These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

so the hulk WTF CCP?!!?!?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#161 - 2012-04-11 14:52:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Tippia wrote:
…which means the Hulk isn't a problem since you obviously have more than one choice. You and many others keep pointing this out in this very thread. You have demonstrated that there are other choices, which aren't being used because the Hulk provides enough benefit to be worth it. Consequently, there is absolutely no reason to buff it.


My choice has been to dump hulks and only speculate on minerals.
Have fun making me rich.
I am having extreme fun helping your stuff cost twice as much as in the past. I could buy 100 Hulks with the ISK your kin has lost to me in the last months.


The ONLY reasons why people kept mining for those years was:

- 1 Hulkageddon a year.
- totally AFK, to the point of being bottable
- very low risk in hi sec, it took 3-4 destroyers to kill an exhumer


Since the last few months:

- constant campaigns to boycott a region or whatever. As a consequence a lot of "protection" racket has born even when campaigns are over. Guys with 2 accounts demand payment or suicide gank all day long.
- can't be afk any more, therefore the benefit that outweighted the low income has gone. Bots have being rightfully killed, but their absence stacks with the above to bring supply to half.
- medium to high risk in hi sec, takes 1 destroyer to kill the average mack. It opened the doors to cheap suicide ganking to a legion of guys who could not afford 3-4 accounts like others could do in the past.


"Consequently" as you love to say, now you pay double.

Can't wait for drone regions nerf, I am going to make 3 digits billions on mining ships being sh!t.


Tippia wrote:

Quote:
Guess why they buffed destroyers?
Because they were woefully inadequate since inception compared to what you'd get out of frigates and cruisers. It also provided gankers with a much-needed buff to counteract the many security buffs highsec have received over the years.


Got the buff? Cool now stop the 1000 threads about how evil is to have minerals cost twice as much.

It's good and healthy.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Ana Vyr
Vyral Technologies
#162 - 2012-04-11 14:54:26 UTC
Tippia wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
Tippia wrote:
…so how many 1600mm plates do you usually fit your Iterons with?
and when was the last time you spent over 200 mill on an iteron? i mean can you buy them from then please!
Quite irrelevant.

The point is, they're both the same kind of ship: a non-combat industrial-type ship meant for one thing and one thing only (and, just to repeat that: it's not combat). You can still squeeze 30k EHP out of a Hulk, and that's fairly respectable for what it is and what it's supposed to be doing.


Yeah, but if you get your tank up that high, what it's supposed to be doing is the problem...your yield will be utter crap, kinda negating the point of the ship. It's meant for one thing and one thing only as you say, but if you FIT it for that one thing, you can't survive anything.
Avila Cracko
#163 - 2012-04-11 14:57:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Avila Cracko
Look at what CCP did last few years
Boosted all gankers tools and gave them new ships too
And what they did with mining tools??? Nothing

In the last 6 months CCP boosted all destroyers by 25%!!
They boosted hybrids by lest say around 15%
They introduced Tier 3 BCs that can kill few hulks before concord comes and its cheaper then tools gankers had before
Everything on this field is against miners and for wuss "PVP-ers".

And now they are going to boost the rest of cheaper combat ships... Ugh

truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
masternerdguy
Doomheim
#164 - 2012-04-11 14:58:28 UTC
Sasha Azala wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Nura Taron wrote:

Using a tank that costs thousands of times more than the tank others ships of its size need.


In high sec, it needs no tank mods at all. In 0.0 it can tank the belts with a token effort.




That's rubbish, if I had not fitted the Hulk to tank in hi-sec I would have lost both Hulks that were suicided, both survived but that was before there were any t3 BC. I doubt either would have survived if a t3 BC had attacked them.


The Hulk is a crap vessel to tank as it is, only way to get a reasonable (pre t3 BCs) tank is to make it less efficient for the job it's supposed to do.

In short they need looking at and make them at least stand more chance of survival whislt they're doing the job they're supposed to do.


I also hate how fitting tank makes my pvp ship do less dps and stuff. Buff megathron so I can skip armor plates and fit more gank.

...

seriously....

