Where are you getting such absolute rubbish figures from ? At the top end, someone who was mining ore 6 hours every day, and reprocessing, might make 500m ISK a week. MOST solo miners would be lucky to make 1/2 of that in a week. In the entire three months I’ve been in Eve I’ve mined about 800m ISK of ore…which is far closer to the average that most miners are making. I’ve chatted with lots of solo miners and I don’t know anyone who is making 1bn ISK a week.
One billion ISK per week is like if you turn the bot off while you sleep and work, just in case. If you keep it on the full day, that’s 2.5 billion per week, if you estimate at around 15 million/hour with an unboosted Procurer.
You need a blue-glowing r4 chunk. Mining that will yield to way more then 50M per hour, reproc for +25M, more if you can move the goo to low/null/wh before reproccing.
Ice pays really nice, too, should also be around 50M per hour, not sure though, haven’t seen ice for more then a week now.
Grab Some R4. Find other miners and get a buff, there’s many miners that have Porpoises / Orcas around. If the R4 isn’t blue dimming jackpot goo most athenor operators won’t care about it anyway, and it won’t be mined even half way down, so just load whatever crystals give you the most yield and don’t worry about wastes. The non-jackpot goo is worthless, but it can be reprocced to almost double it’s estimated value in high, and to more then double in null, so just ignore the ore estimate and make yourself a figure of how much you get after reproccessing, which should be 25M to 35M per hour
The fact that someone ‘can’ do that is simply not the same as the absurd claim that ’ solo miners are averaging billions per week mining in highsec '.
I’m not a ganker, but if there is no ganking in hisec then high sec is just boring, living death.
2 Likes
No. Not even close.
An average miner maybe gets on 3 hours a day. My orca with max skills (before update) could just about get filled in that time which was around 40mill.
So that’s what 280mill in a week.
While there are players out there that are playing more and potentially exploiting botting who may get close to the numbers you are talking about they are very much a minority.
1 Like
the gankers whining thread people are referring to is in the CSM section of the forum hen.
1 Like
The last response was a week ago and the only tears in that thread are from people who hate gankers, just so you know.
Now that’s not true is it? The OP is a ganker. To say gankers aren’t complaining is a bit silly, that’s not a comment by me on the gank life but they ain’t impressed - and to be fair when the answer to the question is “buy more accounts” it’s not without reason.
I disagree, both with the idea that the OP is a ganker (though Ive not investigated it
If it is, hes a bit whiny) and that known gankers in the thread are complaining. Most dont seem fussed.
I dont think either statement is untrue, but if is then someone will have to explain to me how the tank change is simultaneously bad for gankers and miners.
Even Brisc Rubal and I agree on that, though he seems to be under the impression ganking is difficult, whereas I believe its fairly easy, though not as easy as mining without being ganked.
At the end of the day, compared to the crying of the krabs, any complaints by the criminally inclined are in the absolute minority.
2 Likes
I’ve talked to some gankers, including Aiko, and the sentiment is that it’s not a matter of difficulty or being unable to adapt, but that ganking is simply becoming out of reach now because there just aren’t enough players to do it.
They can no longer make money from it, and you can say “well, they shouldn’t.”
They can’t solo-gank even the weakest untanked barges now, and you can say “well, they shouldn’t.”
But now it’s impossible to gank a target of moderate difficulty like a Mackinaw in a 0.6 system without using nearly 10 people, and you can’t say “get more alts” because that shouldn’t be a solution to anything in EVE. For all other activities in EVE, getting more accounts results in efficiency scaling, but for ganking, it has become a minimum requirement.
Also, all of this is before we even get to other considerations, like AG presence. For all the complaints about how gankers are “protected by CONCORD,” it applies much more to AGs because they can neutralize a gank just by using a single disposable NPC-corp alt in a 400,000 ISK Griffin with no modules except an ECM burst. There’s no combat-based counter-play to that, just like there isn’t any counter-play to, say, a one-shot Tornado gank.
CCP has catastrophically failed to develop good gameplay here, has distilled this entire complex system of player interaction to one-button insta-shitting on each other, and being forced to get more characters.
And the fundamental reality going forward is that ganking might significantly decrease in volume because there just aren’t enough criminally-minded players left in the game to be able to deal with the numbers game, regardless of how much they’re personally willing to adapt to changes. Being unable to use half a dozen accounts at the same time isn’t lack of adaptation, but a genuine real-life physical barrier for many people.
