open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked att: CCP. Miners v's Suicide Gankers, a Risk v's Reward imbalance.
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5

Author Topic

Awesome Possum
Original Sin.
PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
Posted - 2009.07.18 09:44:00 - [61]
 

Originally by: Angelina Morgan
meh just remove the insurance payouts for ships blown up by CONCORD.

After that If some still wants to gank hulks in their megas let them do it.


I use a thorax.

with insurance, it comes to ~3-5mill per hulk killed.
without insurance, it'll come to 8mill?

big whoop compared to what can be made off a hulk wreck.

Tzar'rim
Posted - 2009.07.18 11:10:00 - [62]
 

Brutix, tier 1 BS or 5-10 frigs/dessies come into the belt, miner realises a gank might be happening real soon and warps off, case solved.

What? You weren't paying attention while you were mining in high sec because it's "safe"? You problem and (now) your loss.

DietRx
Posted - 2009.07.18 11:13:00 - [63]
 

This is good for the ecomony, (well more realistic) we start to see a mining recession that brings us inline with the world

Tauranon
Gallente
Weeesearch
Posted - 2009.07.18 13:09:00 - [64]
 

Things the miner can do (some or all) to manage ganking.

1 - fit a tank /train level 4 shield tank skills. With a dcu II, shield rigs, (but keeping a rock scanner and 1 mlu II for reasonable productivity), my mining alt hits 21k EHP with even resists (ie no holes). Its not foolproof but reduces the number of people that can organise to pop your hulk a lot.

2 - Prepare SS's etc so you can mine aligned, Once you do this, you bring the hulk warp time down from the horrible 15-20 seconds to insta, or some much shorter interval depending on how close to 75% speed you want to mine at.

3 - Choose belts wisely and watch the scanner (ie belts that don't have undocks or gate-to-gate travellers in range) to see incoming thorax/brutix/destroyer packs. They aren't cloaked so you get 15 secs+ of scanner warning of the approaching ships.

4 - Watch local, (don't mine where watching local is impossible due to numbers), and put -10 standings on known gankers.

5 - Do not fit halada's guide tank setup. Boosters are the wrong fit for highsec (buffer is key). Faction boosters more so, because it improves risk/reward for the ganker a lot.

Nian Banks
Minmatar
Berserkers of Aesir
Posted - 2009.07.18 19:22:00 - [65]
 

How is it that people feel the need to reply when they have not even read the bloody post?
I have seen several comments on how to fit a hulk properly, how to not get ganked, and more complaints saying I should L2P and only loosers mine.
How about you all suck it up and read the suggestions closely, then comment with some form of intelligence.

I am glad to sum it up for you all.

ArrowMining ships, do not need any form of buff or change.
ArrowConcord actions are reasonably balanced, no changes needed.
ArrowInsurance is broken, it need changing or near complete removal. Both sides of the coin.
ArrowTech1 Meta0 Modules need removing from NPC rat drops. Named is not meta0.

If you disagree, give something more than lol l2p or hold your tongue. In truth NAFF off.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2009.07.18 19:37:00 - [66]
 

Originally by: Nian Banks
How is it that people feel the need to reply when they have not even read the bloody post?
Because you ramble on about things that aren't relevant to the points you're trying to make, which makes your OP seem like the standard "onoz! protect my highsec mining (at the cost of gankers)" whine.
Quote:
ArrowMining ships, do not need any form of buff or change.
ArrowConcord actions are reasonably balanced, no changes needed.
ArrowInsurance is broken, it need changing or near complete removal. Both sides of the coin.
…which is exactly what you're saying here as well. You're asking for another unneccesary nerf to gankers. As it is, suicide ganking has already been nerfed to oblivion — it can now only be done for lols, not for profit. If you don't want to be lolganked, the advice given by many on how to avoid getting killed are all sound.

That said, I disagree with all three of these points: mining ships need to be tiered so that the amount of protection they can have outside of highsec is vastly increased to match the threats out there, and the ones that can operate in highsec are adjusted downwards to what they're expected to encounter. Concord needs to be nerfed to bring back for-profit-ganking. Insurance does not need to be changed.
Quote:
ArrowTech1 Meta0 Modules need removing from NPC rat drops. Named is not meta0.
This, however, I agree with. Combine this with radically nerfed reprocessing results (they have no BPs, so the composition doesn't have to make sense and they can't be used for mineral compression).

