These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Time to do something about locust swarms?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Carribean Queen
Vadimus Quarrier Works
#181 - 2014-08-17 20:52:17 UTC
Faeana wrote:
Carribean Queen wrote:
Faeana wrote:
After reading a few miner posts, I see a second option to solving this issue without nerfing the skiff tank.

Reduce skiff mining yield a bit. Many miners use an Orca or other hauler and so the extra ore hold of the Mackinkaw is just useless, there's no reason to use a Mackinkaw over a Skiff. Reduce skiff yield 10% from current and we should see a few less Skiffs.


The Skiff is already the lowest. And nerfing the yield more won't prevent people from using them. They don't want to get ganked, so the fly max tanked Skiff instead. Flying anything else, it's a matter of when you will be ganked, not if.

End of story on that.

Don't like it? Bump them out of the belt, get your friends and some more friends and perform the ganks. Etc etc etc.

CCP gave the miners an option. Take less yield to not get ganked, or risk more yield and get ganked.

WORKING AS INTENDED.

I am now training up Tear Collection Level 5 just so I can buy a bin large enough to hold all of the delicious drops of stupidity.


Shows how much you know. The skiff is not the lowest, it has the same yield as the mackinkaw. If you factor in that it's stupid to mine in a mackinkaw without a damage control fitted, then the skiff has more yield than the mackinkaw.


No, this shows you didn't read. Again. Skiffs, MAX TANKED SKIFFS & PROCURERS, SO YOU CANNOT BE GANKED. ARE THE WORST YIELD. Again. For the love of god. Quit crying. MINERS ARE CHOOSING TO FIT THIS WAY SO THEY DO NOT LOSE THEIR PRETTY PRETTY PONY MINING BARGES. THEY ARE CHOOSING TO HAVE WORSE YIELD INSTEAD OF HAVING TO REPLACE A BARGE EVERY DAY BECAUSE TARDS.

Now we have cry baby gankers whining that this is UNPOSSIBLE. When all they really need is something like 20 T2 fit catalysts. Which is more of the value than the barge itself.

NOTHING TO SEE HERE, WORKING AS INTENDED.
Foxstar Damaskeenus
why did i join this corp
Not Purple Shoot It.
#182 - 2014-08-17 21:10:06 UTC
Carribean Queen wrote:
CHOOSING TO HAVE WORSE YIELD INSTEAD OF HAVING TO REPLACE A BARGE EVERY DAY BECAUSE TARDS.

Now we have cry baby gankers whining that this is UNPOSSIBLE. When all they really need is something like 20 T2 fit catalysts. Which is more of the value than the barge itself.

NOTHING TO SEE HERE, WORKING AS INTENDED.


I think three cheaply fit catalysts could do it, but yeah working as intended.

Some people are so sad they will have to have three accounts rather than a couple of friends to take down a skiff. Their tears are tears of loneliness. Feel sorry for them, they know not what they do.

"[this thread] is a cesspit of trolling and flaming" ISD Buldath
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#183 - 2014-08-17 21:56:39 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
It's a well known fact that most bots operate in highsec as miners. Kicking highsec mining in the nuts kicks highsec botting in the nuts. No ice, Veldspar & Scordite only in 50% less quantities.


Without botting highsec, how will a typical goonpet support himself?

~ Professional Forum Alt  ~
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#184 - 2014-08-17 22:05:35 UTC
Sentamon wrote:
Without botting highsec, how will a typical goonpet support himself?


By killing Bob MK n and renting out their space.

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
Angeal MacNova
Holefood Inc.
Warriors of the Blood God
#185 - 2014-08-17 22:19:39 UTC
Quote:
Time to do something about locust swarms?


You will do nothing.
You can do nothing.
Nothing...at all...

http://www.projectvaulderie.com/goodnight-sweet-prince/

http://www.projectvaulderie.com/the-untold-story/

CCP's true, butthurt, colors.

Because those who can't do themselves keep others from doing too.
Faeana
iD00M
#186 - 2014-08-17 22:42:25 UTC
Carribean Queen wrote:
Faeana wrote:
Carribean Queen wrote:
Faeana wrote:
After reading a few miner posts, I see a second option to solving this issue without nerfing the skiff tank.

Reduce skiff mining yield a bit. Many miners use an Orca or other hauler and so the extra ore hold of the Mackinkaw is just useless, there's no reason to use a Mackinkaw over a Skiff. Reduce skiff yield 10% from current and we should see a few less Skiffs.


The Skiff is already the lowest. And nerfing the yield more won't prevent people from using them. They don't want to get ganked, so the fly max tanked Skiff instead. Flying anything else, it's a matter of when you will be ganked, not if.

End of story on that.

Don't like it? Bump them out of the belt, get your friends and some more friends and perform the ganks. Etc etc etc.

CCP gave the miners an option. Take less yield to not get ganked, or risk more yield and get ganked.

WORKING AS INTENDED.

I am now training up Tear Collection Level 5 just so I can buy a bin large enough to hold all of the delicious drops of stupidity.


