These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Author
Anatoly Vsevolod
Doomheim
#161 - 2014-01-04 20:27:04 UTC
Meyr wrote:
If a miner CHOOSES to not mine in a ship that is fit for tanking, that is their CHOICE. I have nothing against providing the unwary a lesson in the effects of their choices when outfitting a ship they intend to use for it's intended purpose - mining.

An Exhumer fit for max tank is simultaneously capable of mounting a respectable tank, and performing the mission of mining effectively.

My issue with ganking arises from Industrials and Freighters. A Freighter pilot has absolutely ZERO choice in how to outfit his ship. Any ganker logging in knows, before the Freighter pilot even boots up his computer, what it's going to take to kill that ship.

Industrials, on the other hand, with the exception of the specialized haulers under specific conditions, are totally incapable of fitting for tank AND hauling any useful amount of bulk cargo, or fitting for even a medium level of cargo capacity, and surviving a dirty look from a rookie ship.

Even when filled with trit, it's cost-effective to gank a freighter. There needs to be a balance point between using the designed capabilities of a hull, and the ease with which it can be killed, i.e., not fulfilling it's designed purpose. If you can't fill a freighter's cargohold with the least expensive cargo possible, without it being cost-effective to gank it, while giving the pilot ZERO options for altering the survivability of his vessel, it's a FAIL design. In a combat ship, this would be unacceptable, and pilots would be demanding change.

And, they'd get it. Just look at the Maller. It's now a fairly credible combat vessel. Haulers? Each race's most popular hauler was made EVEN EASIER to kill! Less capable of doing the job for which it was designed. Why? Gee, put a PVP-only pilot in charge of ship re-design, and you end up with asshat ship designs for vessels he only views as prey.

THAT is why so many of us say that ganking is too easy. Not because idiots are locking everything that comes through a gate, but because the Industrialists and Haulers have NO VIABLE OPTIONS IN HOW TO FIT THEIR VESSELS.


I agree with you when it comes to Freighters, but as for t1 haulers you can fit a decent tank man (no wonder some use them even for pvp). And if you want more just get a transport ship ...

Mastodon:

1x DCU II
1x LSE II
2x Inv. Field II
2x Medium CDFE

~78k EHP with 4 empty low slots to play with .
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#162 - 2014-01-04 20:30:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Domanique Altares
ZynnLee Akkori wrote:
It suggests pretty clearly that both sides are involved in the activity.


So what activity are you involved in while your untanked shitship is getting ganked? (You in the general sense. I have no clue if you've been personally ganked or not.)

Reading a book?

Playing WoW?

Watching Netflix/Pr0n/TV?

It's obviously not defending yourselves. Hell, you could have done that before you left station. A proper and visible shield tank will spare you many, many ganks. If someone sees you with an invuln running, orbiting a roid, and your buddy without one sitting still, guess who they drop the Catalysts on the majority of the time?
Dave Stark
#163 - 2014-01-04 20:32:48 UTC
Domanique Altares wrote:
guess who they drop the Catalysts on the majority of the time?

the ****** 3 systems over with an A type invuln?
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#164 - 2014-01-04 20:35:29 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Domanique Altares wrote:
guess who they drop the Catalysts on the majority of the time?

the ****** 3 systems over with an A type invuln?


That's only for those filthy people interested in profit.
Dave Stark
#165 - 2014-01-04 20:37:25 UTC
Domanique Altares wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Domanique Altares wrote:
guess who they drop the Catalysts on the majority of the time?

the ****** 3 systems over with an A type invuln?


That's only for those filthy people interested in profit.


well my vindicator would love an A type invuln.
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#166 - 2014-01-04 20:39:45 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Domanique Altares wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Domanique Altares wrote:
guess who they drop the Catalysts on the majority of the time?

the ****** 3 systems over with an A type invuln?


That's only for those filthy people interested in profit.


well my vindicator would love an A type invuln.


Absolutely no doubt.

If I see a miner running one, I'll let you know. I have no doubt that it's happened, and will happen again.
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#167 - 2014-01-04 20:57:23 UTC
Incidentally, I have found an exhumer fit that should make high sec miners happy. It should stand up fairly well to your typical Catalyst gank squad, even in 0.5 space, and has decent yield, as well.

