EVE General Discussion

Not so nice to see you again, Lady GoDiveHer.

As usual, I think we would all appreciate it if you wrote your comments on toilet paper and stuck them to your face.

lol. You didn't see the funny side of that?

I'm betting that's HALF the problem with Eve right there. Yer just too fn serious!

Hulks, set speed to just over 3/4's aligned to something and mine while moving. If something nasty jumps in, spam that warp button and your clean away. Everytime.

As long as your not semi afk mining.

Still works better than any tank you can fit.

You're a fn idiot. I already said 1500+ kills to Goons and climbing in the ice interdiction!!! Go look at Goons kb ffs. What other stats do you need that says ganking is ****-easy?!


Start reading my intent mate. The consequences of doing nothing about prolonged and sustained suicide ganking will create issues that MAY require CCP intervention in SOME form. I'm not siding in the argument, I'm trying to point out some issues that require a little more thought than bleating about a single game mechanic.

There is a massive number of highsec miners that if repeatedly pushed will pull the pin in one of two ways. They will either stop mining completely or quit. For Eve to continue to succeed you want NEITHER scenario. I'm not arguing wrong or right.

(as discussed they MAY also choose 0.0 mining but if combined with a Drone land mineral nerf, the ramifications for the broader market economy could be catastrophic - I say COULD because it might also make minerals so valuable that the risk starts to be commensurate with the reward. This would be a GOOD thing - except that the miners would come back to highsec, ganks would increase and we'd be having this conversation again)...

ONE of the options to mitigate this merry-go-round is potentially making SOME "carebear" areas so that mineral pries can be moderated. This fixation by some on making "eve" a total carebear land by restricting suicide ganks in a very small corner of Eve is both short-sighted and silly. That has NEVER been put forward as an option.


I am sharing a POV as you are. The whole reason for forums. Discussion. As soon as you start the "I am right, you are wrong" approach , it's no longer a discussion.

If I have "run out of arguments" then you having nothing further to add on my posts because I am obviously so out of touch it blows your mind.

Move along. Nothing to see here.

The problem with this idea is botting. Unless CCP finds a way to curb botting (in highsec and nullsec,) making an area that would be 100% safe, even if it was ONLY a couple of systems, would cause mineral prices to crash and they're already too low. By creating areas that would be 100% safe all of the time, you'd also remove the risk portion of risk vs reward. As noted above, maybe it's just a balance issue when it really comes down too it. Remove or cut insurance based on sec status or if you were killed by CONCORD, it really is a decent idea. A corp mate mentioned the other day that if he used his car to blow something up, State Farm wouldn't cover the loss and he's right. I'd suggest a buff on mining barges / exhumers, but with the right tank, a Hulk can already sit in a nullsec belt and deal with BS Rats without issue and that was the whole point of them if I recall, no change needed there.

I had a really nice, well thought out response, but CCP's "New Forums" ate it. Aren't you glad?

LOL

That happens to me occasionally. Learned to adapt my posting habits accordingly. Copy/paste FTW.

In regards to the insurance bit. The pros and cons (as pointed out by you guys) of penalizing insurance payouts for unprovoked aggression in high sec are pretty clear. If anything, the pros and cons cancel each other out.

In regards to the tanking of the Hulk, Apostle is right about a Hulk never standing a chance against 2x Alpha Brutix and maybe a Thrasher. And considering the re-balancing of destroyers along with the removal of the RoF penalty, dessies will be more common in ganks. Of course, this all assumes that the Hulk is alone. Who is to say that the Hulk pilot doesn't have a logi pal to back him up? And I've seen plenty of friendly high-sec corps willing to help a miner out. If the Hulk is not alone, and there is a plan in place (and a strategy that adapts accordingly), a Hulk can surely survive the 2x Alpha Brutix.

Miners can also exploit the same game mechanics that gankers rely on (assuming they are resourceful enough to have a second account - which is not always the case).

Lone miners can still survive if they can learn not to semi-afk. But sometimes even that can be ruined by a small frigate bumping said miner out of alignment.

It's a mixed bag, really. There is no such thing as a one-size-fit-all strategy to surviving a gank. But each individual miner can form their own strategy suited specifically to their taste and situation. But if a miner cannot tank their Hulk, then that miner might as well tank their wallet and mine in a cheap Covetor that they can afford to lose and make up for the loss in minerals gained. Although, I prefer to simply move and look for the isolated, out-of-the-way systems (if you're daring enough, you can go through lowsec - it's not that bad really).

Only point here I pick is that logi on alpha strike is a waste of time. Cycle is too slow - you MAY help survival if you stagger cycle the reppers but 2 x alpha will still punch straight through.

And this is why we use Arty Maelstroms in fleet ops, because once you've been targeted, you're probably dead. Even if the logi is already locking you up, the chance of living through it without warping out is slim to none. Logi is great for fixing damage, but there's no real way to prevent damage.

You are aware people have alts in this game, no?



Wait a second: When griefers blow up mining barges and gank haulers and steal things from people, that's okay because "actions have consequences and EVE is supposed to be like real life."

But when someone suggests that actions have consequences for the griefers - just like in real life - suddenly "it's just a game"?

I see....

Something tells me you're more interested in protecting your sense of entitlement to do whatever you want to whomever you want than to adhering to any idealogy that you may espouse...



I agree. Even the Hulk, which is designed as a "resilient" mining barge, falls far short of expections, especially considering the pricing, training, and naming behind the "Hulk".

I don't want to see suicide ganking completely removed from the game - I mean, God forbid griefers lose their entitlement to harass other people! - but making it more difficult / unappealing is definitely the way to go. I would also suggest removing insurance payouts for ships that are used to suicide gank and adding fines to the penalty of illegal PvP attacks in hi-sec, which would scale based on the ship attacked.

Now now, before the greifers get their panties all twisted, remember: I'm not suggesting suicide ganking be removed from the game. I'm just suggesting the addition of consequences for it. Surely you can appreciate this, no? ;)



Except it doesn't cut both ways. Your argument is silly and bordering on perposterous. Miners are arguing for the right to mine in (relative) peace. Griefers are arguing for the right to injure and harass other players. I'm sorry, but it dosn't fly: Someone mining doesn't interfere with anyone else's playstyle, nor does their mining mean they impose themselves upon others.



I'd like to see what you'd post on the forums if all the miners in the game, including the bots, stopped mining for a few months.