Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Except that it turns out that what I asked for, well, it's not new, it's even been implemented, in the game. Not for this class of ship, or this role, but it's been done. If it has already been done, that means someone thought of it before I did. If it's already been done, how stupid can it possibly be? Only about half-way, I would think, at the worst, since it's not been done for this type of ship or role, but it has been already implemented, however poorly.

Secondly, I did acknowledge that segment of the population in my responses, then and now. Thank you to those that helped, and discussed, and tried to educate. I can't extend that though, to those that just hated on me for whatever reason and were rude beyond any need or reason. Being nice, the best I can do, in future, is ignore them.

This is poor logic.

Just because something has been done before under otherwise completely different conditions doesn't make adding it under your particular conditions a good idea. On top of that your example was T3 Cruisers which are one of the most controversial additions the game has ever seen in terms of ship classes, and it's almost universally acknowledged that they very much need a rebalance.

Just because T3s maybe sort of work for a combat class does not mean that they would work for a mining ship class. The same applies to tank types.

To put this in terms of formal logic, just because A does not mean B, especially when all but the most basic conditions of A and B are completely different.

Myself and others have explained to you why armor tanks on mining ships are inherently problematic, why they would basically never be the optimal choice even with a slot layout and bonuses, and why T3s have serious balance issues as they currently exist in the game and therefore why adding more is of questionable value.

Your response to all of this, even in this post, has been dismissive and smug, like you feel that you've seen something others haven't. That's a really really poor approach when trying to present an idea.



Except the only way people can determine which bucket you put them in is by your words here on the forums. So far your words have often been exceedingly broad, and I haven't seen you respond particularly nicely or respectfully to much of anyone outside of maybe the first few replies in this thread, and your general statements have shown a distinct derision for those disagreeing with you especially from a point of greater experience and knowledge.

You can say thanks to whoever you want, but if your words elsewhere don't reflect that then it's going to come off pretty hollow.

I may have been remiss in clarifying this, but I'm not dinging you for this kind of gameplay. If anything I'll praise you for it. Eve is all about experimenting and finding new things, and despite how some people talk it's not a solved game, not even in terms of fittings.

That doesn't mean that anything and everything are a good idea though, and sometimes there are objective and very solid reasons something is a bad idea. Unfortunately armor tanked mining ships are one of those things, and mining would have to change in some pretty fundamental ways in order to accommodate one.



Again, I don't think anyone here is faulting you for this. Most players who have been in the game for any length of time will fly a T3 Cruiser or Destroyer at some point, in large part because they're so ridiculously good and winning is generally more fun than losing. The only things I've seen in this thread regarding T3s were that we don't need more of them at present, the ones we have now are OP and in need of a rebalance, and that there is very little value in a T3-style mining ship beyond buffing mining which it really doesn't need at present.



I can assure you that the internet does indeed forget, as long as the original behavior abates enough. If you knew where to look I've got a long history of being an absolute tool to various people and for various reasons, and almost all of it completely unintentional. Over time though I've adjusted my behavior and improved and people have forgotten or forgiven.

Unless you turn this thread into the hill you want to die on then no one is going to remember or care about it in six months, like probably 99% of every feature and idea thread here.



This I kind of just fundamentally disagree with. The idea that human behavior isn't logical assumes that logic is something entirely external to humans when to find the reasons for behavior you, by definition, need to look internally. If something a human does seems illogical then that's most often a failing in starting information, not an actual failing in logic on their part, since most human behavior is fairly reproducible.

As to your specific case, I still remember (and am remembered for) plenty of things that I've done that I have then been forgiven for or given forgiveness for. Forgiveness doesn't have to mean I forget it, though it should probably mean I stop guilting people over it. It just means I'm not going to let it adversely affect my future interactions. If I forgive someone for a single instance of bad behavior and they continue to display that behavior then I may forgive them for an individual instance, but not forget it, and then decide that the overall pattern of behavior is not forgivable and has negative consequences in some form.

As to the personal attacks, nope not really. Nothing you've done on here has made me feel persecuted. I generally try to leave the contents of other threads out of discussions unless someone else brings them up first, which you did, and considering that you then posted "when people were not terribly rude to me, I was not, to them" I just thought it worth drawing attention to the small hypocrisy there.

If you're not being completely sarcastic then I think you may be misinterpreting Rule 7. At worst that was off topic, none of it was political or religious in nature.

If you're doing it in High Sec you're almost guaranteed to get it stolen and a decent chance of getting your ship ganked as well. Ice Mining is, generally speaking, quite cut throat and dangerous in High Sec because of the very limited number of systems where ice spawns and the relatively high value of the stuff compared to most other High Sec ores.

Glad you're rethinking because I can't see CCP ever putting in a viable armor tanked mining ship. To review:

Mining mods compete with armor tank mods, if you put a mining ship in that can armor tank decently and get the yield of a Hulk people will just find a way not to armor tank it and get more yield than a Hulk.

Splitting or changing mining upgrades won't work because there isn't enough there to split. Mining has one stat that matters and that's m3 per hour. If you created both mid and low slot modules players would either abuse that to get more yield or find the best combination and go with that.