To make it really shine, get yourself a full Genolution set and the 'Gnome' 705 and 905 hardwirings. It's cap stable and has 194k EHP versus Void, and a 229dps passive regen versus the same. I expect that this fit will be all the rage within the mining community, and causing all the rage within the highsec ganking community.*


[Skiff, Reasonable Tank]
Mining Laser Upgrade II
Damage Control II

Medium Shield Extender II
Medium Shield Extender II
Pithum A-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field
Pith X-Type Thermic Dissipation Field
Pith X-Type Kinetic Deflection Field

Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal I

Medium Core Defense Field Extender II
Medium Core Defense Field Extender II

*Not responsible for those players with more dollars than sense that become a loot pinata.
KnowUsByTheDead
Sunlight...Through The Blight.
#168 - 2014-01-04 21:04:26 UTC
Domanique Altares wrote:
Incidentally, I have found an exhumer fit that should make high sec miners happy. It should stand up fairly well to your typical Catalyst gank squad, even in 0.5 space, and has decent yield, as well.

To make it really shine, get yourself a full Genolution set and the 'Gnome' 705 and 905 hardwirings. It's cap stable and has 194k EHP versus Void, and a 229dps passive regen versus the same. I expect that this fit will be all the rage within the mining community, and causing all the rage within the highsec ganking community.*


[Skiff, Reasonable Tank]
Mining Laser Upgrade II
Damage Control II

Medium Shield Extender II
Medium Shield Extender II
Pithum A-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field
Pith X-Type Thermic Dissipation Field
Pith X-Type Kinetic Deflection Field

Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal I

Medium Core Defense Field Extender II
Medium Core Defense Field Extender II

*Not responsible for those players with more dollars than sense that become a loot pinata.


Talos the mighty! Talos the unerring! Talos the unassailable! To you we give praise!

Once you realize what a joke everything is, being the comedian is the only thing that makes sense.

Anslo
Scope Works
#169 - 2014-01-04 21:39:48 UTC
9 pages of replies to obvious bait.

This thread is now contender for TOTY 2014.

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

SpoonRECKLESS
Beach Boys
The Minions.
#170 - 2014-01-04 21:56:13 UTC
Meyr wrote:
Sorry - I don't count ganking as PVP - it's a PK activity, pure and simple.

That stated, what else do you term as 'PVP paying for itself?'



IF the loot you get from wrecks of those are t2 and up you get alot of isk from that.

Blue

Diamond Zerg
Taking Solo Away.
#171 - 2014-01-04 22:41:54 UTC
It's both.

An interesting question might be: Would EVE be as fun if the only environment to fight over was passive income, and not based on grinding?
Hi.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#172 - 2014-01-04 22:47:22 UTC
Diamond Zerg wrote:
It's both.

An interesting question might be: Would EVE be as fun if the only environment to fight over was passive income, and not based on grinding?

Like... a mineral faucet?

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Meyr
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
OnlyFleets.
#173 - 2014-01-04 23:22:29 UTC
Domanique Altares wrote:
Incidentally, I have found an exhumer fit that should make high sec miners happy. It should stand up fairly well to your typical Catalyst gank squad, even in 0.5 space, and has decent yield, as well.

To make it really shine, get yourself a full Genolution set and the 'Gnome' 705 and 905 hardwirings. It's cap stable and has 194k EHP versus Void, and a 229dps passive regen versus the same. I expect that this fit will be all the rage within the mining community, and causing all the rage within the highsec ganking community.*


[Skiff, Reasonable Tank]
Mining Laser Upgrade II
Damage Control II

Medium Shield Extender II
Medium Shield Extender II
Pithum A-Type Adaptive Invulnerability Field
Pith X-Type Thermic Dissipation Field
Pith X-Type Kinetic Deflection Field

Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal I

Medium Core Defense Field Extender II
Medium Core Defense Field Extender II

*Not responsible for those players with more dollars than sense that become a loot pinata.


Nice troll.

Got anything remotely reasonable?
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#174 - 2014-01-04 23:32:35 UTC
Meyr wrote:

Nice troll.

