I suspect the extra low is meant for a Drone Damage Amplifier, not for tank
1 Like
You realize its getting an entire medium drone set, right? @Cilla_Cybin
And the targetting range really isn’t for defending against ganks, its for use elsewhere
1 Like
I don’t think T2 will be needed, if anything the other 2 variants shouldn’t pop just by looking at them
I am still at a loss as to why an “industrial” command ship has to essentially siege up to get full bonuses to it’s command bursts when a normal command ship does not. If anyone can explain this to me, I would greatly appreciate it. As far as mining from a command ship goes, maybe have it siege to get the mining drone bonuses. Anyway, thanks in advance for any help in understanding these changes.
1 Like
Intent should be obvious at this point > make thin tanked mining ships mine more > make large tanked mining ships mine less > things are now easier to catch/kill > pvp can regulate the market. Look at DBS / ESS, where they similarly wanted to control ISK by pvp activity.
With dynamic ore distribution coming in a later phase, I worry they’ve miscalculated, much like DBS, if there are more pve centric players than pvp - which i suspect might be the case with Eve - you choke off content to the majority by the activity of the minority, just look at the DBS numbers nowadays as an example, that’s the future of mining right there.
You realise that most ganks happen within the speed of CONCORD response (maximum of 10 seconds).
Having drones in that scenario is worthless. Your response is worthless and a clear indication that you have no clue what you are talking about. Please stop.
Regarding the ganking issue, this is I think a situation where we are ignoring the reason why balancing mining barges fitting and EHP IS such a ■■■■■■■■■■■. In no other major MMO is there a need in non PVP enabled areas to balance around the situation that a group of players CAN bypass that. (No I am not saying Highsec is not PVP enabled, I am pointing out that other MMO’s use that mechanic and bypassing that would result in account bans.)
EVE is unique in allowing ganking in the way it does, but the result is that yes certain ships are constantly going to be a issue to balance, and with the ability of alpha accounts to engage in ganking the issue is just one huge snowball.
Give CCP a break on this, yes they have created the perfect storm by giving referral accounts enough free SP in the first hour to undock and gank a mining barge that someone has saved up for over the period of several weeks, without permanent consequences. Oh hey lets just make ANOTHER alpha, rinse repeat.
I think seriously there needs to be a complete reworking of what alphas can do in game. A great start would be locking their safety to GREEN in high sec only(CONCORD override/Create your own lore here).
This at least would stop the churning of alphas that do nothing but gank half a dozen times and then just sit there taking up database space.
The second change would be to make criminal sec loss in Highsec PERMANENT. You go -10 ganking, that’s it you can never get it back. Go -10 in lowsec, cool you have a chance at redemption. Throw in a potential “lock out” of boarding a ship in high sec, after committing a criminal act in high sec, that scales with each instance (Think Jump Fatigue, Criminality Fatigue, CONCORD is sick of your ■■■■) 1 hour, 2 hours, 4 hours, 8 hours, 16 hours, 32 hours, keep on ganking, keep on getting REAL consequences. This lockout will be PERMANENTLY recorded on your characters CONCORD record. Gank a ship in Jan, get a 1 hour lock out. Gank another ship in May, get 2 hours. REAL consequences that have meaning.
Now I am sure the usual suspects and gank alts will respond, ruining gameplay, highsec should not be safe, etc etc etc. We have heard it all before, it is old and tired and to be brutally honest there are even CCP employees who understand how bad for the game your “playstyle” is. The facy they cannot find a decent balance for what should be the core ship line in an entire gameplay style is clear indications that ganking needs to go through the same “Scarcity” as every other playstyle has in the past 2 years.
9 Likes
I like the changes made to asteroids and the initial idea on the waste mechanic, though it’s probably worded better now.
However i don’t understand the changes made to the mining barges. Where did the need of making the Retriever and Covetor more tanky come from? Isn’t that what the Procurer is for?
I saw a clear distinction between the three ships. One is for yield, one is for ore hold and the Procurer can be fitted to tank and fight back.
Taking away the midslots from the Procurer seems like a nerf rather than a buff and makes the distinction between the three types smaller, why do the others need to be more tanky? isn’t the Procurer the ship of choice instead?
For me it feels like an already underappreciated ship gets even less love only cause it doesn’t have 110% afk mining optimisation.