T3s at present are pretty blatantly OP (it's why so many people use them), need to be rebalanced, and we don't need more of them.

Okay, let me see if I get this straight…

You honestly want a mining ship that can fit an armor tank. You also propose to fiddle with the bonuses, etc. so that what for balance purposes? With max skills*, and a tank both a shield tanked and armor tanked miner will have the same yield? I agree with Cade that is going to be a tricky thing to balance.

First off we can’t lower the CPU too much so as to most of the armor modules use more CPU than power grid. So if we try to lower the CPU to keep people from fitting too many mining upgrades we also nerf your tank. Further, even if we did CPU upgrades which are low slot items, and implants, and rigs would still present a problem.

See, here is how I see it. Suppose your armor tank has 6 low slots. Now you might argue, 2 mining upgrades, the rest for tank. Fine, now if I strip off some or all of that tank I could replace them with mining upgrades. If the ship is balanced a 4 tank slots/2 mining upgrades slots, now it is unbalanced with 2 armor slots and 4 mining upgrades from a mining production view. And depending on the stats I could conceivably still have an okay tank to avoid most ganks.

If we balance this around 2 tank slots/4 mining upgrades, then if you fit a more robust tank then you are at a distinct disadvantage. While you might fly such a ship due to your desire to go “extreme gallente”, most other players won’t. Spending Dev time on something very few players will be inclined to use ex ante is not a good way to spend Dev time, IMO. Further, you already have this option, technically speaking. Go fit as robust an armor tank on a skiff, and put other stuff in the mid slots. Yes, it would be a sucky mining ship, but that is kind of what you asking for if we balance on 2 tank slots/4 mining upgrades with a more robust tank.

As for T3s those ships are quite problematic. One reason why battleships are not used in NS doctrines is because T3Cs fill that role better. T3Ds are also problematic too. So I don’t see why we would want to add to the T3 can of worms here.

I have read most of this thread. I have read the vast bulk of your replies, and the posts by others. In the end, I just can’t see how we can get to “there” from “here”. My guess is that mining ships, exhumers in particular, were made to be primarily shield tanking or have an advantage that way with the overall economy and mineral markets in mind.

I know I probably won’t convince you, but sorry there it is.

*We pick max skills because most fitting applications have that as an option. Further, this allows us to “marginalize” the effects of skills--to in effect normalize the fittings under discussion. We could use another norm such as minimal skills, but since that is harder to program most fitting tools do not have it and it would be annoying picking that and would likely be an argument in and of itself. This is how most fitting discussions go: use max skills, then look at the fitting.

I wasn't spoon fed all of that anywhere, school, church, or otherwise. Also that smug attitude I was talking about is making a comeback, FYI.

At no point did I tell you not to try it. I said what I thought the likely outcome would be as a heads up and nothing more. I'm generally not in the business of telling people not to try things unless they say "I want to do X because Y" and I don't think X is going to lead to Y for them. I was just informing you, and anyone else who may be reading this, of a few observations I've made on the game and a likely chain of events. They are, by no means, certainties. Eve is, after all, all about risk vs reward.

I should, perhaps, clarify something though. I didn't mean that it would be other miners stealing from you. Ice Belts are a common target for gankers and thieves because of the high value per m3. There are some miners who will gank others to keep an ice spawn to themselves but generally this isn't that economical and it's been years since ice was valuable enough for that kind of behavior to be common.

If you're going to mine into a can I recommend several Giant Secure Containers with a password on them so at least people can't can-flip you.

If you ask, ISD will close the tread, you after all did start it.

Use the report/flag button.

Smug affect then? Even if you don't feel you're acting smug or arrogant that is how it's coming across. One of the harder things for me to learn was that it's not just how you mean something it's how others interpret it that matters, and differing interpretations are not always on the fault of the interpreting party.

As for give and take, I'm not required to agree with anything you're saying at any point just because I disagree with something else. There's no ruthlessness here, just disagreement.

Personally though I come here to discuss things of and about Eve the game, not to score points off of others or compare the length of my education to yours, and this thread has deviated pretty drastically from anything related to the game. If you want to debate real life topics or brag about your education or whatever there are other forums for that.

I agree. But this is not toons. This is human beings, the players, behind the toons.

Are you honestly telling me that you believe every hater that spoke 'badly,' let's say, really was attacking 'Amojin' the character, in this forum?

There's no ships, here. No armor, no weapons... It seems obvious to me that this is, or rather should be, a place for players to talk. One of the respondents to my post, ganked up an expensive MTU, or one of her corp mates. Did I say anything, here? No. Becuase it's the difference between in character, and out of character.

In character, I expect that most of you are going to blow me to hell, if you can. But here, here I expect you to act like a player, a human being, with no particular attachment to your toon.

Why am I so wrong?

He Amojin. If you want this thread to end, here is a tip.

Unsubscribe to it. You find the button in the upper right corner. Then you will not get any notifications about it anymore.

But can you do it? Are you bold enough, to let it go? I doubt it.

Here. I show you how its done.