Things are only impossible until they are not.
Kengutsi Akira
Doomheim
#165 - 2012-04-11 14:58:35 UTC
yes, cause if theyre supposed to be non combat only ships you WOULDNT be able TO tank them

"Is it fair that CCP can get away with..." :: checks ownership on the box ::

Yes
Kengutsi Akira
Doomheim
#166 - 2012-04-11 15:00:48 UTC
Avila Cracko wrote:
Look at what CCP did last few years
Boosted all gankers tools and gave them new ships too
And what they did with mining tools??? Nothing

In the last 6 months CCP boosted all destroyers by 25%!!
They boosted hybrids by lest say around 15%
They introduced Tier 3 BCs that can kill few hulks before concord comes and its cheaper then tools gankers had before
Everything on this field is against miners and for wuss "PVP-ers".

And now they are going to boost the rest of cheaper combat ships... Ugh


CCP doesnt want you to mine get the message

"Is it fair that CCP can get away with..." :: checks ownership on the box ::

Yes
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#167 - 2012-04-11 15:03:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Malcanis wrote:
I've yet to see a sensible (ie: game balance-based) argument against enabling Hulks to fit Large Shield Extenders.
The thing is, that cuts both ways: there's very little in the way of sensible arguments for enabling them to fit one either. Like you say, it won't make much difference. Yay, it now has 50k EHP instead of 35k, and will still die horribly to a proper gank…

…and people still won't tank it and will still die to improper ganks. So why bother?

Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
I am having extreme fun helping your stuff cost twice as much as in the past. I could buy 100 Hulks with the ISK your kin has lost to me in the last months.
My stuff costs the same it has always done and ”my kin” hasn't lost you any ISK at all, so I have no idea what you're on about.

Quote:
Got the buff? Cool now stop the 1000 threads about how evil is to have minerals cost twice as much.
Same here: what on earth are you on about? Who are you talking to? If you're going to quote me, at least address me when doing so.

The point remains: the Hulk remains one of the most popular ships in the game in spite of there being a number of alternatives that could potentially even be better or more sensible, according to your reasoning. It's not underused, and it's not being used solely because it's there are no alternatives. So what grounds is there to buff it?

Ana Vyr wrote:
Yeah, but if you get your tank up that high, what it's supposed to be doing is the problem...your yield will be utter crap, kinda negating the point of the ship.
…just like with every other ship in the game.
Danny John-Peter
The Congregation
RAPID HEAVY ROPERS
#168 - 2012-04-11 15:10:03 UTC
And I have to Sacrifice Invuls and Shield extenders on a Rapier Boohoo
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#169 - 2012-04-11 15:13:43 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Phantom
Tippia wrote:

The point remains: the Hulk remains one of the most popular ships in the game in spite of there being a number of alternatives that could potentially even be better or more sensible, according to your reasoning. It's not underused, and it's not being used solely because it's there are no alternatives. So what grounds is there to buff it?


Because it's the smartest way to not make minerals go completely nuts after the recent and future game changes.
More people will jump into mining seeing it finally potentially yields a decent income... The increased numbers would lower the mineral costs back to decent. But then they'll get kicked out with a slam in their teeth once they lost 2-3 ships to the first 2 weeks old guy in a destroyer.

The time-to-gank (from character creation to effective kill) has been hugely reduced, the cost-to-gank too (from BCs to destroyers). This created a self amplifying phenomenon that falls exactly during the lowest supply phase ever.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Kengutsi Akira
Doomheim
#170 - 2012-04-11 15:14:31 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
I've yet to see a sensible (ie: game balance-based) argument against enabling Hulks to fit Large Shield Extenders.
The thing is, that cuts both ways: there's very little in the way of sensible arguments for enabling them to fit one either. Like you say, it won't make much difference. Yay, it now has 50k EHP instead of 35k, and will still die horribly to a proper gank…

…and people still won't tank it and will still die to improper ganks. So why bother?



This argument works for any ship in the game, why ever boost anything then

"Is it fair that CCP can get away with..." :: checks ownership on the box ::

Yes
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#171 - 2012-04-11 15:18:50 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Phantom
Quote:
Because it's the smartest way to not make minerals go completely nuts after the recent and future game changes.
The Hulk doesn't need to be adjusted in any way for that. Just let the market do what the market does, and it'll arrive where it should be. That is the smartest solution, because minerals going nuts for a while isn't really a problem. Adjusting something quite unrelated is a pretty stupid solution because you're not actually addressing any kind of problem by doing so.