Got anything remotely reasonable?


That's not trolling. That's perfectly reasonable if you're a rich high sec dweller, living off the fat of the land with little to worry about by way of getting shot down on a daily basis.

Now, if you're looking for something more affordable to knock around with on the weekend, this might serve you better:

[Procurer, Cheap Tanked Procurer]
Mining Laser Upgrade II
Damage Control II

Medium Shield Extender II
Limited Adaptive Invulnerability Field I
Limited Adaptive Invulnerability Field I
Thermic Dissipation Field II

Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal I

Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I

Hobgoblin I x5

Meyr
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
OnlyFleets.
#175 - 2014-01-04 23:37:13 UTC
Yonis Kador wrote:
OK, so what is your counterproposal?

With even a single low slot, a freighter with one DCII would be overpowered with all its hull hp granted resists. Freighters would be virtually immune to ganking. We can't do that. Even if it had a drone bay, as a capital ship, a freighter would take too long to acquire target lock for ecm drones to be particularly effective. So, are you proposing that attack BCs be removed from the game? It's their large weapon turrets on battlecruiser-class ships that make these attacks cost-effective, no?

Or how many of their turret points would you like to see removed? 1? 2? They have 8. Write up a proposal and submit it to features & ideas. You'll get trolled some but maybe a dev will reply telling you why it is/isn't a good idea.

And no one should be hauling hundreds of millions of isk worth of loot in t1 industrials. They CHOOSE to stuff it all in instead of making multiple trips to mitigate their risk.

It's the same principle.

YK


How about, as I've proposed several times, reducing all Freighter's cargo capacity to the point where a T2 cargohold expander will return them to their current capacity, and fit them with one low slot, 40 CPU, and 2 PG?

You DO understand that freighter pilots need SOME form of options in fitting their ships? Should they CHOOSE to gimp their ship's cargo capacity in return for increased survivability, who are you to protest it?

If it makes YOUR 'fun' more difficult, awwww, poor baby, too bad. That's what you gankers have been telling hauler pilots for years.

You want the killmail, I want to reach my destination intact. If my choice in how I fit my ship means you can't log in knowing exactly what it's going to take to kill me, that's not my problem. If a DC II makes my ship too hard for you to kill, too bad.

HTFU, as you gankers like to tell everyone else!
Kimmi Chan
Tastes Like Purple
#176 - 2014-01-04 23:43:57 UTC
Meyr wrote:
How about, as I've proposed several times, reducing all Freighter's cargo capacity to the point where a T2 cargohold expander will return them to their current capacity, and fit them with one low slot, 40 CPU, and 2 PG?

You DO understand that freighter pilots need SOME form of options in fitting their ships? Should they CHOOSE to gimp their ship's cargo capacity in return for increased survivability, who are you to protest it?

If it makes YOUR 'fun' more difficult, awwww, poor baby, too bad. That's what you gankers have been telling hauler pilots for years.

You want the killmail, I want to reach my destination intact. If my choice in how I fit my ship means you can't log in knowing exactly what it's going to take to kill me, that's not my problem. If a DC II makes my ship too hard for you to kill, too bad.

HTFU, as you gankers like to tell everyone else!


So you want to change freighters? That was the whole point of this Eve is PvE thing? I've hauled all kinds of stuff in my Crane. Never had a problem. I am guessing that a lot of freighter pilots get along just fine. But something tells me that you are very angry and passionate about this crusade which leads me to guess that you have had problems that other freighter pilots have not. Am I off the mark here?

"Grr Kimmi  Nerf Chans!" ~Jenn aSide

www.eve-radio.com  Join Eve Radio channel in game!

Domanique Altares
Rifterlings
#177 - 2014-01-04 23:45:02 UTC
Meyr wrote:
40 CPU, and 2 PG?


Sounds like a good spot for a DCU II to me. If all they need is a cargo expander, then they can have 1 low slot and no fittings at all, right?

