These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Eve Down Under Bombshell: No Sov overhaul until at least Winter 2014

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#561 - 2013-12-04 20:43:14 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
The last data we had is that suicide ganking is far below it's peak.

I think you will find that was when mining ships had the tank of a wet paper bag, so everyone was doing it, I am pretty sure if you checked now a lot more bling fitted mission and incursion ships are getting ganked.

Pre buff it was entirely possible to make sure that 90% of the barges and exhumers were unprofitable to gank, the problem was with the 90% of their owners that couldn't be bothered to do so. The same problem exists today, people would much rather fit for yield than tank. The wet paper bag tank of the mining ships was, and still is entirely down to the people flying them.


I really hated the mining ship EHP buff, and it's not because I thought the ships didn't deserve it (imo they did), it's because it was seen as a victor by the whiny "i should be left alone even though I'm flying in space making money" crowd. Those types would much rather the game's developers "legislate" victory for them rather than take some very simple and inexpensive steps to secure their own victory using in game methods (like fitting a tank and being smart about their mining...).

It would have been a wholly different thing for me if those miners were fitting tanks the best they could and STILL getting blown up for a profit, and THEN saying to ccp "we think there is a balance issue"...... But the people who were doing that (tanking their ships) aren't vocal crybabies to begin with.

The ironic and hypocritical thing of it all is that the same types tend to look down on what they consider "meta gaming" by players like Goons (or BoB, or the Russians or the old NC etc etc).
GetSirrus
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#562 - 2013-12-04 21:08:11 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
The last data we had is that suicide ganking is far below it's peak.


Below its peak. So there is a hidden quota which is required? Omber mining is a also far below it's peak - is that also some prime metric which needs the attention of the community or the CSM? Maybe.. maybe after 3 ice interdictions, 5 hulkageddons and now New Order - suicide ganking got boring and stale as the repetition of mission running? Plus there is no recording stats of bumping which replaces ganking as the new "content generation" for the bottom of industry.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#563 - 2013-12-04 21:20:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
The last data we had is that suicide ganking is far below it's peak.

I think you will find that was when mining ships had the tank of a wet paper bag, so everyone was doing it, I am pretty sure if you checked now a lot more bling fitted mission and incursion ships are getting ganked.

Pre buff it was entirely possible to make sure that 90% of the barges and exhumers were unprofitable to gank, the problem was with the 90% of their owners that couldn't be bothered to do so. The same problem exists today, people would much rather fit for yield than tank. The wet paper bag tank of the mining ships was, and still is entirely down to the people flying them.


I know people who tanked to the max and used boosters and all it took was an extra destroyer to kill them, the fact is that there was some who did fit a tank to the best that they could and they still got ganked with little extra cost. Hardly the case now, and those that fit for yield die easily now just as you pointed out and deservedly so. Now I sit in a fully tanked skiff and have no issues with the yield loss, during the last days of the ice fields I sat pretty in my Skiffs and watched some of the carnage around me with amusement...

Edit:

Quote:
...those miners were fitting tanks the best they could and STILL getting blown up for a profit, and THEN saying to ccp "we think there is a balance issue"


They did actually, I participated in one such thread

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Valterra Craven
#564 - 2013-12-04 21:21:42 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
The last data we had is that suicide ganking is far below it's peak.

I think you will find that was when mining ships had the tank of a wet paper bag, so everyone was doing it, I am pretty sure if you checked now a lot more bling fitted mission and incursion ships are getting ganked.

Pre buff it was entirely possible to make sure that 90% of the barges and exhumers were unprofitable to gank, the problem was with the 90% of their owners that couldn't be bothered to do so. The same problem exists today, people would much rather fit for yield than tank. The wet paper bag tank of the mining ships was, and still is entirely down to the people flying them.



Um no.

I lost this setup a couple months ago to a TEST gank. (This was a mackinaw with max shield, cap and fitting skills with 10% shield and armor gang boosts mind you)

2013.10.07 00:44:00

Destroyed items:

Hobgoblin I, Qty: 5 (Drone Bay)
Viscous Pyroxeres, Qty: 51149 (Other)
Modulated Strip Miner II

Dropped items:

Medium F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Reactor Control Unit II
Damage Control II
Power Diagnostic System II
Modulated Strip Miner II

Valterra Craven
#565 - 2013-12-04 21:24:42 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:


I really hated the mining ship EHP buff, and it's not because I thought the ships didn't deserve it (imo they did), it's because it was seen as a victor by the whiny "i should be left alone even though I'm flying in space making money" crowd. Those types would much rather the game's developers "legislate" victory for them rather than take some very simple and inexpensive steps to secure their own victory using in game methods (like fitting a tank and being smart about their mining...).