Insa Rexion
Minmatar
Fumar Puede Matar
Posted - 2009.07.18 19:44:00 - [67]
 

Edited by: Insa Rexion on 18/07/2009 19:47:41
Edited by: Insa Rexion on 18/07/2009 19:44:53
Originally by: murder one

I agree that mining 'isn't worth the time'. It's too easy. It's too simple, any bot can do it. I think that the entire mining system in Eve should be redesigned so that it's much more interactive and would give players a chance to really increase their mining yield if they were to interact with the game dynamically while mining. For that matter I think that all belts should be moved to a dynamic system similar to exploration so that an asteroid belt is more of a 'find' to be protected and defended than something that is static in a system where anyone can simply warp in and do business.

I agree that insurance is bad, but not for the same reason you think. Insurance needs to go. Completely. It's putting artificial limits on the cost of materials and is therefor bad for the game. Insurance doesn't need to be removed for Concord losses, it needs to be removed for *all* losses. Still want to remove insurance now? I'll bet you don't if you have to either see it all stay or all go. You're probably not man enough to stomach playing the game without insurance entirely.

Suicide ganking is *good* for the Eve economy.



Absolutely hands down the best view on Eve's possible (but sadly unlikely) future I have heard yet. Cool

Draken katla
Posted - 2009.07.18 22:08:00 - [68]
 

I asked GM Horse about suicide ganking in the help channel last night,his reply was "working as intended,no fixes in the pipeline"
So make sure you fly anti gank fit Hulk,at least make em work a little :)

Panzram
ElitistOps
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2009.07.19 00:24:00 - [69]
 

waaah

Tauranon
Gallente
Weeesearch
Posted - 2009.07.19 03:59:00 - [70]
 

Edited by: Tauranon on 19/07/2009 03:59:51
Originally by: Nian Banks
How is it that people feel the need to reply when they have not even read the bloody post? I have seen several comments on how to fit a hulk properly, how to not get ganked, and more complaints saying I should L2P and only loosers mine.
How about you all suck it up and read the suggestions closely, then comment with some form of intelligence.



Because your whole premise is that ganking is irretrievably balanced in the favour of the ganker. It isn't. Vulnerability is a 3 way trade off with yield, attention and fit. If gankers had to hunt low value fitted hulks that tended to go into warp before they even got into the belt, the economics of ganking would be different. Control over that is in the hands of the hulk pilots, not the gankers.

Quote:

I am glad to sum it up for you all.

ArrowInsurance is broken, it need changing or near complete removal. Both sides of the coin.



Hi, ship prices are supported by insurance prices. Remove insurance, and you remove all support for ship prices.

Quote:

ArrowTech1 Meta0 Modules need removing from NPC rat drops. Named is not meta0.



This causes an absolute hard requirement that for every ship lost, a miner has to spend an equivalent amount of time in belts to replace it. ie every battleship - 5-15 hours, capitals, many many more hours. If there was a way to kill EVE for the average player, that would be it.

Quote:

If you disagree, give something more than lol l2p or hold your tongue. In truth NAFF off.


ah, everyone who disagrees with you is wrong, even without reading their argument.

Morux
Posted - 2009.07.19 05:09:00 - [71]
 

Have to agree with the last two items... insurance IS broken... it's like going to State Farm, taking out a ton of insurance on your car, then crashing it into the side of a bank you're about to rob... then going back to the insurance company and saying "i'd like my cash now please". It's laughable... and doesn't match any real-life insurance methods. Either remove insurance payout if you are involved with criminal acts, or adjust the cost upward to players that take advantage of the loophole. As it is, insurance is disproportionately high to all users, regardless of whether they abuse the system or not.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2009.07.19 07:11:00 - [72]
 

Originally by: Morux
Have to agree with the last two items... insurance IS broken... it's like going to State Farm, taking out a ton of insurance on your car, then crashing it into the side of a bank you're about to rob... then going back to the insurance company and saying "i'd like my cash now please". It's laughable... and doesn't match any real-life insurance methods. Either remove insurance payout if you are involved with criminal acts, or adjust the cost upward to players that take advantage of the loophole. As it is, insurance is disproportionately high to all users, regardless of whether they abuse the system or not.


How many god damb times does it have to be said that EvE "insurance" is NOT, repeat NOT RL insurance?
Seriously, no insurance company would even insure, let alone pay out on virtually any ship used as intended or otherwise in EvE - certainly not on the terms that PEND do.

You need to deal with that fact, accept that "Insurance" is a ship replacement mechanism for ships lost in VALID GAMEPLAY, WHICH BY THE WAY, SPECIFICALLY INCLUDES SUICIDE GANKING.
Suicide ganking isn't cheating, it's not an exploit, it's not an unforseen tactic, CCP don't want it removed.

If you want suicide ganking effectively removed, then you need to provide an alternative way to provide for situations like the following:

Your alliance is fighting another alliance. They are getting their fuel from a collection of NPC corp ice miners in empire. How do you interdict their fuel supply in a way that costs them more than it costs you?


Morux
Posted - 2009.07.19 08:50:00 - [73]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
How many god damb times does it have to be said...


Do you always have a quadruple latte before responding to someone's input on game mechanics?

The point was that it isn't a balanced system. Insurance only supports the T1 side anyhow - it doesn't do crap for T2. So to say that you need good insurance to wage a war against NPC-corp alts is unfounded. The cost of added insurance only pays back around 200% of the invested insurance cost, so it's marginal at best. Who the heck goes around suiciding in T2 ships??

Just because the game physics don't mimic actual "in-space" physics doesn't mean that other parts of the game can be made more realistic. Of the posters in this thread, 5 people responded that insurance is generally broken, 2 others agreed that it could use a second look and 3 thinks it needs to be left alone. So 70% of folks here believe that there is a problem with the mechanics of Eve's insurance system in one way or another.

Tauranon
Gallente
Weeesearch
Posted - 2009.07.19 09:04:00 - [74]
 

Originally by: Morux


The point was that it isn't a balanced system. Insurance only supports the T1 side anyhow - it doesn't do crap for T2. So to say that you need good insurance to wage a war against NPC-corp alts is unfounded. The cost of added insurance only pays back around 200% of the invested insurance cost, so it's marginal at best. Who the heck goes around suiciding in T2 ships??




Fly a covetor (so that insurance works for you), or take proper precautions against ganking to defend your hulk (ie so that you lose less hulks than the difference in yields and effort of replacing covetors). Remember that miners earn all the time but gankers only earn when they find and kill the target. That is a big part of the balance equation in suicide ganking, and its a part you completely overlook.

Quote:


Just because the game physics don't mimic actual "in-space" physics doesn't mean that other parts of the game can be made more realistic. Of the posters in this thread, 5 people responded that insurance is generally broken, 2 others agreed that it could use a second look and 3 thinks it needs to be left alone. So 70% of folks here believe that there is a problem with the mechanics of Eve's insurance system in one way or another.


10 players is not a representative sample of 300,000. As long as people stupidly fit and carelessly fly their expensive t2 ships, then ganking them with t1 cruisers will remain profitable, even with NO insurance.

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2009.07.19 09:13:00 - [75]
 

Originally by: Grez
Mining ships/barges don't need to be buffed. Stop being a cheap bastard and fit PROPER shield boosters, not civi ones.


When shield booster have helped against suicide ganking?

CONCORD stop the attackers before you can complete the second cycle. And any competent attacker will kill you before the first cycle complete.

You need the best buffer tank you can get, not a booster tank.

BTW: you are really hoping to find plenty of hulks with faction booster after your "uninterested" suggestion?

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2009.07.19 09:27:00 - [76]
 

Edited by: Venkul Mul on 19/07/2009 09:39:56
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Nian Banks
How is it that people feel the need to reply when they have not even read the bloody post?
Because you ramble on about things that aren't relevant to the points you're trying to make, which makes your OP seem like the standard "onoz! protect my highsec mining (at the cost of gankers)" whine.
Quote:
ArrowMining ships, do not need any form of buff or change.
ArrowConcord actions are reasonably balanced, no changes needed.
ArrowInsurance is broken, it need changing or near complete removal. Both sides of the coin.
…which is exactly what you're saying here as well. You're asking for another unneccesary nerf to gankers. As it is, suicide ganking has already been nerfed to oblivion — it can now only be done for lols, not for profit. If you don't want to be lolganked, the advice given by many on how to avoid getting killed are all sound.

That said, I disagree with all three of these points: mining ships need to be tiered so that the amount of protection they can have outside of highsec is vastly increased to match the threats out there, and the ones that can operate in highsec are adjusted downwards to what they're expected to encounter. Concord needs to be nerfed to bring back for-profit-ganking. Insurance does not need to be changed.
Quote:
ArrowTech1 Meta0 Modules need removing from NPC rat drops. Named is not meta0.
This, however, I agree with. Combine this with radically nerfed reprocessing results (they have no BPs, so the composition doesn't have to make sense and they can't be used for mineral compression).


[irony on] Great reply Tippia [irony off]

So you are protesting that someone is asking "change EVE my way" and the put up a post of "change EVE my way". Rolling Eyes

Insurance is broken in a lot of ways and CCP had said they will remove it from CONCORD kill several months ago. Then they instead enhanced CONCORD, the wrong solution.

CCP problem is that the insurance is the only thing that keep up mineral prices, as too many players are willing to sell finished products (ship mostly) at a price lower than the value of the minerals in them.


Originally by: murder one

I agree that insurance is bad, but not for the same reason you think. Insurance needs to go. Completely. It's putting artificial limits on the cost of materials and is therefor bad for the game. Insurance doesn't need to be removed for Concord losses, it needs to be removed for *all* losses. Still want to remove insurance now? I'll bet you don't if you have to either see it all stay or all go. You're probably not man enough to stomach playing the game without insurance entirely.

Suicide ganking is *good* for the Eve economy.



There is a thread about that in the Assembly Hall. Go an place your piece.

Mostly I agree (I would leave it for new players and maybe for non combat ships in high sec only).

Between the different things that make insurance bad the worse is that it is the larges or second largest isk faucet in EVE and the only faucet that brin isk in while destroing assets.

NOTE: for those uninformed, in EVE lingo, a isk faucet is something that bring isk from outside the game. It as nothing to do with you having a larger value in isk and items than before.
Even if you lose a 100 million Bs and get 20 millions, the game has a whole has more isk than before (and less items). What you have paid for the ship is in the hand of another player, so no isk has left the game and more isk has entered.


Cipher7
Posted - 2009.07.19 11:13:00 - [77]
 


Mining sucks basically because not enough stuff gets destroyed in Eve compared to the # of people mining.

Insurance sets an artificial baseline on minerals and most minerals are selling at their "insurance" price except for Trit, Zyd, Mega and Merc which are selling at their "market" price due to actual scarcity.

This is pushing down the value of the other minerals, because nobody will use 4 isk trit to get insurance payout on ship to get rid of iso.

Basically the mineral composition of ships need to be tweaked to require more use of weak selling minerals.

Either that or insurance payouts should be revised upwards.

Drone regions messed up alot of things, and nobody I know would willingly want to live there because it make ratting feel like mining.

Gekeim
Posted - 2009.07.19 11:32:00 - [78]
 

Originally by: Nian Banks
Once again I will remind people that I don't want concord changed.
I don't want Mining ships to be buffed.

All I want is the removal of tech1 meta0 modules from mission rat loot tables and insurance to be modified or removed from the game.


I'm not sure I see why removing tech1 meta0 modules from mission rat loot tables would have any positive bearing on miners getting ganked. If your intent is to drive the price of mined ore up and it ends up achieving that effect then it would be making you an even more lucrative target to attack, right?

Lindsay Logan
Posted - 2009.07.19 12:02:00 - [79]
 

Originally by: Akita T
Alternatively, I simply suggest a major buff in mining barge and exhumer hitpoints Laughing


Haakelen
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2009.07.19 12:09:00 - [80]
 

Originally by: Lindsay Logan
Originally by: Akita T
Alternatively, I simply suggest a major buff in mining barge and exhumer hitpoints Laughing




Boosting the HP is a stupid, one-dimensional response that addresses the symptoms, completely ignores the situation (which is only a problem in the eyes of some), and creates unforeseen consequences which will almost certainly be exploited in the future, requiring a quickly-jobbed patch that ****es people off. Which is to say, it's precisely the kind of change CCP will do.

If they boost the HP, it has to be purely in the shields, and the recharge rate has to be severely nerfed. Or if there's more armor and hull too, the resistances need to get hit a bit.

Nian Banks
Minmatar
Berserkers of Aesir
Posted - 2009.07.19 16:08:00 - [81]
 

Originally by: Gekeim
I'm not sure I see why removing tech1 meta0 modules from mission rat loot tables would have any positive bearing on miners getting ganked. If your intent is to drive the price of mined ore up and it ends up achieving that effect then it would be making you an even more lucrative target to attack, right?



There are several valid reasons why I suggest removing tech1 meta0 modules from npc rat drops, it's not some random idea so let me give you it itemised.

1: many tech1 meta0 modules when reprocessed not only give a large amount of high sec minerals but also a good amount of low and nul sec minerals, because ofcthis, the minerals intended to get miners to mine in low and nul sec are just as readily available If you farm missions.

2: missions are profitable, very profitable actually, not only do you get bounties but you get a pay upon completion, an lp bonus, salvage and modules dropping. Missions encourage people to stay in high sec because they are worth too much. Missions will still be worth allot but if tech1 meta0 modules are removed from the npc loot table, at least mission farmers won't directly compete on the minerals market with miners, it's just a way to redistribute the isk. Less for missions, more for miners. Remeber, mining isn't half as fun as missioning. It's downright boring.

3: with minerals mainly coming from miners you would find that the amount of battleships in combat will be reduced somewhat, I expect there will be a better distribution of ship classes if the low and nul Sec minerals have to be mined.

4: suicide gankers won't need to suicide as much, they can live in low sec and Just be normal gankers. More hulks mining the high end ores. Just remember, the more you kill the miners, the more expensive your ships will get.


That's how I see it, I will admit however that the drone drops are an issue, perhaps drones could drop a new line of named drones and named modules that affect drones. Plus ammunition.

Shidhe
Minmatar
The Babylon5 Consortuim
Posted - 2009.07.19 18:05:00 - [82]
 

Originally by: Gekeim

I'm not sure I see why removing tech1 meta0 modules from mission rat loot tables would have any positive bearing on miners getting ganked. If your intent is to drive the price of mined ore up and it ends up achieving that effect then it would be making you an even more lucrative target to attack, right?


A hulk load of ore is pretty negligible compared to the cost of the Hulk... Rolling Eyes

By making mining more profitable, it would mean that miners could be ganked (high sec) and pirated (low sec) more, and still not give up. They would, of course, still complain a lot, but that is of lesser importance.

So we have more gank and happier miners! For my next performance I shall show that you can have your cake and eat it. Very Happy

Durendale
Posted - 2009.07.19 22:35:00 - [83]
 

Edited by: Durendale on 19/07/2009 22:49:58
Originally by: Cipher7

Mining sucks basically because not enough stuff gets destroyed in Eve compared to the # of people mining.

Insurance sets an artificial baseline on minerals and most minerals are selling at their "insurance" price except for Trit, Zyd, Mega and Merc which are selling at their "market" price due to actual scarcity.

This is pushing down the value of the other minerals, because nobody will use 4 isk trit to get insurance payout on ship to get rid of iso.

Basically the mineral composition of ships need to be tweaked to require more use of weak selling minerals.

Either that or insurance payouts should be revised upwards.

Drone regions messed up alot of things, and nobody I know would willingly want to live there because it make ratting feel like mining.


This is the only good fix brought up in this thread.

Production and mining needs a complete overhaul in this regard
to bring all secs (Mining veld in high sec shouldn't be more profitable than rarer minerals in low to null sec) of mining back inline with other money making activities. Perhaps switching drone loot to a modified gallente table would also go with increasing mining's viability.

That said causing people to quit the game when all they do is shoot rocks for hours a day only to make as much isk as a triple 1.8m mill bounty spawn in 0.0, is more like a favor if you ask me.

Irida Mershkov
Gallente
The Reformed
Chaos Theory Alliance
Posted - 2009.07.19 23:08:00 - [84]
 

Originally by: Tzar'rim
Brutix, tier 1 BS or 5-10 frigs/dessies come into the belt, miner realises a gank might be happening real soon and warps off, case solved.

What? You weren't paying attention while you were mining in high sec because it's "safe"? You problem and (now) your loss.

Someone tried that from me earlier.

Warp scramblers heh.

Ivana Drake
Caldari
Posted - 2009.07.19 23:24:00 - [85]
 

Originally by: Nian Banks
A high sec miner with current mineral prices makes little in the way of isk in comparison to a mission runner.


the risk vs reward imbalance is right here

both the miner and the suicide ganker would be better off doing L4s in hi-sec. Ganking is just more fun Neutral

Gekeim
Posted - 2009.07.20 08:46:00 - [86]
 

Originally by: Shidhe
Originally by: Gekeim

I'm not sure I see why removing tech1 meta0 modules from mission rat loot tables would have any positive bearing on miners getting ganked. If your intent is to drive the price of mined ore up and it ends up achieving that effect then it would be making you an even more lucrative target to attack, right?


A hulk load of ore is pretty negligible compared to the cost of the Hulk... Rolling Eyes

By making mining more profitable, it would mean that miners could be ganked (high sec) and pirated (low sec) more, and still not give up. They would, of course, still complain a lot, but that is of lesser importance.

So we have more gank and happier miners! For my next performance I shall show that you can have your cake and eat it. Very Happy


The impression I got from the thread was that this was about discouraging the gank in the first place. That's what I was responding to in my post. If it's just a matter of affording to get back into a ship afterward then that makes a bit more sense.

Personally I disagree with that proposed solution, but I understand the thinking behind it.

Le Skunk
Low Sec Liberators
Chubby Chuppers Chubba Chups
Posted - 2009.07.20 09:08:00 - [87]
 

Originally by: Ivana Drake
Originally by: Nian Banks
A high sec miner with current mineral prices makes little in the way of isk in comparison to a mission runner.


the risk vs reward imbalance is right here

both the miner and the suicide ganker would be better off doing L4s in hi-sec. Ganking is just more fun Neutral


Nerf LV4's

SKUNK

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2009.07.20 09:23:00 - [88]
 

The post above is correct. Rather than messing about with ship replacement for this circumstance but not that, mining, industry, R&D, POS and therefore sovereignty need a complete rework.

Risk must be a part of mining, even in 1.0, but mining should also be worthwhile.

But the people who want 0.0 rewards - "the value of a triple 1.8 spawn" in 1.0 safety conditions can frankly suck it.

Nian Banks
Minmatar
Berserkers of Aesir
Posted - 2009.07.20 12:50:00 - [89]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
The post above is correct. Rather than messing about with ship replacement for this circumstance but not that, mining, industry, R&D, POS and therefore sovereignty need a complete rework.

Risk must be a part of mining, even in 1.0, but mining should also be worthwhile.

But the people who want 0.0 rewards - "the value of a triple 1.8 spawn" in 1.0 safety conditions can frankly suck it.


I doubt ccp will completely redesign all things industrial, hence small changes like modifying loot tables and insurance are the best way to change mining.

They may sound like major changes, some even cry 'the sky is falling' but in truth if you force miners to mine in low sec to aquire the more precious minerals, just by removing the mineral injection from mission loot, gankers will gain more legitimate targets without fear of concord and miners may complain but their income will go up because those high end ores will be worth considerably.

Changing the insurance by removing payouts when you have run afoul of concord is to keep the new miners in mining and to keep trit prices as low as possible. If there is little risk in highsec mining then the price of those high sec ores shouldn't drastically increase.

Gankers keep their kills up but also keep their ships, miners loose more ships but are compensated with better mineral prices.

The best part is that missions net less income.


Btw, I agree, level 4's should be low sec but in a slightly differtent way.
Lvl 4 agents should be mostly in 0.5 systems and the missions should be the closest system that's low sec.

E.g. Lvl4 agent 0.5 system, kill something ine jump away in a 0.4 system.

That way carebears have some modicum of safety but still have to put their neck out to do the mission.

P3rv3rt
Posted - 2009.07.20 13:12:00 - [90]
 

ohh but you forget that suicide ganking is the only protection against macro-mining, we killed sooooo many damn afk miners. By killing them off we doing you a service. If you are not afk all you need to do is orbit your roid at top speed and fit some shield extenders...and stay away from anything below 0.8. It takes 3 t1-fitted raxes to kill 1 hulk in 0.8, only 2 in 0.5. Suicide ganking actually does involve some basic skill of coordination, I'd say it's much more involved than afk and semi-afk mining. Insurance is nice but even if you remove it we are still going to hunt hulks, just not as much. And I've never seen an orca suicided, that thing has just too much hp tank. The real reason pirates gank in high sec is because there are not enough targets in low sec. So if you are going to further nerf pirating in high sec then maybe throw a bone to boost lowsec to keep the rest of us enterntained.


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only