Quote:
But then they'll get kicked out with a slam in their teeth once they lost 2-3 ships to the first 2 weeks old guy in a destroyer.
If they can't survive that single weak destroyer, then they should be kicked in the teeth for their abject failure to fit their ship properly. The Hulk can already survive that destroyer with ease, so what reason is there to buff it?

Kengutsi Akira wrote:
This argument works for any ship in the game, why ever boost anything then
No, it only works for ships where people can't produce any kind of reason why it needs to be buffed, and the reason they keep repeating simply comes down to them not wanting to use the pre-existing solutions to their perceived problems… like the Hulk.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#172 - 2012-04-11 15:22:17 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Ana Vyr wrote:


Yeah, but if you get your tank up that high, what it's supposed to be doing is the problem...your yield will be utter crap, kinda negating the point of the ship. It's meant for one thing and one thing only as you say, but if you FIT it for that one thing, you can't survive anything.


The ship gets a 7.5% bonus per level to resists. Even when fitted for max tank the hulk is a better miner than a covetor while being much harder to kill. This is the problem with you people, you simply cannot grasp that you have a choice of defence or better yield. The only reason destroyers can kill hulks is because people chose to have no tank at all.
Buzzmong
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#173 - 2012-04-11 15:24:46 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
I've yet to see a sensible (ie: game balance-based) argument against enabling Hulks to fit Large Shield Extenders.

I honestly don't care at all for the "but they're supposed to be non combat ships" arguments. Game balance is more important than fluff every time. Come to that, Amarr are supposed to be far more advanced than the other races, but CCP discarded the idea of making Amarr ships more powerful.

By far the greatest danager to Hulks comes from player ships, not rats. And the ability of player ships to attack Hulks has expanded far faster than the ability of Hulks to withstand them.

By all means jig the Hulk's fittings so that fitting a Meta 4 LSE means that you need a fitting mod and can't put in any MLUs - much like putting an MSE is now. But an LSE should indisputably be a viable module on a Hulk fit that's focused on tank.

It honestly won't make all that much difference: greedy idiots will still mine with 0 tank mods and 2x T2 cargo rigs. But the alert, capable player who wants to actually protect his ship should have a better option than a Frigate shield module.



I'm fine with Hulks getting buffed to fit LSEs.

Providing they lose the Exhumer 3% Mining Buff per level.

I don't see why the gap between them and Covetors should be widened any more considering Hulks are the only non specialised T2 industrial ship.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#174 - 2012-04-11 15:31:47 UTC
I wonder whats better at minning roids... A tanked to hell hulk or maxed minnning apox with min tank... I qm qt work right now but willing to bet the qpoc will.have more ehp and.more efficiant plus cost less then 1/5 of the hulk...

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Terrorfrodo
Interbus Universal
#175 - 2012-04-11 15:32:14 UTC
To repeat my question, what does a professional ganker need to kill a hulk that
a) has no tank
b) has some tank (DC)
c) has max tank (DC, Bulkheads, SEs)
and how dependent is it of system security status?

I'm sure there is even a table with the math somewhere?

.
Danny John-Peter
The Congregation
RAPID HEAVY ROPERS
#176 - 2012-04-11 15:37:59 UTC
Terrorfrodo wrote:
To repeat my question, what does a professional ganker need to kill a hulk that


I'm sure there is even a table with the math somewhere?



a) No tank

A Dessie

b) has some tank (DC)

Many dessies

c) has max tank (DC, Bulkheads, SEs)

Shitloads

Also, I officially give up on this argument, apparently the vast majority of miners are useless sycophantic half wits without the brains to realise what the rest of EVE worked out years ago; you have to sacrifice something. Weather its Tackle\DPS\ECCM\Utility so you dont die.

\rage
bornaa
GRiD.
#177 - 2012-04-11 15:38:46 UTC
Buzzmong wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
I've yet to see a sensible (ie: game balance-based) argument against enabling Hulks to fit Large Shield Extenders.

I honestly don't care at all for the "but they're supposed to be non combat ships" arguments. Game balance is more important than fluff every time. Come to that, Amarr are supposed to be far more advanced than the other races, but CCP discarded the idea of making Amarr ships more powerful.

By far the greatest danager to Hulks comes from player ships, not rats. And the ability of player ships to attack Hulks has expanded far faster than the ability of Hulks to withstand them.

