These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Hannibal Ord
Fer-De-Lance
#161 - 2013-02-12 21:44:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Hannibal Ord
Why does ganking which is essentially a LOLs activity need to be profitable?

Where are the days of popping a 200million isk ship with T1 stuff for the tears?

If you reduce the tank on the Mack any more and make it easy to gank and everyone goes ape **** on the miners like they have been, then everyone will use the skiff because that thing has a decent ORE bay and is basically gank immune....and then there will be no more lols.

Besides, I do not think CCP believe that killing a ship by suicide ganking, unless it is carrying something rare and expensive or a megaload of goods, should be profitable in any way.

But that's just opinion. I understand the argument to lower it's tank further, but I do not particularly agree with it on the basis of game design and how it fits into the EVE universe in regards to making it profitable to suicide ships into them.
Hannibal Ord
Fer-De-Lance
#162 - 2013-02-12 21:44:35 UTC
Double Post
Vin King
State War Academy
Caldari State
#163 - 2013-02-12 21:53:42 UTC
In HighSec ice belts, permit tank is best.

Proud member of the New Order of HighSec
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#164 - 2013-02-12 22:08:28 UTC
Hannibal Ord wrote:
Why does ganking which is essentially a LOLs activity need to be profitable?

Where are the days of popping a 200million isk ship with T1 stuff for the tears?

If you reduce the tank on the Mack any more and make it easy to gank and everyone goes ape **** on the miners like they have been, then everyone will use the skiff because that thing has a decent ORE bay and is basically gank immune....and then there will be no more lols.

Besides, I do not think CCP believe that killing a ship by suicide ganking, unless it is carrying something rare and expensive or a megaload of goods, should be profitable in any way.

But that's just opinion. I understand the argument to lower it's tank further, but I do not particularly agree with it on the basis of game design and how it fits into the EVE universe in regards to making it profitable to suicide ships into them.


Thats what the skiff is for. The mack will still be viable but just like the hulk you either tank it of face the risk of losing it. The reason why they need to be profitable is because people did not gank them for the "lulz", they ganked them for the isk. There is literally nothing other than gankers that pose a risk to miners in high sec and there is no reason why an untanked mack should be unprofitable to gank while an untanked zealot is
Hannibal Ord
Fer-De-Lance
#165 - 2013-02-12 22:32:43 UTC
But nor is there any reason why suiciding a Mack should be profitable at all, since it carries no expensive PVP mods, cargo or any other such thing.

If you have it so miners can fit more faction type loot to their barges like super strip miners etc ( a bit like mission runners since this is basically the industrial mission running activity) then voila, it's profitable because of the rare goods they carry.

Just like basically it's not particularly profitable, if at all, to gank a mission drake or raven, but it might be if you do it to a Golem or a nightmare. And even then only if they carry neat gear.

Anything on top of that and it's done for the giggles.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#166 - 2013-02-12 22:38:52 UTC
Hannibal Ord wrote:
But nor is there any reason why suiciding a Mack should be profitable at all, since it carries no expensive PVP mods, cargo or any other such thing.

If you have it so miners can fit more faction type loot to their barges like super strip miners etc ( a bit like mission runners since this is basically the industrial mission running activity) then voila, it's profitable because of the rare goods they carry.

Just like basically it's not particularly profitable, if at all, to gank a mission drake or raven, but it might be if you do it to a Golem or a nightmare. And even then only if they carry neat gear.

Anything on top of that and it's done for the giggles.


In order for the skiff to be viable the macks tank must be nerfed.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#167 - 2013-02-13 00:43:16 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Hannibal Ord wrote:
But nor is there any reason why suiciding a Mack should be profitable at all, since it carries no expensive PVP mods, cargo or any other such thing.

If you have it so miners can fit more faction type loot to their barges like super strip miners etc ( a bit like mission runners since this is basically the industrial mission running activity) then voila, it's profitable because of the rare goods they carry.