It would have been a wholly different thing for me if those miners were fitting tanks the best they could and STILL getting blown up for a profit, and THEN saying to ccp "we think there is a balance issue"...... But the people who were doing that (tanking their ships) aren't vocal crybabies to begin with.

The ironic and hypocritical thing of it all is that the same types tend to look down on what they consider "meta gaming" by players like Goons (or BoB, or the Russians or the old NC etc etc).


I just gave you a hard data point of why this buff wasn't enough. Its still a balance issue.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#566 - 2013-12-04 21:39:17 UTC
ISD LackOfFaith wrote:
Quote:
17. Impersonation of another party is prohibited.

Forum users are strictly prohibited from impersonating any other party on the EVE Online forums. This includes but is not limited to ISD volunteers, CCP employees, CCP partners and other forum users. This also includes suggesting that an employee of CCP or an ISD volunteer will perform a task for you.


Deleted a post as per the above rule.

Heh, for once I'm not surprised.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#567 - 2013-12-04 21:51:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Valterra Craven wrote:

I just gave you a hard data point of why this buff wasn't enough. Its still a balance issue.
Nope you gave us an unverified loss with no details as to the specifics of the gank, where it took place, what they used or any other kind of information that would be relevant.

Looking at the drop you were packing close to, if not in excess, of 30k EHP. With that figure you would generally be left alone in highsec unless there were no other targets around, you were suspect flagged, involved in a wardec or had really annoyed the gankers. If it wasn't in highsec then any reference to suicide ganking and balance is invalid.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
GetSirrus
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#568 - 2013-12-04 21:54:49 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Pre buff it was entirely possible to make sure that 90% of the barges and exhumers were unprofitable to gank, the problem was with the 90% of their owners that couldn't be bothered to do so. The same problem exists today, people would much rather fit for yield than tank. The wet paper bag tank of the mining ships was, and still is entirely down to the people flying them.



Pre-buff; it required the most expensive ship in the line-up, with max fitting skills (and still needed two grid mods to reach the goal) to perform the most basic action in industry. One mid slot and two slots - what tank can be made from that? Note the shield active basic certificate in the recommendation. Good evidence that CCP really do not intend these vessels to the exclusive focus of players needing casual kills.

Is there any other activity in this game which so maligned that players organize contests for the most kills?

According to one notable worthy - now that there some tanking in mining ships; they have to resort to bumping. Invalidation of the argument that tanking is required; when it always about disruptive play and so-called tear collection.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#569 - 2013-12-04 21:57:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
GetSirrus wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Pre buff it was entirely possible to make sure that 90% of the barges and exhumers were unprofitable to gank, the problem was with the 90% of their owners that couldn't be bothered to do so. The same problem exists today, people would much rather fit for yield than tank. The wet paper bag tank of the mining ships was, and still is entirely down to the people flying them.



Pre-buff; it required the most expensive ship in the line-up, with max fitting skills (and still needed two grid mods to reach the goal) to perform the most basic action in industry. One mid slot and two slots - what tank can be made from that? Note the shield active basic certificate in the recommendation. Good evidence that CCP really do not intend these vessels to the exclusive focus of players needing casual kills.

Is there any other activity in this game which so maligned that players organize contests for the most kills?

According to one notable worthy - now that there some tanking in mining ships; they have to resort to bumping. Invalidation of the argument that tanking is required; when it always about disruptive play and so-called tear collection.


One mid and two lows, that'll be the Retriever or Covetor, the only barges that can't fit a decent tank (13-16kish EHP with a DCII and a MSE), at the current cost the Retriever pretty much pays for itself in a few hours so it's disposable anyway and packs a better tank than the Covetor.

