? Is being forced to move to another system so game breaking that the whole community has to be punished? Is there a viable solution to this inconvenience that would not harm the quality of the experience the game offers for every single player?

Yes. If it blows up to Hulkageddon proportions, which sentiment analysis suggests, then nipping it in the proverbial bud would be nice to prevent future threadnaughts or miner whines and make room for, I don't know, good threads?

TheGunslinger42 wrote:
There is a 100% effective mechanic in place. Simply right click the Agents name and select "Give Money". Enter the license fee of 10 million isk and bobs your uncle.

Or not. They should not have to pay you to play. They pay CCP. As I tell all miners, never pay an extortionist from the bumper group. That's not a mechanic, it's a scam.

Riot Girl wrote:
Of course it is. You even said yourself you can move to another system but dismissed it as being too inconvenient. Well if they don't want to move to another system, why not try surrounding themselves in a castle made of Jump Freighters? That would stop people bumping you. Of course that would take imagination and organization. Worst of all, it would ruin their boredom because it would be fun to try it out.


Why do you assume they find mining boring if they do it? Why can't people exist that enjoy mining? Apparently this is a hard concept to grasp...on another note a wall of freighters/jump freighters would be amazing to see. Blocking the Jita stargate like that? Now that'd be interesting.


[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]

Alpheias
Tactical Farmers.
Pandemic Horde
#502 - 2012-10-30 16:16:23 UTC
Anslo wrote:


Well, they're frustrated. Banning is a bit much, but the module I understand (also you clearly took the 'ban' posts a wee bit too seriously).


Sure. But how would you feel if a bunch of players demanded that CCP banned your account whenever you enjoyed the game?

Agent of Chaos, Sower of Discord.

Don't talk to me unless you are IQ verified and certified with three references from non-family members. Please have your certificate of authenticity on hand.

TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#503 - 2012-10-30 16:16:38 UTC
Anslo wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
But there are ways to defend against it.


And as I said...I don't believe they are effective means. Effective would be a module or some such, not a duct tape "orbit" method (which doesn't work) or web method (which also doesn't work). Also just telling them to goto a different system may work, or they might just be followed. Either way, they're displaced.


So to summarise, there are mechanics that allow you to mitigate the issue, but there are trade-offs - they're not 100% effective, you have to move, whatever.

Sounds perfect to me.

If you had a counter which was 100% effective every single time and which did not require you to make a choice as to whether you are willing to make some kind of trade off (a la the less yield for more tank choice that disgusting miner filth refused to ever make) then it becomes by definition stupidly unbalanced.
Anslo
Scope Works
#504 - 2012-10-30 16:19:33 UTC
Alpheias wrote:
Sure. But how would you feel if a bunch of players demanded that CCP banned your account whenever you enjoyed the game?


Meh. Wouldn't phase me. Collect some tears and move on.

TheGunslinger42 wrote:
So to summarise, there are mechanics that allow you to mitigate the issue, but there are trade-offs - they're not 100% effective, you have to move, whatever.

Sounds perfect to me.

If you had a counter which was 100% effective every single time and which did not require you to make a choice as to whether you are willing to make some kind of trade off (a la the less yield for more tank choice that disgusting miner filth refused to ever make) then it becomes by definition stupidly unbalanced.


Indeed. That's why (if you read my previous posts instead of trolling me as an agent) I suggested an anchor that, while keeps them from being bumped, prevents them from moving for 5 minutes give or take, opening them to a gank unless they're tanked properly. Even if they are tanked properly, they can still be ganked with the right fleet. Tornado alphas are not something to be denied their kill.

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#505 - 2012-10-30 16:20:13 UTC
Anslo wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
But there are ways to defend against it.


And as I said...I don't believe they are effective means. Effective would be a module or some such, not a duct tape "orbit" method (which doesn't work) or web method (which also doesn't work). Also just telling them to goto a different system may work, or they might just be followed. Either way, they're displaced.


Orbiting and webs do work.

You really have to answer why it is that battleships and carriers can manage to counter bumping while miners in a cruiser sized ship cannot manage it.
Alpheias
Tactical Farmers.
Pandemic Horde
#506 - 2012-10-30 16:20:51 UTC
Anslo wrote:
Alpheias wrote:
Sure. But how would you feel if a bunch of players demanded that CCP banned your account whenever you enjoyed the game?


Meh. Wouldn't phase me. Collect some tears and move on.


Good to know we agree on something then.

Agent of Chaos, Sower of Discord.

Don't talk to me unless you are IQ verified and certified with three references from non-family members. Please have your certificate of authenticity on hand.

TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#507 - 2012-10-30 16:21:46 UTC
Anslo wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
There is a 100% effective mechanic in place. Simply right click the Agents name and select "Give Money". Enter the license fee of 10 million isk and bobs your uncle.

Or not. They should not have to pay you to play. They pay CCP. As I tell all miners, never pay an extortionist from the bumper group. That's not a mechanic, it's a scam.


They don't have to pay the New Order, but they do have to live with the consequences of the choices they make. If you do not follow the New Order you must face the consequences.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#508 - 2012-10-30 16:24:14 UTC
Anslo wrote:
Alpheias wrote:
Sure. But how would you feel if a bunch of players demanded that CCP banned your account whenever you enjoyed the game?


Meh. Wouldn't phase me. Collect some tears and move on.

TheGunslinger42 wrote:
So to summarise, there are mechanics that allow you to mitigate the issue, but there are trade-offs - they're not 100% effective, you have to move, whatever.

Sounds perfect to me.

If you had a counter which was 100% effective every single time and which did not require you to make a choice as to whether you are willing to make some kind of trade off (a la the less yield for more tank choice that disgusting miner filth refused to ever make) then it becomes by definition stupidly unbalanced.


Indeed. That's why (if you read my previous posts instead of trolling me as an agent) I suggested an anchor that, while keeps them from being bumped, prevents them from moving for 5 minutes give or take, opening them to a gank unless they're tanked properly. Even if they are tanked properly, they can still be ganked with the right fleet. Tornado alphas are not something to be denied their kill.



Except they are already vulnerable to ganking, and miners already spend the vast majority of their time not moving, therefor your suggestion gives them a massive benefit without introducing any kind of drawback.

A more realistic scenario would be if the module reduced their yield by 50%.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#509 - 2012-10-30 16:26:01 UTC
Robert De'Arneth wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Anslo wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
But there are ways to defend against it.


And as I said...I don't believe they are effective means. Effective would be a module or some such, not a duct tape "orbit" method (which doesn't work) or web method (which also doesn't work). Also just telling them to goto a different system may work, or they might just be followed. Either way, they're displaced.


There is a 100% effective mechanic in place. Simply right click the Agents name and select "Give Money". Enter the license fee of 10 million isk and bobs your uncle.



More effective if you tell said agent to go f themselves, since it has proven they have no way to enforce this. Big smile Also not a bad idea to type to said agent, LMAO you idiot. That will really make the agent upset. I find with most children, if you laugh at them they get real mad.

They'll laugh and bump you again.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Anslo
Scope Works
#510 - 2012-10-30 16:28:16 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Orbiting and webs do work.

You really have to answer why it is that battleships and carriers can manage to counter bumping while miners in a cruiser sized ship cannot manage it.


Carriers and battleships are...rather much larger than a barge. I've been bumped while in my carrier and the movement was easily offset because (1) I'm a ******* giant carrier and (2) I had fleets to web me to a slowdown/safety.

I've watched the orbiting "solution" and the reason it doesn't work is because a single fleet stabber speed fit can bump off a miner faster than the barge can maneuver back to the asteroid. For every 5km the miner gains, the bumper bumpers him back another 8km give or take. And that's just one bumper.

Alpheias wrote:
Good to know we agree on something then.

Cheers Big smile

TheGunslinger42 wrote:
They don't have to pay the New Order, but they do have to live with the consequences of the choices they make. If you do not follow the New Order you must face the consequences.

And they should be able to counter the bumper extortionists and have potential to collect your tears as well. It's a two way street :)

TheGunslinger42 wrote:

Except they are already vulnerable to ganking, and miners already spend the vast majority of their time not moving, therefor your suggestion gives them a massive benefit without introducing any kind of drawback.

Not as vulnerable to ganking. Orbiting a roid while being ganked and tanked gives you a good chance to not be popped before concord shows up. Now if they were sit dead still while have 8 sets of 1400s pointed at them. Well then....Blink

Quote:
A more realistic scenario would be if the module reduced their yield by 50%.

"Fair and Balanced."
In case you can't spot sarcasm, that was sarcasm. That's stupidly unbalanced.

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]

Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#511 - 2012-10-30 16:28:56 UTC
There are effective counters to bumping, simply orbiting in a mackinaw or retriever is not one of them, if however you are orbiting in an AB skiff you are extremely hard to bump, won't stop us trying but 90% of the time we fail.

Those miners who fail to adapt are destined to be bumped, those who do adapt will not be bumped as often because we go for the low hanging can't be arsed miners first.

The argument that miners are the ones who produce the minerals for industry while a valid one is also a pointless one, there are many more pilots that can fly mining vessels than pilots who actually do. If the "I wanna mine all day and not be bumped" miners all quit mining it would indeed cause a price rise and shortage in ships and modules, then we would see some of the pilots who can fly mining ships, but don't because it's a poor return on time, come out of the woodwork and start mining again because it is economically viable to do so and it is in their interests to do so to produce ships.

Some of the miners that have purchased mining permits merely see it as a business cost not extortion, they have done the math and figure a 10 million isk permit is a worthwhile investment to be allowed to mine in peace and have a greater market share than those who don't have a permit. We like these guys, they accept that people can interrupt their game play and have taken steps to minimize interference, in short they have adapted and are in a better position than those who have not.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#512 - 2012-10-30 16:31:17 UTC
Your definition of "stupidly unbalanced" seems to be anything which does not give you a huge advantage without any kind of drawback.

Follow the New Order and all this can be put behind us.
Anslo
Scope Works
#513 - 2012-10-30 16:35:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Anslo
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
There are effective counters to bumping, simply orbiting in a mackinaw or retriever is not one of them, if however you are orbiting in an AB skiff you are extremely hard to bump, won't stop us trying but 90% of the time we fail.

I don't like them having their profits cut into by asshattery, but you're right on this point.


Quote:
If the "I wanna mine all day and not be bumped" miners all quit mining it would indeed cause a price rise and shortage in ships and modules, then we would see some of the pilots who can fly mining ships, but don't because it's a poor return on time, come out of the woodwork and start mining again because it is economically viable to do so and it is in their interests to do so to produce ships.

Do you have evidence for this? Why would they give up their original income source for mining? Why would mining suddenly be more profitable than say L4's or L5's, market games or pure industry? You need to come up with some facts before stating these assumptions.

Quote:
Some of the miners that have purchased mining permits merely see it as a business cost not extortion, they have done the math and figure a 10 million isk permit is a worthwhile investment to be allowed to mine in peace and have a greater market share than those who don't have a permit.

To me it's not about the money, it's the action. I don't like the idea of people kotowing to extortionists. 300 comes to mind, when Xerxes demanded a jar of water and dirt from the Spartans. It cost really nothing, but the action and symbolism behind it was down right insulting to the Spartans.

Quote:
We like these guys, they accept that people can interrupt their game play and have taken steps to minimize interference, in short they have adapted and are in a better position than those who have not.

If they want to pay, it's their choice sure. But for those who do not and who would rather resist you well...I have far more respect for them.

TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Your definition of "stupidly unbalanced" seems to be anything which does not give you a huge advantage without any kind of drawback.

Follow the New Order and all this can be put behind us.


My definition of stupidly unbalanced is cutting ANY stat by 50% just because I don't like a certain group.

As for following the new order...eh, I'll pass. Enjoy the megalomania though!

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]

Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#514 - 2012-10-30 16:38:13 UTC
Circumstances where it is okay to petition for CCP to alter game mechanics:
When it becomes impossible for any single player to play the game due to changes in, or abuse of gameplay mechanics.

Circumstances where it is not okay to petition for CCP to alter game mechanics:
When it becomes inconvenient for any single player to play the game due to changes in, or abuse of gameplay mechanics.




TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#515 - 2012-10-30 16:38:59 UTC
Anslo wrote:
If they want to pay, it's their choice sure. But for those who do not and who would rather resist you well...I have far more respect for them.


Except you're not really resisting the Order, you're just begging CCP to introduce mechanics that would artificially protect you. If you actually resist, without whining to mommy and daddy devs to simply fix it for you, that'd be admirable. However you would still lose, as the New Order is invincible.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#516 - 2012-10-30 16:40:06 UTC
yeah I remember that scene in 300 where King Leonidas whined to the devs about the Persians unfairly extorting him and griefing him

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Nanatoa
#517 - 2012-10-30 16:41:57 UTC
Andski wrote:
yeah I remember that scene in 300 where King Leonidas whined to the devs about the Persians unfairly extorting him and griefing him


THIS IS PETITIOOON!

"Stay the course, we have done this many times before." - (CCP) Hilmar, June 2011

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#518 - 2012-10-30 16:42:07 UTC
Anslo wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Orbiting and webs do work.

You really have to answer why it is that battleships and carriers can manage to counter bumping while miners in a cruiser sized ship cannot manage it.


Carriers and battleships are...rather much larger than a barge. I've been bumped while in my carrier and the movement was easily offset because (1) I'm a ******* giant carrier and (2) I had fleets to web me to a slowdown/safety.

I've watched the orbiting "solution" and the reason it doesn't work is because a single fleet stabber speed fit can bump off a miner faster than the barge can maneuver back to the asteroid. For every 5km the miner gains, the bumper bumpers him back another 8km give or take. And that's just one bumper.



Yet when they try this on my battleship they miss...

The reason why it is so effective on miners is because of the same reason ganking them was so easy. They take zero steps to protect themselves.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#519 - 2012-10-30 16:42:53 UTC
Andski wrote:
yeah I remember that scene in 300 where King Leonidas whined to the devs about the Persians unfairly extorting him and griefing him


"Dear god, Leonidas here, Persians are unfairly trying to force me to play the way they want. Please add some kind of anti-persian animal to real life so I can live in peace"
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#520 - 2012-10-30 16:44:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Anslo wrote:

Do you have evidence for this? Why would they give up their original income source for mining? Why would mining suddenly be more profitable than say L4's or L5's, market games or pure industry? You need to come up with some facts before stating these assumptions.


Evidence is thus, without miners there is no industry, without industry we are left with current stockpiles and noob ships, ergo people who can mine will mine even if it is only to produce ships for their own use. Many players have alt accounts that are currently unsubbed (probably due to the incarna debacle), it is by no means impossible to multibox a l4 mission runner and a miner, an industrialist and a miner or a trader and a miner, so there would be no need to give up any income source if you desired to do your own production and mining.

I mine, trade, produce,bump and mission run on 1 account using all 3 character slots and still manage to pay for plex and get ships exploded.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack