These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

The Turtle Mining Solution
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#21 - 2012-04-20 18:14:16 UTC
Like I said, ganking isn't an issue in highsec.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#22 - 2012-04-20 18:19:47 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Like I said, ganking isn't an issue in highsec.

Perhaps not in your opinion, but since so many others have objected to it so often, it is an issue to them.

So in this context, I suppose you could say I am referring to their interests, and not to those who do not see a problem, much less a need for a solution.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#23 - 2012-04-20 18:21:01 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Like I said, ganking isn't an issue in highsec.


lolololololollol

You're funny

My corp and I ganked two hulks just about a month ago just because we were certain they were macro miners.

We used frigs and destroyers, and one stealth bomber.

We were able to destroy the two hulks at a cost of 100 mil for us, which isn't too bad.
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#24 - 2012-04-20 18:22:42 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
mxzf wrote:
It already exists. It's called a Carrier.

Nikk Narrel wrote:

Lovely.

Now explain how we get one of these mining drone carriers into High-Sec, where the ganking is an issue.

Ganking isn't an issue in highsec, otherwise hulk pilots would adapt their behavior to fit tanking mods instead of just piling on MLUs, cargohold expanders and cargo rigs.



I can fit out a hulk for as much tank as possible and the only thing it means to the ganker is to bring 1 more destroyer.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#25 - 2012-04-20 18:26:21 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
mxzf wrote:
It already exists. It's called a Carrier.

Nikk Narrel wrote:

Lovely.

Now explain how we get one of these mining drone carriers into High-Sec, where the ganking is an issue.

Ganking isn't an issue in highsec, otherwise hulk pilots would adapt their behavior to fit tanking mods instead of just piling on MLUs, cargohold expanders and cargo rigs.

I see you have an exquisite sense of humor.

Your point is you refuse to acknowledge a problem, since you believe the solution to be present, albeit willfully ignored.

Have you ever tried, as the metaphor describes, 'herding cats'?

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#26 - 2012-04-20 18:32:01 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Like I said, ganking isn't an issue in highsec.

Ganking is *only* an issue in highsec, because you can't shoot first defensively.

You can "gank" in low or null, but there the miners can bring combat buddies who will be more than happy to have the targets come to them.

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs
Joe Risalo
State War Academy
Caldari State
#27 - 2012-04-20 18:45:40 UTC
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Like I said, ganking isn't an issue in highsec.

Ganking is *only* an issue in highsec, because you can't shoot first defensively.

You can "gank" in low or null, but there the miners can bring combat buddies who will be more than happy to have the targets come to them.


bringing combat defense in high sec mining is pointless.

The reason?

Because ganks in high sec are all about alpha. they have to take you down before Concord pops them, and your fleet can't engage them until they engage you. So basically, your hulk is gonna die reguardless of what else you bring, and their fleet is gonna die reguardless of what you do.. They're not afraid of you shooting at them, because they're going to get popped either way.
The only thing that could possibly help your hulk survive is it you shoot them with your defense ship first. Yet, this only helps them more because they can potentially get 2 killmails for the price of one.

What I'm saying is that if they're going to gank your hulk in high sec, then there is nothing you can do to stop it apart from ganking them first.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#28 - 2012-04-20 18:52:05 UTC
Long story short, you want a ship that can survive a disposable / suicide's alpha, but still be worth the effort to undock and try to mine with.

If BS hulls were seriously viable in this role, it would not be an issue that so many Hulks were being popped. They would never have been undocked.

So, that is the inspiration for the Turtle, a ship clearly inferior to the Hulk in mining abilities, not nearly as easy to get into, and more skill intensive and effort intensive in the field.

But, it is far less likely to pop to an alpha than a Hulk, so there would be a demand for it.

And that demand justifies the concept.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#29 - 2012-04-20 19:13:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
mxzf wrote:
It already exists. It's called a Carrier.

Nikk Narrel wrote:

Lovely.

Now explain how we get one of these mining drone carriers into High-Sec, where the ganking is an issue.