By all means jig the Hulk's fittings so that fitting a Meta 4 LSE means that you need a fitting mod and can't put in any MLUs - much like putting an MSE is now. But an LSE should indisputably be a viable module on a Hulk fit that's focused on tank.

It honestly won't make all that much difference: greedy idiots will still mine with 0 tank mods and 2x T2 cargo rigs. But the alert, capable player who wants to actually protect his ship should have a better option than a Frigate shield module.



I'm fine with Hulks getting buffed to fit LSEs.

Providing they lose the Exhumer 3% Mining Buff per level.

I don't see why the gap between them and Covetors should be widened any more considering Hulks are the only non specialised T2 industrial ship.


Find me what other BC size ship T2 version costs that much over T1 version.
You see, Hulk costs 10 times more then Covetor.
[Yes, I'm an Amateur](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRa-69uBmIw&feature=relmfu)
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#178 - 2012-04-11 15:41:47 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Ana Vyr wrote:
Yeah, but if you get your tank up that high, what it's supposed to be doing is the problem...your yield will be utter crap, kinda negating the point of the ship. It's meant for one thing and one thing only as you say, but if you FIT it for that one thing, you can't survive anything.
The ship gets a 7.5% bonus per level to resists. Even when fitted for max tank the hulk is a better miner than a covetor while being much harder to kill. This is the problem with you people, you simply cannot grasp that you have a choice of defence or better yield. The only reason destroyers can kill hulks is because people chose to have no tank at all.
…in fact, let's take a completely different expensive T2 ship and “fit it for its one thing” the way people tend to fit their Hulks and see what happens:

Damnation
Armored Warfare Link - Damage Control II
Armored Warfare Link - Passive Defense II
Armored Warfare Link - Rapid Repair II
Skirmish Warfare Link - Evasive Maneuvers II
Skirmish Warfare Link - Interdiction Maneuvers II
Skirmish Warfare Link - Rapid Deployment II
Information Warfare Link - Sensor Integrity II
4× Command Processor I
6× Co-Processor II
2× Medium Trimark Armor Pump I

…oh dear. At just under 50k EHP, It can also be ganked by a small gang of destroyers. It's obvious that the Damnation needs to have its tanking abilities drastically buffed because it's such a weak ship. Roll


Terrorfrodo wrote:
To repeat my question, what does a professional ganker need to kill a hulk that
a) has no tank
b) has some tank (DC)
c) has max tank (DC, Bulkheads, SEs)
and how dependent is it of system security status?

I'm sure there is even a table with the math somewhere?


a) Single frigate or destroyer.
b) Single tier-3 / battleship; multiple destroyers.
c) Multiple tier-3s / battleships.

For higher-end highsec, shift up one “requirement level” and/or just add more of the same ships for that level. When in doubt, throw 5× 10k-alpha ships on the bugger, and that will nuke just about any exhumer at any sec level.
Avila Cracko
#179 - 2012-04-11 15:43:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Avila Cracko
Danny John-Peter wrote:


Also, I officially give up on this argument, apparently the vast majority of miners are useless sycophantic half wits without the brains to realise what the rest of EVE worked out years ago; you have to sacrifice something. Weather its Tackle\DPS\ECCM\Utility so you dont die.

\rage


No, wast majority of wuss gankers that only have balls to PVP against defend-less target are "useless sycophantic half wits without the brains to realise" that they got in last 6 months many boosts (dessy boost, hybrid boost and tier 3 BC) and miners none and that they are now even bigger wussies then before.

Balance was broken before too, but now we can't talk about balance at all.

truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Prince Kobol
#180 - 2012-04-11 15:48:12 UTC
Avila Cracko wrote:
Danny John-Peter wrote:


Also, I officially give up on this argument, apparently the vast majority of miners are useless sycophantic half wits without the brains to realise what the rest of EVE worked out years ago; you have to sacrifice something. Weather its Tackle\DPS\ECCM\Utility so you dont die.

\rage


No, wast majority of wuss gankers that only have balls to PVP against defend-less target are "useless sycophantic half wits without the brains to realise" that they got in last 6 months many boosts (dessy boost, hybrid boost and tier 3 BC) and miners none and that they are now even bigger wussies then before.

Balance was broken before too, but now we can't talk about balance at all.


The flip side of your argument is that its a bunch of pansy ass miners who are too damn lazy to tank their ships, do any intel and expect to be able to afk mine coming on the forums crying how its unfair.