Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

But it can't. Being able to last the tiny timer on a suicide gank is not 'fending off 3 other ships on it's own'. It's surviving 10-20 seconds before the super hotdrop arrives to defend you. Regardless of the rest of the argument lets not use fake benchmarks to try and make a point.

I'm sorry, had to laugh... no, wait, still laughing at "PVE revamp". Oooooohhhhhhh, that's precious!!! OK first of all, CCP has selective hearing on this one. That is to say, CCP doesn't listen, AT ALL, especially and most frustratingly, that fantastic Fozzie!! For example, he thinks he knows what people who do missions actually want so, we get - that's right ladies and gentlemen - Burner missions!!!!

Just fabulous!!! And what did we get, you ask? A pvp simulator for people who like pvp as much as Shaq likes free throws. And when stats came out that only about 20% of the time those mission were being accepted, it was touted as some sort of success. Really?? Somehow, 80% of people mashing the reject button was a success for pve (by the way, making them optional was the only thing he got right!!). When asked about it, he said it was only for people who were interested in particularly difficult content designed to hone pvp skills. OK fine; but then, don't imply you've done anything to improve or add to the pve aspect of the game!!!

Listen, I don't wish to curb your enthusiasm or stop you from asking CCP for additions/improvements to pve. On the contrary, I wish more people would speak up for pve (I know I feel like I'm screaming in a wind tunnel most of the time, like now) and hound CCP for more missions and more pve content. In fact, I don't understand why the pvp community has such an aversion to this idea; I mean, at the end of the day, the more people doing pve, the more content opportunities for pvp exist. It's a win for everyone including CCP.

The problem is that when we ask for pve we get things like burner missions or industry teams (what a farce that was!!!). CCP and especially Fozzie are so lazer focused on balance and nerfing, that it blinds them to the costs of alienating a good portion of players (mostly paying, as opposed to plexing, subscribers). These Barge changes are case-in-point, he says that the Hulk is going to get a gain in mining yield but, conveniently forgets to tell you that you'll have to get a 100 million plus isk CPU implant and use civilian modules in the mids to get that yield gain thus, rendering your hulk either a juicy gank target (not that it wasn't before but, these changes practically serve it up on a plate) or consigning it to your hangar storage until the next "balance" pass.

I know changes impact every other aspect of this game but, really what's the point here? There's no real driver except, the art changes. That is to say nothing was imbalanced or wrong with the barges, this was done only because they felt the need and as is typical the pve community is left shaking their head wondering why nobody is listening. Don't p!ss on me and call it rain Fozz and don't tell me the hulk is improved when you've turned it into a gank target!!!! On the off chance that you do read this and, have been wondering why some individuals post some really angry stuff directed at you, it might be because they feel like you do these kinds of things with the intent to ruin their play style and run them out of the game. On it's face that's a ridiculous statement but, when people invest years into this game only to have it restricted or severely limited, it feels much bigger emotionally than it actually is; consequently, people over-react and tend to lash out.

I'm still upset about the loss of that turret slot on my Myrmidon and could you please reconsider the weapons timer for marauders? I mean really, talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water... that changed was aimed at capitol ships to prevent them from re-fitting during actual combat and you went and applied it to all ships. I get what you were doing but, anyone with any skill is going to shoot my mobile depot thus, preventing any possibility of combat refit. Now, with this stupid weapons timer, I have to wait just to fit a salvager or cargo expander after the mission is over. It was half the reason I trained into marauders to make missions just a bit more efficient and you had to go ruin it because you want capitol ships to blow up faster and more often. Congrats, great work, mission accomplished!! Now could you please put your nerf bat away ...forever?

... could also be your friends doesn't need to be concord

again why should i lose cargo hold just because YOU don't like the tank. there are plenty of ppl flying hulks and macks so its not like the tinfoil is scaring them off

the more multi role ships become the more overlap there is and nothing but issues come out of it, in the best case there is a clear loser out of a group. In the worst case there is a clear winner. look at freighters they all do the same role and they used to each have clear adv but now they are much closer together and you can see the Ob has the best mix of tank agi and hold. But when each ship specs in one area there is no clear winner or lose as each has a situation they shine in

Hey Devs,

There are things, that could have done better. Hulk and Mack full yield fit is not able to fit all meds which is pretty annoying. I do not see a reason, why Stripminers could not get grouped like weapons. I see absolutely no mining drone boni, what is disturbing as well. At least exhumers should have mining drone boni, cause that is the top of the notch mining ship range.

And what's really poor, that the mining beast of the game has the smallest hold? Even fricking mining frigates have more. Please let me know, what the reason for this "2-cycles-and-it's-full-hold" are. If those Exhumers have nearly the same yield, they should have nearly the same hold - there is no argument against that. IMHO the Hulk deserves a 25,000 m3 hold.

From the stats I checked on SiSi, I see no reason to field a Mack anymore. Just for the hold? Nope.

actually the changes force me to stop mining .... maybe stop playing as well

if you go for max yield and don't pop out drones, yer yield is simply less.

I totally misread this.