Ganking isn't an issue in highsec, otherwise hulk pilots would adapt their behavior to fit tanking mods instead of just piling on MLUs, cargohold expanders and cargo rigs.

I see you have an exquisite sense of humor.

Your point is you refuse to acknowledge a problem, since you believe the solution to be present, albeit willfully ignored.

Have you ever tried, as the metaphor describes, 'herding cats'?

Again, ganking isn't an issue in highsec, otherwise hulk pilots would adapt their behavior to fit tanking mods instead of just piling on MLUs, cargohold expanders and cargo rigs

However, they do not adjust their behavior, because ganking is not a serious problem in highsec. And if ganking is not a problem in highsec, then no handicap uberehp mining vessel 'solution' is needed.
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#30 - 2012-04-20 19:21:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
Nikk Narrel wrote:

If BS hulls were seriously viable in this role, it would not be an issue that so many Hulks were being popped. They would never have been undocked.

This is backwards. Rokhs are perfectly viable as mining ships with immense EHP. However they go unused because suicide ganking is not a problem. It is not enough of a problem to justify to players to downgrade their mining yield even a small percentage by bothering to fit tanking modules, let alone justify "downgrading" to a nearly gank-proof shieldbuffed BS.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#31 - 2012-04-20 20:04:14 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Have you ever tried, as the metaphor describes, 'herding cats'?

Again, ganking isn't an issue in highsec, otherwise hulk pilots would adapt their behavior to fit tanking mods instead of just piling on MLUs, cargohold expanders and cargo rigs

However, they do not adjust their behavior, because ganking is not a serious problem in highsec. And if ganking is not a problem in highsec, then no handicap uberehp mining vessel 'solution' is needed.

Herding cats is a reference to trying to make independent minded groups behave in a manner you approve of, or otherwise guide.

Since the players who complain obviously do not adapt as you describe, you declare the issue to not exist, based off this failure on their part to adapt.

The issue is not subject to approval by others, in a meaningful way.
I respect you want them to play differently. Good luck herding those cats.

For those seeking other options than you have accepted, threads like this exist.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
mxzf
Shovel Bros
#32 - 2012-04-20 20:21:01 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:

If BS hulls were seriously viable in this role, it would not be an issue that so many Hulks were being popped. They would never have been undocked.

This is backwards. Rokhs are perfectly viable as mining ships with immense EHP. However they go unused because suicide ganking is not a problem. It is not enough of a problem to justify to players to downgrade their mining yield even a small percentage by bothering to fit tanking modules, let alone justify "downgrading" to a nearly gank-proof shieldbuffed BS.


This. The people who complain about ganking are the ones who are too greedy to mine in something they won't be ganked in. If you choose to min-max your yield, you are choosing to forgo tank.

Compare it to if people were flying pure gank-fit Diemoses and were complaining that they get primaried and killed fast. Well, duh. If you want more survivability, you trade off some gank (or yield) for more buffer. If your high-DPS (yield) ship can't get the levels of tank you want, then you change into another ship which can still do good DPS (yield) but have better tank, you don't whine and complain and say that CCP needs to add in a new ship for you with the gank of a Diemos and the tank of a Damnation, that's just stupid.

Working. As. Intended. There are supposed to be tradeoffs and choices in Eve.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#33 - 2012-04-20 20:24:54 UTC
mxzf wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:

If BS hulls were seriously viable in this role, it would not be an issue that so many Hulks were being popped. They would never have been undocked.

This is backwards. Rokhs are perfectly viable as mining ships with immense EHP. However they go unused because suicide ganking is not a problem. It is not enough of a problem to justify to players to downgrade their mining yield even a small percentage by bothering to fit tanking modules, let alone justify "downgrading" to a nearly gank-proof shieldbuffed BS.


This. The people who complain about ganking are the ones who are too greedy to mine in something they won't be ganked in. If you choose to min-max your yield, you are choosing to forgo tank.