Just like basically it's not particularly profitable, if at all, to gank a mission drake or raven, but it might be if you do it to a Golem or a nightmare. And even then only if they carry neat gear.

Anything on top of that and it's done for the giggles.


In order for the skiff to be viable the macks tank must be nerfed.


I'd like to add to this that the yield of both skiff and mack should be toned down more as well to make the hulk more viable. I rarely see hulks anymore.

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
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#168 - 2013-02-13 00:48:37 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Hannibal Ord wrote:
But nor is there any reason why suiciding a Mack should be profitable at all, since it carries no expensive PVP mods, cargo or any other such thing.

If you have it so miners can fit more faction type loot to their barges like super strip miners etc ( a bit like mission runners since this is basically the industrial mission running activity) then voila, it's profitable because of the rare goods they carry.

Just like basically it's not particularly profitable, if at all, to gank a mission drake or raven, but it might be if you do it to a Golem or a nightmare. And even then only if they carry neat gear.

Anything on top of that and it's done for the giggles.


In order for the skiff to be viable the macks tank must be nerfed.


I'd like to add to this that the yield of both skiff and mack should be toned down more as well to make the hulk more viable. I rarely see hulks anymore.


How many are self hating enough to use the ship with the least crystals room (in hi sec roids are tiny, crystals need more frequent replacement), has T1 grade tank and the lowest hold?

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#169 - 2013-02-13 00:53:40 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
How many are self hating enough to use the ship with the least crystals room (in hi sec roids are tiny, crystals need more frequent replacement), has T1 grade tank and the lowest hold?


If their going to put forth the effort to do so they should be properly rewarded and right now with the yield of the mack/skiff being so close they aren't being properly rewarded. The more and more I look over mining ships the more screwed up they appear. Its as if they completely ignored EVE design philosophy when "rebalancing" them.

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
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#170 - 2013-02-13 00:55:16 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
La Nariz wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Hannibal Ord wrote:
But nor is there any reason why suiciding a Mack should be profitable at all, since it carries no expensive PVP mods, cargo or any other such thing.

If you have it so miners can fit more faction type loot to their barges like super strip miners etc ( a bit like mission runners since this is basically the industrial mission running activity) then voila, it's profitable because of the rare goods they carry.

Just like basically it's not particularly profitable, if at all, to gank a mission drake or raven, but it might be if you do it to a Golem or a nightmare. And even then only if they carry neat gear.

Anything on top of that and it's done for the giggles.


In order for the skiff to be viable the macks tank must be nerfed.


I'd like to add to this that the yield of both skiff and mack should be toned down more as well to make the hulk more viable. I rarely see hulks anymore.


My ideal world has:
The Hulk and Mack at very similar tank (such that you're better off using the Skiff then trying to make them unprofitable to gank*).
The Hulk and Skiff at similar Cargo spaces (closer to the current Hulk than current Skiff, or the Mack becomes deprecated)
The Mackinaw and Skiff at Similar yields (probably around the Skiff's current yield)

That way each excels at one of the 3 stats that matter to a mining ship, there's a reason to use each of them, and none of them allow you to safely be AFK for 45 minutes.

Right now, the Mackinaw has the 2nd best tank, the 2nd best yield, and the best Cargo. And the tank is such that ganking does not represent a significant risk to them, so the Skiff is useless, and since miners tend to prefer cargo over yield (see the HAG killboards for the cargo Hulks), the Hulk's rarely used.

*Because otherwise the Skiff will never, ever have a useful mining role. Because HS Gank prevention is the only significant reason for Mining ships to have significant EHP (all should be able to fit decent active tanks to protect against Low/Null rats), and profitable ganking is the only source of significant risk for HS miners.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#171 - 2013-02-13 00:58:10 UTC  |  Edited by: La Nariz
RubyPorto wrote:


My ideal world has:
The Hulk and Mack at very similar tank (such that you're better off using the Skiff then trying to make them unprofitable to gank*).
The Hulk and Skiff at similar Cargo spaces (closer to the current Hulk than current Skiff, or the Mack becomes deprecated)
The Mackinaw and Skiff at Similar yields (probably around the Skiff's current yield)

That way each excels at one of the 3 stats that matter to a mining ship, there's a reason to use each of them, and none of them allow you to safely be AFK for 45 minutes.

Right now, the Mackinaw has the 2nd best tank, the 2nd best yield, and the best Cargo. And the tank is such that ganking does not represent a significant risk to them, so the Skiff is useless, and since miners tend to prefer cargo over yield (see the HAG killboards for the cargo Hulks), the Hulk's rarely used.

*Because otherwise the Skiff will never, ever have a useful mining role.


Make sure they have acceptable fitting resources and this is exactly what I was envisioning. The miner can choose to specialize via the three ships and further choose to specialize based on fitting. Why CCP decided massive EHP buff and everyone's yield should be basically the same is beyond me.

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
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#172 - 2013-02-13 01:13:31 UTC
La Nariz wrote:

Make sure they have acceptable fitting resources and this is exactly what I was envisioning. The miner can choose to specialize via the three ships and further choose to specialize based on fitting. Why CCP decided massive EHP buff and everyone's yield should be basically the same is beyond me.


The yield being made so similar is due to the tiericide concept they are also applying to the other ships.
I don't see as much teeth gnashing about T1 frigs having been buffed alike faction and T1-T2 differences being gradually removed.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#173 - 2013-02-13 01:14:54 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
La Nariz wrote:

Make sure they have acceptable fitting resources and this is exactly what I was envisioning. The miner can choose to specialize via the three ships and further choose to specialize based on fitting. Why CCP decided massive EHP buff and everyone's yield should be basically the same is beyond me.


The yield being made so similar is due to the tiericide concept they are also applying to the other ships.
I don't see as much teeth gnashing about T1 frigs having been buffed alike faction and T1-T2 differences being gradually removed.


Thats because the frigates have been balanced well.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#174 - 2013-02-13 01:17:06 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:

The yield being made so similar is due to the tiericide concept they are also applying to the other ships.
I don't see as much teeth gnashing about T1 frigs having been buffed alike faction and T1-T2 differences being gradually removed.


If all yield is the same you lose trade-offs, once again completely ignoring EVE design philosophy. Its fine for the T1-T2 to be similar within reason but for all T1-T2 to be the same is the exact same as the EHP buff. It's completely unwarranted and completely against EVE design philosophy.

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
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#175 - 2013-02-13 01:30:35 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:

The yield being made so similar is due to the tiericide concept they are also applying to the other ships.
I don't see as much teeth gnashing about T1 frigs having been buffed alike faction and T1-T2 differences being gradually removed.


If all yield is the same you lose trade-offs, once again completely ignoring EVE design philosophy. Its fine for the T1-T2 to be similar within reason but for all T1-T2 to be the same is the exact same as the EHP buff. It's completely unwarranted and completely against EVE design philosophy.


In case you did not notice, CCP spent the last months totally changing and going against their design philosophy.

There's indeed odd stuff going for the mining ships (see my previous posts) but you can't have CCP undo tiericide on a subset of ships just because you don't like it.

This thread reminds me the "Hide your ISK, Team Security is out of control", in the sense that CCP officially decided to do their actions but you stomp your feet because you don't like their decision. Had you made a constructive thread about i.e. replacing the "heavens given tank" with a number of empty slots that the individual could choose to fill or not, then it'd serve you much better than just spamming the same nerf posts for months.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#176 - 2013-02-13 01:42:19 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
If all yield is the same you lose trade-offs, once again completely ignoring EVE design philosophy. Its fine for the T1-T2 to be similar within reason but for all T1-T2 to be the same is the exact same as the EHP buff. It's completely unwarranted and completely against EVE design philosophy.


In case you did not notice, CCP spent the last months totally changing and going against their design philosophy.

There's indeed odd stuff going for the mining ships (see my previous posts) but you can't have CCP undo tiericide on a subset of ships just because you don't like it.


Where has anyone suggested that?

I said that Hulks tank was well balanced pre-Buff and did not require a buff, and that Mackinaws are overpowered after the buff and should be nerfed because of that. Nowhere in there hides a request to undo tiericide (whose goal, incidentally, was to make all 3 Exhumers viable instead of one. A goal at which it has failed badly.).

I also haven't seen that request hidden in any of La Nariz's posts.

Setting up a weak argument that nobody is actually making in order to beat it down is the definition of a Straw man.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#177 - 2013-02-13 02:01:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Too bad Hulk tank was not balanced in any way, only in your sweet dreams.

It was the least sucky ship in a parade of fail and to claim such title it needed to fill CPU / PG / bulkheads / whatever all sorts of stuff bringing its very high cost, more turrets to fit etc. down almost to a lower ship tier worth.


Also, you once again completely disregard the now 4 posts asking you how to deal with the totally obvious fact that nerfing Mack would *immediately* make Retriever the next king. They are just 70% of the whole mining ships now, you want it to become 90%? You can't nerf a Retriever tank either, in the sense that nobody cares if a disposable ship becomes a bit more disposable.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#178 - 2013-02-13 02:06:38 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Too bad Hulk tank was not balanced in any way, only in your sweet dreams.

It was the least sucky ship in a parade of fail and to claim such title it needed to fill CPU / PG / bulkheads / whatever all sorts of stuff bringing its very high cost, more turrets to fit etc. down almost to a lower ship tier worth.


Also, you once again completely disregard the now 4 posts asking you how to deal with the totally obvious fact that nerfing Mack would *immediately* make Retriever the next king. They are just 70% of the whole mining ships now, you want it to become 90%? You can't nerf a Retriever tank either, in the sense that nobody cares if a disposable ship becomes a bit more disposable.


Reduce the cargohold on the Retriever. Or the yield.

Or don't do anything. I don't see a problem with people shipping down to minimize their losses.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#179 - 2013-02-13 02:09:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
RubyPorto wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Too bad Hulk tank was not balanced in any way, only in your sweet dreams.

It was the least sucky ship in a parade of fail and to claim such title it needed to fill CPU / PG / bulkheads / whatever all sorts of stuff bringing its very high cost, more turrets to fit etc. down almost to a lower ship tier worth.


Also, you once again completely disregard the now 4 posts asking you how to deal with the totally obvious fact that nerfing Mack would *immediately* make Retriever the next king. They are just 70% of the whole mining ships now, you want it to become 90%? You can't nerf a Retriever tank either, in the sense that nobody cares if a disposable ship becomes a bit more disposable.


Reduce the cargohold on the Retriever. Or the yield.


And we are back to pre-tiericide. Something tells me it's not going to happen.


Also - to utter displeasure of your (and even my) plans - CCP care a lot about their huge victory they scored against botting.
The only way to defeat botting is to make it useless.

This could have been achieved by making the mining mechanics suck less (they don't seem to have gone this way Cry), by implementing "legit, game maker provided" botting (some companies have done this) or by making botting pointless, because the ships require so little management that spending RL money and risking your neck for a script hitting 1 button every hour is just stupid.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#180 - 2013-02-13 02:11:10 UTC  |  Edited by: RubyPorto
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:

Reduce the cargohold on the Retriever. Or the yield.


And we are back to pre-tiericide. Something tells me it's not going to happen.[/quote]

Ah, I didn't realize that tiericide was an all or nothing buff, and that reducing the yield or cargohold of an overbuffed ship was the same as calling for undoing tiericide.

Cripes.


Pre-Tiericide, the Retriever's Cargohold was, what 4k m3, and yield ~2/3 of a Covetor?
Now it's 22k m3 and a yield of maybe ~90% of a Covetor?

Are you saying that there is no room for something in between?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon