These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Mining ships and EVE design philosophy.

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#81 - 2013-02-11 09:18:27 UTC
What are the chance of 5 ECM drones to jam a ganker?
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#82 - 2013-02-11 11:19:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
RubyPorto wrote:

CCP Soundwave made a howler of a statement, that he (quite rightly) never defended when he was called on it.

Because, according to a simple reading of his statement, Freighters should gain more EHP the more ISK they fit into their cargo hold.


Incorrect again. A simple reading of his statement would tell freighters should not be profitable to gank "per se" (that is the bare hull). Exactly what *often* happens for exhumers.

What happens in reality is this: everybody and their dog are using Retrievers, Macks are more popular than the others but still a very long shot from Retrievers.

BUT

I see no complaint about how it's unprofitable to gank Retrievers, why? They ARE the most common mining ship now so they would be the "staple" of suicide ganking income. Yet nobody complains.

Hulks ... I don't think anyone complains about their current tank.
Skiff etc. ... Nobody really complains because they are so incredibly few and have drawbacks etc.

So the only ship causing complains is the Mack, in the sub-case when it's tanked AND at the same time it does not drop two intact armor plates when popped right?

It's quite a narrow case and imo not worth changing so much.

Why? Simple logic: as of now most use Retrievers, very few (usually who had Macks before the barges tiericide) use Macks.

Nerf Mack tank. Now even more use Retrievers. After all they are throwaway, AS AFK friendly and still good.

What are you going to do then?

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#83 - 2013-02-11 11:25:50 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:

CCP Soundwave made a howler of a statement, that he (quite rightly) never defended when he was called on it.

Because, according to a simple reading of his statement, Freighters should gain more EHP the more ISK they fit into their cargo hold.


Incorrect again. A simple reading of his statement would tell freighters should not be profitable to gank "per se" (that is the bare hull). Exactly what *often* happens for exhumers.



And as has been pointed out countless time the bare hull was never profitable to gank alone.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#84 - 2013-02-11 11:26:47 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:


Incorrect statement, as usual.

Untanked Mack has 11625 hit points.
Before the buff they were usually attacked by 2-3 catalysts and it was profitable.

Now how many catalysts are needed say in 0.7 to kill it? What about 0.5 sec? Still unprofitable?


Yes.

The mack is the problem ship as the hulk, coveter and retriever are all profitable to gank if they are untanked. The mack is not profitable even without a tank and when coupled with the largest ore bay we see the reason why it is the most popular barge on the market and why ganking of exhumers is at an all time low. Changes do need to happen because right now the barge lineup is broken and the goals of teircide have not been met.


So you, as specialist of the "trade", are admitting that in order to be in line with CCP's official "should not profitably ganked" Hulk, Covetor and Retriever should be buffed?

I hope not! I make money when those ships pop!

But hey if we want to enforce consistency with CCP design...

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#85 - 2013-02-11 11:27:56 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
RubyPorto wrote:

CCP Soundwave made a howler of a statement, that he (quite rightly) never defended when he was called on it.

Because, according to a simple reading of his statement, Freighters should gain more EHP the more ISK they fit into their cargo hold.


Incorrect again. A simple reading of his statement would tell freighters should not be profitable to gank "per se" (that is the bare hull). Exactly what *often* happens for exhumers.



And as has been pointed out countless time the bare hull was never profitable to gank alone.


So what's his issue that he has to mention freighters to begin with?

I have zero issues at all and did not mention them outside quoting him. He seem to have way too many sore spots.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#86 - 2013-02-11 11:34:55 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:

The dev said they should have cruiser EHP. I think they should have cruiser EHP because of that.


You mean like those super mega extra buffer tanked Ruptures?

A Rupture / other ship owner *can* choose to buff their ship, he can even fine tune how much tank vs gank.

Before tiericide a Mack miner could choose to have no tank or have wet paper tank enticing a gank because the T2 tank mods actually attracted gankers in search of ISK.

Now, had CCP been designing with care and sandbox philosophy, they'd have put *choice* in the mining ships like (not less) you get for cruisers and BCs: vast number of slots where you can precisely choose how much tank vs gank to have.

But no, they went from "zero choice, you WILL die anyway" to "zero choice, nobody bothers killing you".

Now, spot the common bits of the two phrases.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#87 - 2013-02-11 11:36:28 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:


So you, as specialist of the "trade", are admitting that in order to be in line with CCP's official "should not profitably ganked" Hulk, Covetor and Retriever should be buffed?

I hope not! I make money when those ships pop!

But hey if we want to enforce consistency with CCP design...


The mack needs to be brought in line. In order to turn a profit barges must be fitted with T2 mods and no tank. The mack is an exception in that it has enough tank to make it unprofitable without fitting any tanking mods at all. Not only that but it also invalidates the skiff which is ment to be the tankier option.

Quote:

So what's his issue that he has to mention freighters to begin with?

I have zero issues at all and did not mention them outside quoting him. He seem to have way too many sore spots.


I was agreeing with you. That quote from CCP was a mistake on their part as they thought exhumer hulls alone were profitable to gank which was just downright wrong.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#88 - 2013-02-11 11:41:40 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:


Before tiericide a Mack miner could choose to have no tank or have wet paper tank enticing a gank because the T2 tank mods actually attracted gankers in search of ISK.



Ah now thats not true either. A mack could easily fit a 16k buffer tank while also being able to fit a MLU. That put it far out of profitability to gank.
Carniflex
StarHunt
Mordus Angels
#89 - 2013-02-11 12:11:39 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
I found this hidden gem over in ships and modules:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2530257#post2530257

CCP Greyscale wrote:
tl;dr yes, this has been removed, because we felt that for a number of reasons it wasn't a function we wanted on active hardeners


This bonus came to the top of our work due to a defect, which prompted us to discuss whether we even wanted this feature in the first place. After fairly extensive discussion, we decided we would prefer to just remove it outright, for the following reasons:


  • We're not, in general and with exceptions, fans of multi-function modules. EVE fitting is about trade-offs, not about having your cake and eating it. In this particular case, it was making the decision to take an active hardener over a passive one easier than it otherwise would be, which isn't a particularly good thing.
  • The UX of this feature as implemented is pretty bad - there's two sets of resist attributes on the hardeners with very little explanation, the skill descriptions need to be unusually complicated to explain exactly what's going on, and it's not at all obvious from the modules that this feature even exists (see Liang's comment above).


First to state this thread is not about the hardener change, I couldn't care less about that and you shouldn't either. The bolded portion is one of the core concepts behind EVE. The idea is that your ship can specialize, that you must make trade offs to excel in a specific area. For example if you want to be an amazingly tough tank your damage will suffer and if you want to be a speed demon your tank will suffer. Perhaps you prefer to be a generalist in which you can do many things but you are also average, you don't do a lot of damage and you cannot absorb a lot of damage. This philosophy is followed fairly well through all ship types except for one, the mining ships. Why is that the case?

With the recent EHP changes to mining barges they no longer follow this philosophy. Miners are no longer required to fit a tank at the expense of other factors in order to ensure their safety. Miner's literally have the "having your cake and eating," something directly against a core concept of EVE, trade-offs. Miners do not have to choose between tank and yield anymore. Yet everyone else is expected to make these choices and should someone ask why they can't "have their cake and eat it too" they are shot down with as many HTFU variants as possible. Why are mining ships exempt from trade-offs?

To head off some dumb arguments before they arise(more to be added as the thread goes):

1. Miners have to fit tanks or they will be ganked.

Directly from the CSM minutes from December 2012 (http://community.eveonline.com/council/transcripts/2012/CSM_CCP_Meetings_December_2012.pdf) "For reasons that are left as an exercise to the reader, Exhumers are now blowing up at historically low rates."


Actually, mining barges still have that decision to be made. A retriver will still go down against a single destroyer in sec 0.5 before concord arrives unless it fits the damage control. You just need a well skilled destroyer pilot nowadays for it and cant get away with just 3 day old throwaway alt with that.

Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#90 - 2013-02-11 13:17:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
baltec1 wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:


Before tiericide a Mack miner could choose to have no tank or have wet paper tank enticing a gank because the T2 tank mods actually attracted gankers in search of ISK.



Ah now thats not true either. A mack could easily fit a 16k buffer tank while also being able to fit a MLU. That put it far out of profitability to gank.


I had that fitting for my industry alts and a 60M SP pilot would still get 13.4k.
I know, you imagine as normal to put an "all V" 150M SP pilot in a Mack to show some inflated numbers, but in practice it won't happen.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#91 - 2013-02-11 13:28:49 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

The mack needs to be brought in line. In order to turn a profit barges must be fitted with T2 mods and no tank. The mack is an exception in that it has enough tank to make it unprofitable without fitting any tanking mods at all. Not only that but it also invalidates the skiff which is ment to be the tankier option.


Well I was there to tell CCP their idea about Mack was just stupid. You might recall / can find the thread where I also predicted Mack = new king and how I heavily speculated on Macks while everybody else were speculating on procurers etc. It's the same thread where I was making fun of Rubyporto / Tippia who kindly perma-bumped my speculation to bring me more ISKies Pirate.

Now we have a pointless Hulk, an "lol too much" Skiff and the new King.

But what I can't understand is that you seem basically stopped in further ganks by *1* ship and that ship is not the majority either.
I just checked at my usual The Forge system, it's 70% Retrievers, 2 Hulks, 1 Procurer and rest Macks.

YOU say Retrievers are still profitable (few really cares to tank them anyway).

Then go and kill them. Because it's true that now the "gank choice" is smaller but the totals are larger.

There used to be 24 ships in system at May 2012 (you know why).
There used to be an average of 83-90 ships when CCP allowed free botting.
There used to be about 60-70 ships when CCP got Sreegs on board.

Now, there are 153 ships. One Hundred Fifty Three. And 70% is retrievers, a portion of Macks is untanked.

There's still MUCH to kill, if you don't give up at the Formidable sight of the first Mack in the system.

Finally, pray tell, let's assume tomorrow CCP nerfs Macks. OK.

What we get is that Retrievers, from 70% become 90%. What did you achieve?

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#92 - 2013-02-11 13:36:19 UTC
In case it's not clear: I have extensive mining fleets but I earn much, MUCH more with a proper Hulkageddon going on.
I can sell the mined stuff, I have BPOs whose BPCs I constantly sell (even today, go check if you don't believe), I sometimes invent, make and sell the finished ships including the mods.

I *want* you to blow as many as possible and already said multiple time I'd help sponsor the event. But I can't see how are you going to coherce people into flying T2 ships when tiericide made Retrievers the obvious and super-widespread alternate choice.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#93 - 2013-02-11 13:39:35 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:


YOU say Retrievers are still profitable (few really cares to tank them anyway).




if fitted with T2 gear. Most of them are not fitted with T2 gear.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#94 - 2013-02-11 13:47:26 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:


YOU say Retrievers are still profitable (few really cares to tank them anyway).



if fitted with T2 gear. Most of them are not fitted with T2 gear.


And so what are you going to do? I mean, if you call for a nerf to it, you'll still keep getting T1 mods (even less, totally nobody will fit a tank any more).

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Carniflex
StarHunt
Mordus Angels
#95 - 2013-02-11 13:55:28 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:


YOU say Retrievers are still profitable (few really cares to tank them anyway).




if fitted with T2 gear. Most of them are not fitted with T2 gear.


I think most ice mining retrivers are with 3x Ice Mining Upgrade II, 2x Ice Miner II and then something in the mid slot - usually a roid scanner or something else meaningless as after T1 CPU rig and Ice mining rig you have about 5 CPU left.

Granted few hours after DT there is also usually already some CONCORD in the ice belt.

Here, sanity... niiiice sanity, come to daddy... okay, that's a good sanity... THWONK! GOT the bastard.
NEONOVUS
Mindstar Technology
Goonswarm Federation
#96 - 2013-02-11 14:00:40 UTC
So just what ship do you consider the proper ship to gank with?
Because you keep saying ganking ship but never define it.
I mean a blastos can effect around 28k damage befor concord in a .5
A 1400mm nado can alpha @ 12k damage

A covetor has maybe 10k ehp
A retriever has 15 k ehp
and a procurer easily passes 40k ehp (yeesh I could make this a mission ship)

Exhumers will add around 5k ehp base if max skilled with the skiff tapping 80k (wow if drones werent such flying skeet I could retire my drake)

So really it just sounds like you want to be able to kill them in a gankalyst and are whining you cant.
Much like the kid at the carnival who cant ride all the rides for being to short.
Pohbis
Neo T.E.C.H.
#97 - 2013-02-11 14:02:52 UTC
I have to say I'm still baffled by the fact that some people feel entitled to profitable ganking.

Multi-billion freighters and shuttles with x99 PLEX, sure.

But mining ships?

That's not the reason why CCP has kept suicide ganking alive in hi-sec.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#98 - 2013-02-11 14:06:24 UTC
NEONOVUS wrote:
So just what ship do you consider the proper ship to gank with?
Because you keep saying ganking ship but never define it.
I mean a blastos can effect around 28k damage befor concord in a .5
A 1400mm nado can alpha @ 12k damage

A covetor has maybe 10k ehp
A retriever has 15 k ehp
and a procurer easily passes 40k ehp (yeesh I could make this a mission ship)

Exhumers will add around 5k ehp base if max skilled with the skiff tapping 80k (wow if drones werent such flying skeet I could retire my drake)

So really it just sounds like you want to be able to kill them in a gankalyst and are whining you cant.
Much like the kid at the carnival who cant ride all the rides for being to short.


The catalyst was the only way we could turn a profit pre buff, thats why we used them. We don't care what ship we are using if it turns a profit.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#99 - 2013-02-11 14:07:55 UTC
Pohbis wrote:
I have to say I'm still baffled by the fact that some people feel entitled to profitable ganking.

Multi-billion freighters and shuttles with x99 PLEX, sure.

But mining ships?

That's not the reason why CCP has kept suicide ganking alive in hi-sec.


You realise that just about every single subcap ship is profitable to gank if they fit T2 mods and no tank right?

What we found amazing is that miners refused to fit a tank even after 8 months of ganking.
NEONOVUS
Mindstar Technology
Goonswarm Federation
#100 - 2013-02-11 14:22:08 UTC
baltec1 wrote:


The catalyst was the only way we could turn a profit pre buff, thats why we used them. We don't care what ship we are using if it turns a profit.

So the complaint isnt that they cant be ganked as I showed, but rather not profitably.
Which really is quite a different set of terms.

Also what happened to the freighter ganking?
Is it the new suspect changes made it entirely unsafe or something?