Compare it to if people were flying pure gank-fit Diemoses and were complaining that they get primaried and killed fast. Well, duh. If you want more survivability, you trade off some gank (or yield) for more buffer. If your high-DPS (yield) ship can't get the levels of tank you want, then you change into another ship which can still do good DPS (yield) but have better tank, you don't whine and complain and say that CCP needs to add in a new ship for you with the gank of a Diemos and the tank of a Damnation, that's just stupid.

Working. As. Intended. There are supposed to be tradeoffs and choices in Eve.

And yet players want to have a different option.

Demand for gameplay choices define the quality of gameplay. If most are happy with a specific item, it is good.
Perception and popularity of an item have considerable weight on this topic.

Noone would complain about Hulks, if BS mining or tank fitted Hulks satisfied them.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
mxzf
Shovel Bros
#34 - 2012-04-20 21:23:01 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
And yet players want to have a different option.

Demand for gameplay choices define the quality of gameplay. If most are happy with a specific item, it is good.
Perception and popularity of an item have considerable weight on this topic.

Noone would complain about Hulks, if BS mining or tank fitted Hulks satisfied them.


No, players don't want different options, they want to have their cake and eat it too.

The reason they aren't satisfied with BS mining or tank-fit Hulks isn't that either one of those choices is lacking, it's that they're simply unwilling to sacrifice any of their potential profit for safety. That's not the system being unbalanced, that's players being greedy.

But Eve is all about tradeoffs, if they refuse to make a tradeoff, then they're WILLINGLY GIVING UP TANK and making themselves more vulnerable. Trying to say "because these players choose not to use any tank, we'll give them a tankier ship" isn't good gameplay design, it's just catering to greed and stupidity.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#35 - 2012-04-20 21:33:04 UTC
mxzf wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
And yet players want to have a different option.

Demand for gameplay choices define the quality of gameplay. If most are happy with a specific item, it is good.
Perception and popularity of an item have considerable weight on this topic.

Noone would complain about Hulks, if BS mining or tank fitted Hulks satisfied them.


No, players don't want different options, they want to have their cake and eat it too.

The reason they aren't satisfied with BS mining or tank-fit Hulks isn't that either one of those choices is lacking, it's that they're simply unwilling to sacrifice any of their potential profit for safety. That's not the system being unbalanced, that's players being greedy.

But Eve is all about tradeoffs, if they refuse to make a tradeoff, then they're WILLINGLY GIVING UP TANK and making themselves more vulnerable. Trying to say "because these players choose not to use any tank, we'll give them a tankier ship" isn't good gameplay design, it's just catering to greed and stupidity.

Ahhh, but I am also achieving a personal interest with this design.

I believe this mining craft would function for players. Needing skills and patient techniques is a price tradeoff, being less convenient in some ways.

Bots, on the other hand, would be placed in a more difficult position. This craft would be more survivable than a Hulk, but without the little drones, it may as well not bother undocking.

And a bot should not be able to manage and protect drones as well or as readily as a live player.

A single smart bomb will pop all of them.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Buzzy Warstl
Quantum Flux Foundry
#36 - 2012-04-20 22:31:42 UTC
mxzf wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
And yet players want to have a different option.

Demand for gameplay choices define the quality of gameplay. If most are happy with a specific item, it is good.
Perception and popularity of an item have considerable weight on this topic.

Noone would complain about Hulks, if BS mining or tank fitted Hulks satisfied them.


No, players don't want different options, they want to have their cake and eat it too.

The reason they aren't satisfied with BS mining or tank-fit Hulks isn't that either one of those choices is lacking, it's that they're simply unwilling to sacrifice any of their potential profit for safety. That's not the system being unbalanced, that's players being greedy.

But Eve is all about tradeoffs, if they refuse to make a tradeoff, then they're WILLINGLY GIVING UP TANK and making themselves more vulnerable. Trying to say "because these players choose not to use any tank, we'll give them a tankier ship" isn't good gameplay design, it's just catering to greed and stupidity.

You're saying that giving up 40% rate of production to be *safe* in *highsec* is a necessary and reasonable tradeoff, and anybody who won't do that is just being greedy.

Do I have that right?

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm Richard Bartle: Players who suit MUDs
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#37 - 2012-04-20 23:01:28 UTC
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
Have you ever tried, as the metaphor describes, 'herding cats'?

Again, ganking isn't an issue in highsec, otherwise hulk pilots would adapt their behavior to fit tanking mods instead of just piling on MLUs, cargohold expanders and cargo rigs

However, they do not adjust their behavior, because ganking is not a serious problem in highsec. And if ganking is not a problem in highsec, then no handicap uberehp mining vessel 'solution' is needed.

Herding cats is a reference to trying to make independent minded groups behave in a manner you approve of, or otherwise guide.

Since the players who complain obviously do not adapt as you describe, you declare the issue to not exist, based off this failure on their part to adapt.

Perhaps all highsec dwellers have some sort of cognitive problem that makes them unable to alter their behavior in reaction to negative stimuli, as you suggest, ranking them beneath mice and other lower mammals in terms of intelligence. You go ahead and think that.

Or their decision to min/max their hulks and refuse to put any tanking mods on their ship is part of a risk/reward calculation they have deliberately made, and the threat of suicide ganking is so low that trading even one isk-generating module for tanking hurts their net profits. And if that's the case, a 'handicapable' mining ship isn't necessary.

Either the problem is pilot stupidity, which shouldn't be rewarded - or there is no real problem that needs correcting.
MushroomMushroom
State War Academy
Caldari State
#38 - 2012-04-21 01:52:06 UTC
Buzzy Warstl wrote:
mxzf wrote:
Nikk Narrel wrote:
And yet players want to have a different option.

Demand for gameplay choices define the quality of gameplay. If most are happy with a specific item, it is good.
Perception and popularity of an item have considerable weight on this topic.

Noone would complain about Hulks, if BS mining or tank fitted Hulks satisfied them.


No, players don't want different options, they want to have their cake and eat it too.

The reason they aren't satisfied with BS mining or tank-fit Hulks isn't that either one of those choices is lacking, it's that they're simply unwilling to sacrifice any of their potential profit for safety. That's not the system being unbalanced, that's players being greedy.

But Eve is all about tradeoffs, if they refuse to make a tradeoff, then they're WILLINGLY GIVING UP TANK and making themselves more vulnerable. Trying to say "because these players choose not to use any tank, we'll give them a tankier ship" isn't good gameplay design, it's just catering to greed and stupidity.

You're saying that giving up 40% rate of production to be *safe* in *highsec* is a necessary and reasonable tradeoff, and anybody who won't do that is just being greedy.

Do I have that right?


Eve is about the tradeoff between risk and reward. Absent the threat of gankers, mining in highsec is 100% safe. If you hulk is minimally tanked, there is literally no way for your ship to die. Missioning, Hauling, even staying docked and trading in a station all carry risks. All those activities carry a risk/reward tradeoff. All of them you can accept higher risk for greater reward. Why should mining be any different? Mine in a hulk - High risk/reward (takes maybe 20-30 hours for the increased mining yield to pay off a hulk) or Mine in a covetor (moderate risk (insured)/moderate reward, or mine in a Rokh - Very safe, worst reward.

Also, don't delude yourself into thinking bots wouldn't be quickly changed to manage drones. Drone taking damage? recall... All dead? dock, reload...
LT Alter
The Terrifying League Of Dog Fort
Deepwater Hooligans
#39 - 2012-04-21 02:09:45 UTC
Mine in higher sec space, or use a rokh. I mean Eve is not the world where you just get something that does what you want it to do and does it perfectly, not to mention take out a part of the game that is highly used. Complain all you want, it won't happen. Asking for this is like me asking CCP to give me the a Vindicator with a triage carrier's tank, it breaks the balance of the game. If you want gank free enviroment, go play WoW.
Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#40 - 2012-04-21 03:35:03 UTC
I love how the Rokh is almost the only BS ever suggested for mining.Lol


Are the others any use, or too many issues?