Please note I said 90%, the Retriever and Covetor are the 10%. FYI the bumpers are much more into ganking these days, the tears are generally of a better quality.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Valterra Craven
#570 - 2013-12-04 22:07:10 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:

I just gave you a hard data point of why this buff wasn't enough. Its still a balance issue.
Nope you gave us an unverified loss with no details as to the specifics of the gank, where it took place, what they used or any other kind of information that would be relevant.

Looking at the drop you were packing close to, if not in excess, of 30k EHP. With that figure you would generally be left alone in highsec unless there were no other targets around, you were suspect flagged, involved in a wardec or had really annoyed the gankers. If it wasn't in highsec then any reference to suicide ganking and balance is invalid.



How exactly do you propose I give you exact proof when its against the rules to post killmails or links to them in the forums?

I was in .5 space, no war decs, not flagged.

There were 13 destroyers mostly cats.

I never said a word to the gankers, had never met any of them before, and was generally a random person as far as they were concerned. Not that a killmail would tell you that.
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility
#571 - 2013-12-04 22:15:13 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Pre buff it was entirely possible to make sure that 90% of the barges and exhumers were unprofitable to gank, the problem was with the 90% of their owners that couldn't be bothered to do so. The same problem exists today, people would much rather fit for yield than tank. The wet paper bag tank of the mining ships was, and still is entirely down to the people flying them.
Valterra Craven wrote:
Um no.
Valterra Craven wrote:
There were 13 destroyers mostly cats.

Are you suggesting that those thirteen destroyers profited off of ganking your T2 fit barge. Straight
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#572 - 2013-12-04 22:16:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Valterra Craven wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:

I just gave you a hard data point of why this buff wasn't enough. Its still a balance issue.
Nope you gave us an unverified loss with no details as to the specifics of the gank, where it took place, what they used or any other kind of information that would be relevant.

Looking at the drop you were packing close to, if not in excess, of 30k EHP. With that figure you would generally be left alone in highsec unless there were no other targets around, you were suspect flagged, involved in a wardec or had really annoyed the gankers. If it wasn't in highsec then any reference to suicide ganking and balance is invalid.



How exactly do you propose I give you exact proof when its against the rules to post killmails or links to them in the forums?

I was in .5 space, no war decs, not flagged.

There were 13 destroyers mostly cats.

I never said a word to the gankers, had never met any of them before, and was generally a random person as far as they were concerned. Not that a killmail would tell you that.

For illustration purposes I'll assume 10 Catalysts and 3 other types of Destroyer. A Catalyst with a well skilled pilot can hit around 6-700 DPS so we're looking at a minimum of 6000 DPS (kinetic and thermal) just from the Catalysts, there's not much in highsec that'll take that sort of punishment so it's not a balance problem, with an 85% uniform resist profile you'd still be trying to soak up in excess of 1000 DPS.

As for the KB links, give us the name of the pilot flying the Mackinaw, which isn't the character you're posting on. We're totally capable of finding the killmail on TESTs killboard,

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Valterra Craven
#573 - 2013-12-04 22:44:44 UTC
Benny Ohu wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Pre buff it was entirely possible to make sure that 90% of the barges and exhumers were unprofitable to gank, the problem was with the 90% of their owners that couldn't be bothered to do so. The same problem exists today, people would much rather fit for yield than tank. The wet paper bag tank of the mining ships was, and still is entirely down to the people flying them.
Valterra Craven wrote:
Um no.
Valterra Craven wrote:
There were 13 destroyers mostly cats.

Are you suggesting that those thirteen destroyers profited off of ganking your T2 fit barge. Straight


No, what I'm suggesting is that this "90% of owners that couldn't be bothered to tank their barges" claim is largely meaningless.

People gank far more for tears than they do for profit. Making arguments calling an entire class of people lazy and stupid is not productive.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#574 - 2013-12-04 22:53:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Valterra Craven wrote:


No, what I'm suggesting is that this "90% of owners that couldn't be bothered to tank their barges" claim is largely meaningless.

People gank far more for tears than they do for profit. Making arguments calling an entire class of people lazy and stupid is not productive.
"90% of owners can't be bothered to tank their barges" isn't calling people stupid, it's saying that they can't be arsed to fit their ships properly.