Shows how much you know. The skiff is not the lowest, it has the same yield as the mackinkaw. If you factor in that it's stupid to mine in a mackinkaw without a damage control fitted, then the skiff has more yield than the mackinkaw.


No, this shows you didn't read. Again. Skiffs, MAX TANKED SKIFFS & PROCURERS, SO YOU CANNOT BE GANKED. ARE THE WORST YIELD. Again. For the love of god. Quit crying. MINERS ARE CHOOSING TO FIT THIS WAY SO THEY DO NOT LOSE THEIR PRETTY PRETTY PONY MINING BARGES. THEY ARE CHOOSING TO HAVE WORSE YIELD INSTEAD OF HAVING TO REPLACE A BARGE EVERY DAY BECAUSE TARDS.

Now we have cry baby gankers whining that this is UNPOSSIBLE. When all they really need is something like 20 T2 fit catalysts. Which is more of the value than the barge itself.

NOTHING TO SEE HERE, WORKING AS INTENDED.


No miner fits skiff for max tank, they all fit my max yield. The tank is so strong they'll likely never lose a ship anyway.
Heinrich Erquilenne
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#187 - 2014-08-17 23:49:21 UTC
Blame multiboxing (and greed from CCP) not ships. Mining without a max tank procurer or skill in nullsec would be suicidal. These are pvp barges. Deal with it. Then we can start to complain about the real issue: how long will ccp allow something that greately lowers the enjoyment of many players for some cash? How's driving players who don't want to play an army of bots out of the game an interesting policy?
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#188 - 2014-08-18 00:02:41 UTC
Heinrich Erquilenne wrote:
Blame multiboxing (and greed from CCP) not ships. Mining without a max tank procurer or skill in nullsec would be suicidal. These are pvp barges. Deal with it. Then we can start to complain about the real issue: how long will ccp allow something that greately lowers the enjoyment of many players for some cash? How's driving players who don't want to play an army of bots out of the game an interesting policy?


Hate to break it to you but banning multi-boxing directly leads to less players and more bots. If CCP wants players to take Skiffs to dangerous areas, then a tank isn't what it needs. You can give the Skiff 5x the tank it has now and people still won't take it to dangerous and unmined areas because unless a complete idiot flies into you, the only thing the tank does is delay your inevitable destruction.

~ Professional Forum Alt  ~
Ashwind Houssa
Therapists Inc
#189 - 2014-08-18 01:05:44 UTC
Sentamon wrote:


Hate to break it to you but banning multi-boxing directly leads to less players and more bots.


Multi boxing is botting, but since it gets CCP cash they overlook it.

But I am not sure that your argument as stated above is valid. If we assume that every player who is currently hoovering up resources with 10+ accounts is going to unsub all of them and not play, that only removes one player, while opening up opportunities for 10 new miners to take his place. Given the higher price from the lower supply of those minerals, there would be an economic incentive for other real players to take up some mining.

Belt Scout
Thread Lockaholics Anonymous
#190 - 2014-08-18 01:17:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Belt Scout
Celthric Kanerian wrote:
Call CODE. and see if they'll do something about it.. They're a bunch of moron gankers.


Assuming they don't tuck tail and logoff. Big smile

.

They say most of your brain shuts down on the EvE forums. All but the impatient side, and the sarcastic side. No wonder I'm still awake.

**This IS my main so STFU.
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#191 - 2014-08-18 02:23:17 UTC
Foxstar Damaskeenus wrote:
Carribean Queen wrote:
CHOOSING TO HAVE WORSE YIELD INSTEAD OF HAVING TO REPLACE A BARGE EVERY DAY BECAUSE TARDS.

Now we have cry baby gankers whining that this is UNPOSSIBLE. When all they really need is something like 20 T2 fit catalysts. Which is more of the value than the barge itself.

NOTHING TO SEE HERE, WORKING AS INTENDED.


I think three cheaply fit catalysts could do it, but yeah working as intended.


Nope, not by a long shot.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Rhiannon Marius
Marius Family Enterprises Unlimited
#192 - 2014-08-18 02:42:13 UTC
Faeana wrote:
Carribean Queen wrote:
Faeana wrote:
Carribean Queen wrote:
Faeana wrote:
After reading a few miner posts, I see a second option to solving this issue without nerfing the skiff tank.

Reduce skiff mining yield a bit. Many miners use an Orca or other hauler and so the extra ore hold of the Mackinkaw is just useless, there's no reason to use a Mackinkaw over a Skiff. Reduce skiff yield 10% from current and we should see a few less Skiffs.


The Skiff is already the lowest. And nerfing the yield more won't prevent people from using them. They don't want to get ganked, so the fly max tanked Skiff instead. Flying anything else, it's a matter of when you will be ganked, not if.

End of story on that.

Don't like it? Bump them out of the belt, get your friends and some more friends and perform the ganks. Etc etc etc.

CCP gave the miners an option. Take less yield to not get ganked, or risk more yield and get ganked.

WORKING AS INTENDED.

I am now training up Tear Collection Level 5 just so I can buy a bin large enough to hold all of the delicious drops of stupidity.