I mean... yeah, GG CCP. As long as they keep derping into low-sec infrequently I don't care how many lasers they've got fitted.

IMHO - the Retriever and Mack should be spec'ed to perform their announced and described roles (or those roles should be changed), which are successful solo mining **with the skillsets miners typically train or are requirements for the ships. I think there is a place in the game for players who want to solo mine. Miners don't train the same skills as PVP'ers and said skills are and should not be pre-requisites for flying mining ships.

When the Mack and Retriever were designed for solo mining, solo mining had 2 requirements
1. Balance between mining yield and ore they can carry so you didn't have to fly to the station every 2 cycles to unload or need a hauler. They could do their job with the player flying 1 account.
2. You needed to be able to defend against rats in the areas of space they're intended to fly.

Both ships do fine at achieving these requirements. They can die from rats, but not if the player is paying attention to the game.

Gameplay has changed (in high sec).

CCP didn't change the requirements, but players did.
These ships need to deal with 3 requirements now to successfully fly solo:

1. Balance between mining yield and amount of ore they can carry so you're not continually unloading.
2. Defend against rats
3. Have some counter to the new challenge of suicide ganking [or change the game to eliminate this gameplay as happens with tournament rules when there is unbalanced gameplay]. Whether the (typically) one player doing the ganking threatens the miner with 1, 2, 3, or 6 ships is irrelevant. If my mining ship needs to be buffed to passively handle 5000 DPS to have an even playing field, I don't care. Right now the ganker destroys the mining ship 90+% of the time, waits 15min and does it again in a completely predictable manner with impunity and 100% known risk and that should be changed. Right now there's not a scenario where the miner out thinks, out smarts, out fits, or out plays the ganker and wins. The miner's a nail and the ganker is a hammer. Splat.

If you look on the killboards at the fit's people are using - many are now "it' doesn't matter cause if I get ganked i'm gonna die anyhow" fits. Shooter vs a fish in a barrel. Boring. Annoying. If there are no solutions that can win, there's no point geeking out on fits. (Yes there are miners who geek out on fits.) This has none of the theorycrafting fun of the Alliance tournament where there are 5 or 10 fits that *might win* depending on what the other team brings. The gankers have few fits that always win, and the miners have no fits that win. If there were "I can get decent mining yield and I'll die 50% of the time or less if I'm paying attention and don't need lightening fast muscle memory and reaction times fits" people would use them. It's not like miners like loosing their 50M-200M ISK ships any more than anyone else in the game. It's not like they're being outsmarted when the results are so predictable. There's an arms race and the mining shipbuilders need to respond. IF ORE is too slow, big and bureaucratic to respond to the market need where's the new upstart stealth-mode corporation wanting to break into the mining market?? Don't any Eve venture capitalists see an opportunity here?

The Hulk and Covetor gave you higher yields but with their small ore capacity assume you're flying a second account as a hauler. They also have tools to defend against rats, but no tools to defend against the suicide ganking defense requirement.

Mining ships are not currently spec'ed for PVP, yet they are expected to participate in PVP and that should be changed.

If the miner is afk watching Netflix, ignores an visual and audio alarm that a threat is near - and the ganker gets him, fine. ...but if he is there give him a viable counter. Give him an alarm if someone he's marked -10 appears in Local. Give him a FoF smartbomb that's if trained to lvl 5 and activated kills the ganker group every time, and trained to lvl 3 wins half the time. (Skills are invisible to a ship scanner, so the ganker doesn't know what the result will be in advance.) If you gave the miner gank-defense-drones, deployables or mines that auto-locked and started attempting to jam the aggressors after their first round is shot. If you gave him a FOF savvy AOE jamming module that was allowed in high sec (so one player can deal with so many new targets to lock), then you've created a situation where either side could win, and the negligent (or unlucky) side looses. FOF is a bigger new issue with boosters having to be on-grid and miners clumped around them - let FoF address-book status of people around you affect gameplay + or -. Don't expect the miner to have PVP response times, he's not the player who is an adrenaline junkie and F1 masher (his world is 30sec to 300 sec cycles) -- give him a local Tiedie module that makes the PVP gameplay at the same reaction time as his other gameplay. Remember he's the defender. Make the ganker adjust to and wait for ******-speed PVP since he wants to play that rather than normal-speed PVP in lowsec. If the miner wants an adrenaline rush and to click dscan all the time, he's in w-space mining the good stuff.

If this was the real world, not a game, entrepreneurs and engineers would have long ago solved this problem. They'd have a proximity alarm to alert the miner of pirates. Nobody would be clicking dscan all the time. The mining ship would auto deploy chaff or other defenses at the first sign of aggression. They'd have an auto warp to safespot feature. ...and they'd probably leave behind a mine that damages or destroys the aggressor. ...and the Navy would be monitoring local and get better helping the civilians at each interdiction attempt. Your ships AI would be gloating about how it saved you before u got to the bridge.

I never realised that mining was a highsec intended activity. It's almost as if nullsec didn't have ore and that the ore in nullsec isn't safer to mine and more valuable. Jee willickers.