You only have to look at killboards to see that 90% of the barges and exhumers that get suicide ganked have either a loltank (small shield boosters are not a tank) or no tank at all, so it's hardly a sweeping generalisation given the evidence available.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility
#575 - 2013-12-04 23:21:53 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Making arguments calling an entire class of people lazy and stupid

that argument wasn't made, but since you brought it up

the statement is that the majority of people who get ganked are lazy and stupid

the premise is that the majority of barge losses are lolfits or afk or both
Karrl Tian
Doomheim
#576 - 2013-12-04 23:36:18 UTC
GetSirrus wrote:


According to one notable worthy - now that there some tanking in mining ships; they have to resort to bumping. Invalidation of the argument that tanking is required; when it always about disruptive play and so-called tear collection.


The 'bears have yet to realize that every time they whine a door nerfed shut because they can't adapt, the "bad people" kick another one open because they can. Case in point, miner-bumping was born when can-flipping died and suicide ganking was put on life support.
Valterra Craven
#577 - 2013-12-04 23:57:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:


No, what I'm suggesting is that this "90% of owners that couldn't be bothered to tank their barges" claim is largely meaningless.

People gank far more for tears than they do for profit. Making arguments calling an entire class of people lazy and stupid is not productive.

You only have to look at killboards to see that 90% of the barges and exhumers that get suicide ganked have either a loltank (small shield boosters are not a tank) or no tank at all, so it's hardly a sweeping generalisation given the samples available.



My point stands regardless of the barge having a tank like mine or none at all. Ganking barges wasn't really ever about profit, its about tears. Pretty much always has been that way and always will be that.

My point was that the "tank or no tank" argument is entirely stupid and meaningless because people are still ganking barges today despite loosing money because of huge tanks.

So if people are still ganking tanks like mine today, then whats the point to fit a tank in the first place? This why is 90% of those fits are crap. It doesn't matter one iota what people fit.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#578 - 2013-12-05 00:10:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Valterra Craven wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:


No, what I'm suggesting is that this "90% of owners that couldn't be bothered to tank their barges" claim is largely meaningless.

People gank far more for tears than they do for profit. Making arguments calling an entire class of people lazy and stupid is not productive.

You only have to look at killboards to see that 90% of the barges and exhumers that get suicide ganked have either a loltank (small shield boosters are not a tank) or no tank at all, so it's hardly a sweeping generalisation given the samples available.



My point stands regardless of the barge having a tank like mine or none at all. Ganking barges wasn't really ever about profit, its about tears. Pretty much always has been that way and always will be that.

My point was that the "tank or no tank" argument is entirely stupid and meaningless because people are still ganking barges today despite loosing money because of huge tanks.

So if people are still ganking tanks like mine today, then whats the point to fit a tank in the first place? This why is 90% of those fits are crap. It doesn't matter one iota what people fit.

What point? you're playing a PvP game, where you're flagged for PvP the moment you log in. The fact that you got ganked despite fitting a tank is neither here nor there, especially when you get hit by 10+ destroyers. 13 Destroyers is wasted on one Mackinaw btw, a terrible waste of resources by TEST there, 5 or 6 would have got the job done in the 20 seconds it takes Concord to roll up and kill the gankers.

I have a mining alt who uses a well tanked Procuror, people that are known to suicide gank or suspect bait, ie: GSF, CODE, TEST and the other "belligerent undesirables" have all been set to pisspoor standings so that they show up in local, suicide gankers are generally red in the overview anyway courtesy of their sec status. If you're not afk, and take precautions, then you are generally pretty safe.

The tools are already in the sandbox, you just have to choose to use them.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Valterra Craven
#579 - 2013-12-05 00:42:54 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:

What point?



Jonah Gravenstein wrote:

The fact that you got ganked despite fitting a tank is neither here nor there


Bolded my point that you seem to have gotten despite stating otherwise.

Jonah Gravenstein wrote:

The tools are already in the sandbox, you just have to choose to use them.


Not disagreeing with you. The point of my post was to counter the argument that people were ganking barges for profit or that fitting a tank was going to prevent a gank. Basically it was merely trying to shut up stupid people bitching about others complaining about getting ganked.
corporal hicks
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#580 - 2013-12-05 00:48:04 UTC
27 pages of nonsense where the undertone of every second post is nerf high sec because we need to force people into low sec so we can shoot them. you can dress it up anyway thats makes you happy..statistics about mining/missions ect ect but at the end of the day its clearly transparent the underlying agenda, the same agenda by the die hard pew pew crowd since 2003.