Or they can fit the DCU II, still put too much valuable stuff in their reduced cargo bay, still get ganked, and still come crying on the forums. At which point giving them a low slot and fittings has solved nothing for them or anyone else.
Marsha Mallow
#178 - 2014-01-05 00:05:41 UTC
Meyr wrote:
Just because someone doesn't want to PVP doesn't mean they're "doing it wrong." Quite the contrary - they're doing it how they want to.
Stop your moronic, short-sighted, and stupidly egotistical sneering at those evil, lazy, cowardly, and dirty mission-runners - who do you think just bought that X-Type X-Large Shield Booster from you? Some idiot looking to pad your killboard in the next fleet fight? Of course not.

Some people want to 'pew-pew!' Nothing wrong with that. Others just want to build things. Great - someone has to make new stuff to replace the losses, or supply new doctrines.

Others just want to have the shiniest, most ISK-per-module 'blinged-out' "ain't no rat gonna kill this" mission-running ship. It's a goal - just like that top-end Bougatti you'll never even come close to pushing to its limits.

So, stating that EVE is only a 'harsh, cold, dangerous place' is, at best, myopic - it merely goes to show how self-centered you are. I've made great friends of people I'll probably never meet in person. I've spent time enjoying solo play, and I've been one more name in local during huge fleet fights.

EVE is what you make of it - but it's all paid for by PVE. No PVE, no PVP..


Some of the sentiments of this bit I agree with, although I think you are basing it from a flawed viewpoint. No reasonable person has an issue with people doing PVE. Many people PVE to fund PVP: some to fund gametime, some because they haven't been exposed to PVP yet. It's not a dirty habit (unless you really, really enjoy it :P) Not even going to get into the what PVP is argument, because I believe it all is (even mining), but it's a matter of perspective and if you don't see that side there's really no point trying to pursuade.

Where people have an issue is continued and entrenched solo gameplay, for a variety of reasons. Some people join the game, mission run/manufacture/trade etc and do everything possible - which is sensible from their point of view - to mitigate risk. They never leave highsec. They don't leave NPC corps, or roll solo corps. They don't talk to anyone or engage in co-operative activity, other than to grind ISK. At the point they do lose something, which they probably should have realised was inevitable, some come running to the forums to complain. They feel they should be allowed to continue playing their preferred gamestyle without any interruption or interraction. Then they demand tweaks to gameplay, at which point they are ridiculed and subject to a spew of abuse.

I dislike the abusive side of it, because in all honesty a lot are just ignorant. It could perhaps be addressed by improvements in the NPE. But having said that, CCP can't be expected to reverse the expectations of players from games where PVE is central.

Not all of the people who terrorise people whining over ganks/want to play a pure PVE game are doing it out of spite (altho granted, some are). Some may genuinely believe the person needs to be informed they are playing an MMO. In Eve, it has a detrimental effect upon others when certain groups farm massive amounts of ISK without any risk, whilst those who participate more broadly knowingly expose themselves to risk. Some elements are genuinely concerned about the types of people who play, get ganked or hassled, then run away/quit. Not about the person, but probably more about how to get those types into the 'spirit' of things and not take those losses so hard. I think some are also concerned that if CCP caves in to the demands of an element who want a more PVE-centric game, that it will become one.

Having said that, you could argue that some personalities enjoy the intricacy of MMOs as a release valve and shouldn't be forced to play with others. But they enter the game knowing there are risks, at some point they will be reminded there are other people with different goals and mentalities out there.

The argument re freighters and ganking ties into this tbh. If you do everything solo or without research/common sense, (ie running freighters rammed with ISK through Niarja during peak times on a weekend, excessively pimp fitting mission ships, jumping into lowsec unscouted) isn't the lesson deserved to a degree? To qualify that, ganking does seem excessive at the moment, as I've spoke to a couple of people recently who have had empty jump freighters on npc alts ganked in highsec. Perhaps a tweak is needed, but in the meantime, just apply moderate amounts of common sense.

Ripard Teg > For the morons in the room:

Sweets > U can dd my face any day

James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#179 - 2014-01-05 00:07:37 UTC
Domanique Altares wrote:
Sounds like a good spot for a DCU II to me

There are no tech 2 drone control units.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#180 - 2014-01-05 00:14:10 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Domanique Altares wrote:
Sounds like a good spot for a DCU II to me

There are no tech 2 drone control units.

Heh...

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?