Shows how much you know. The skiff is not the lowest, it has the same yield as the mackinkaw. If you factor in that it's stupid to mine in a mackinkaw without a damage control fitted, then the skiff has more yield than the mackinkaw.


No, this shows you didn't read. Again. Skiffs, MAX TANKED SKIFFS & PROCURERS, SO YOU CANNOT BE GANKED. ARE THE WORST YIELD. Again. For the love of god. Quit crying. MINERS ARE CHOOSING TO FIT THIS WAY SO THEY DO NOT LOSE THEIR PRETTY PRETTY PONY MINING BARGES. THEY ARE CHOOSING TO HAVE WORSE YIELD INSTEAD OF HAVING TO REPLACE A BARGE EVERY DAY BECAUSE TARDS.

Now we have cry baby gankers whining that this is UNPOSSIBLE. When all they really need is something like 20 T2 fit catalysts. Which is more of the value than the barge itself.

NOTHING TO SEE HERE, WORKING AS INTENDED.


No miner fits skiff for max tank, they all fit my max yield. The tank is so strong they'll likely never lose a ship anyway.


I personally fit my Skiff max tank, though when I mine I mine solo.
Carmen Electra
AlcoDOTTE
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#193 - 2014-08-18 02:49:54 UTC
OP, if ISBoxing fleets to make "huge amounts of isk in complete safety" is so easy (also, you mentioned that these guys PLEX all their accounts, so there's no RL cost to them), then why don't you do it too?

If you can run 20 accounts for no out-of-pocket cost, then you should be able to run 40 for the same price. Use 20 miners to fund your 20 gank accounts to take out these ISBoxers.

Be sure to biomass your miners when you're done so that you don't become the evil you sought to destroy.

GLHF

Bacon makes us stronger
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#194 - 2014-08-18 02:54:46 UTC
Carmen Electra wrote:
OP, if ISBoxing fleets to make "huge amounts of isk in complete safety" is so easy (also, you mentioned that these guys PLEX all their accounts, so there's no RL cost to them), then why don't you do it too?

If you can run 20 accounts for no out-of-pocket cost, then you should be able to run 40 for the same price. Use 20 miners to fund your 20 gank accounts to take out these ISBoxers.

Be sure to biomass your miners when you're done so that you don't become the evil you sought to destroy.

GLHF



This.

You claim we can make massive amounts of isk in complete safety. Should we ban station trading as well? How about scamming?
Andrivullar
Forsaken Forge
#195 - 2014-08-18 03:09:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Andrivullar
One, Isboxing is legal, ccp has stated this multiple times. Two, it actually helps CCP make money. In my eyes, thats pretty good considering that means better/more releases in the future. Three. Its not complete safety to isbox, we attract much more attention than the average player, and as such, have to prepare adequately for that. If you don't like it, either a. join the small minority, or b. do what you will about it. or c. live an let live, ya dig?


Also, isboxing is no different than having a mechanical setup with XX many kb/mouses. Its been done in eves history, im sure you could find it if you search.

Cheers. Andr out. 07
Barzai Mekhar
True Confusion
#196 - 2014-08-18 04:38:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Barzai Mekhar
Ashwind Houssa wrote:
Sentamon wrote:


Hate to break it to you but banning multi-boxing directly leads to less players and more bots.


Multi boxing is botting, but since it gets CCP cash they overlook it.

But I am not sure that your argument as stated above is valid. If we assume that every player who is currently hoovering up resources with 10+ accounts is going to unsub all of them and not play, that only removes one player, while opening up opportunities for 10 new miners to take his place. Given the higher price from the lower supply of those minerals, there would be an economic incentive for other real players to take up some mining.



Mining with a single ship is about as entertaining as watching paint dry. Only when you add the meta level of organizing 10+ ships in the most efficient way it becomes interesting for certain people.

I just don't get it. Mining is implemented in a way that is so predictable and non-interactive that replicating an action 20 times scales the income by the same factor - and yet the "multiboxing steals our jooooooobs"-people always focus on breaking the "replicating" part instead of fixing the underlying issue.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#197 - 2014-08-18 04:46:42 UTC
Mining, huh...

Guess I should look into isboxer, apparently it's quite "the bomb".

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 ?
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#198 - 2014-08-18 05:20:26 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Mining, huh...

Guess I should look into isboxer, apparently it's quite "the bomb".


Should be expect a Goonminer invasion of highsec soon?

~ Professional Forum Alt  ~
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#199 - 2014-08-18 05:29:00 UTC
Sentamon wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Mining, huh...

Guess I should look into isboxer, apparently it's quite "the bomb".

Should be expect a Goonminer invasion of highsec soon?

No, why? I live in Deklein.

I just don't isboxer my miners yet

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 ?
Miichael Epic
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#200 - 2014-08-18 05:31:47 UTC
You are seriously b!tching about players that do perfectly legal mining in highsec making too much money so you want to nerf the ships for everyone? That's the dumbest sh!t I've ever heard.

That's dumber than the whole CODE thing. What the f!ck is wrong with you dude?