#safetheProcurer
3 Likes
I could be wrong, but with that nerf to Proc/Skiff, their drone bonuses and the slight tank buffs to the others I believe they want to move away from the model of “Proc/Skiff survive all but the toughest gank, the others die with 1 ganker” to a more balanced tank where all of them should survive a small unorganized gank, none should survive a good organized one, and the Proc/Skiff can even fight back and kill its enemy in low/null
Which makes my point all the more. It seems one ‘could’ now arm a Proc with 4 heavy combat drones…but even they are not going to see off half a dozen 760 DPS Catalysts. Plus it makes mining drones pointless if one has to use all one’s drone capacity for defense.
In fact combat drones on a Proc in anything above 0.7 are a waste of time anyway. I let 4 Serpentis fire at my Proc for a full 2 minutes the other day and just carried on mining…the Serpentis did 1% of shield damage. So the drones are pointless against both NPCs at the one end of the scale and gankers at the other.
1 Like
But they can kill a tackler in low/null, I think that’s the idea they are going for
I’m looking forward to the changes going live. Not thrilled with the speed and agility nerf to my skiff, but other than that me likey.
Half a dozen T2 armed Catalysts could knock out a 60K EHP Proc in 15 seconds or so. Although ( due to increased drone bandwidth ) a Proc could now carry 4 Berserkirs, I can’t see those knocking out more than 1 or 2 of those Catalysts in that time…especially as in lowsec they will likely have shielding.
Hello there, CONCORD response times have been frequently published, so there’s no excuse for you to get this wrong Mr Spinbot. For example, in a 0.5 security system, it’s 19 seconds or more, unless they’re already on-grid. Of course, it varies according to a number of factors, but I thought I should correct you.
So, Alpha players want to learn to gank. So what? And if they’re not new players, just new characters - again, so what? How exactly is it harming you that others do things of which you don’t approve?
You sound very dictatorial here, Mr Spinbot. There are already a large-ish number of gankers who are permanently red=flashy in Highsec. They wear it a a badge of honour. They are mostly full-time gankers. Your proposal would not make the slightest difference. As for locking them out of ships…
I’ll tell you what; why not cut to the chase and state openly that you dislike ganking and want gankers and their activities nerfed into the ground?
And here I am!
I don’t think I’ve said that here…yet.
As are your suggestions for ‘balancing’ the issue.
Really? Then you’d have expected your rabidly punitive suggestions to have gained greater traction with the Company than seems to have been the case.
p.s. It’s usually better to finish a rant on a high note than to fizzle lamely out like a doused cigarette-end.
O, and capital letters. It’s still regarded as poor forum form. If you wish to emphasise a word, do this.
Who spoke about half a dozen catalysts? That’s hisec stuff, I was thinking more of a lone cruiser
1 Like
That may very well be. However, I would just like that CCP would be better at communicating their intentions.
I tried to make a Skiff fit on SiSi comparable to the one I have today on TQ in terms of tank and speed etc. On the fit on SiSi I had to use a mid slot for a propulsion module to get a comparable speed to the TQ fit meaning that essentially I was having one mid slots less on SiSi for tanking than on TQ (1 slot removed and 1 for a propulsion module). Furthermore, I had to use different rigs to increase shield HP rather than improve shield regeneration. Overall, the SiSi Skiff fit was worse than the TQ Skiff fit.
This may very well be the intention of CCP, but that just not seem to correspond very well with the stated intention of significantly increasing the EHP for all barges and exhumers - and least not to the Skiff.
But anyway that i jut what I found.
Fly safe.
1 Like
removing the mids on the proc is to force refits for no obvious reasoon. it does , however, make the already fitted shield rigs a bit of a joke. the idea that adding a low slot will turn it into an armor fit is also a bit of a joke, most will just fit another mining upgrade
That’s just the thing. The drone DPS becomes irrelevant without the utility midslots required to hold the attacker in place. An unsuccessful attacker can just warp out.
2 Likes
Yes…personally I find it outrageous that I have to shoot 1,500 rats to gain 0.5 security status, yet some ganker can just hand over a few million ISK at a Concord station and be squeaky clean again.
1 Like
its closer to 300mil isk, but yeah isk for standing and i have to grind it out.
1 Like
Typical CCP doublespeak