7 Likes
I reckon one thing that needs to change is that you cant warp to targets on d scan. That’d streamline things a bit more in the gangking department. There are some things in this game that seem really carebearish and im finding that more and more as i branch into other areas of the game or research them.
For instance cloaking ships not being able to target while cloaked. I dknt know if that’s a nerfed thing but kind of sht that you have to wave hello before engaging. That’s some carebear sht right there.
That’s not true, it takes around 5-6. if they’re fully tanked (which most aren’t) it’s 7ish. Still more than it used to be but let’s be honest: they were way too easy to gank.
Very good points overall but I feel your closing portion is by far the most significant. Some minor quibbles with other points (like no combat counter-play to a 400k Griffin, which is wrong).
But yes, CCP appears to keep closing more doors than they open in their “sandbox, play as you will” game. And they really need to start considering how a modern rational player base can engage with their game and give up some of CCPs’ 2-decade old ossified preconceptions of how players should interact with EVE.
You have to have additional shooters on standby to be able to deal with any entropic factors that arise. It’s not just a matter of calculating the target’s EHP, calculating the exact amount of DPS you need, adding 1 to the number, and dusting off your hands. What if there are fleet boosts? What if the target is using EHP implants, or overheats hardeners? What if everyone’s damage rolls suck, and the group winds up doing only 90% of its expected DPS? Realistically, you will need not 5-7 shooters for a situation like that, but 7-9, which are the exact figures quoted to me by gankers who have direct empirical evidence of what the reasonable requirements have become. And we’re still talking about lower-security systems like 0.5 and 0.6.
And they simply don’t have the players for that most of the time. Once again, ganking is the only activity in the game (outside of possibly some super-high-end PvE encounters that act like EVE’s version of raid dungeons) that has a hard requirement on the amount of participants needed. As you move through system ratings and target resilience, there’s no genuine increase in difficulty, just the amount of players required.
You got one sided information from people who try to tell you a sad story about how they got nerfed, no different from miners in that threadnaught. Remember how most gankers really are just carebears? If you look at the EHP against void vs the time you have till concord and you take it all into account it takes about 7 catas to kill a max tank Mack.
But they aren’t max tank. Partly because most people don’t know how to fit a ship, partly because not everyone has maxed out skills (miners tend to maximise yield and then stop bothering) and partly because, moreso than before, miners now run a survey scanner and perhaps even a prop mod.
A quick Zkill check shows 3 Mack ganks yesterday, all three in a 0.7 system. One took 4 catas, one 5 and the last one 6.
1 Like
Regardless of how many are getting killed now, nearly doubling their EHP will have the effect of nearly doubling the amount of characters needed to gank them, and you will see the effects of this change on ganking volume with time.
The end result will be less ganking overall. If that’s the intent, great! But if the intent was to make ganking more challenging, then this change is not successful because all it does is cut off a portion of ganking at one end because the gankers can’t meet the player requirements to engage in it. People can’t simply say that CCP made ganking harder, and that gankers need to adapt, because ganking wasn’t actually made more difficult.
The mining ships gained EHP (apart from one) but now have an increased use/need for survey scanners and prop mods, which costs slots, which costs EHP. So now miners have a choice: Maximise yield or maximise tank, they can’t really do both, and if they choose tank then they should have a decent tank.
Ganking things like Macks hasn’t become more difficult, it has become less ■■■■■■■■. It was way too easy for way too little effort and cost and in many cases, for reasons stated above, that is possibly still the case. Don’t get me wrong, afk miners most definitely deserve it but whichever way people try to spin it: Macks and Hulks were BS ganks.
Ganking done well is now out of the realm of solo alpha gankers which is good as it was silly, and as said the proof is in the pudding: 3 ganks yesterday in a 0.7 between 4 and 6 catas needed.
They can go find some actual moving targets like haulers.
Come off it. I have only to look at today’s zkillboard to see…
Goonswarm fielded 54 people…3.75bn
Safety fielded 54 people…3.40bn
Saftey fielded 51 people…2.02bn
The Bafuku Temple fielded 40 people…3.15bn
and many more with 20-30 people. Some with just 5 or 6. The idea that gank groups are struggling to find enough people or can’t cope due to ‘efficiency’, or can’t gank with less than 10 people, is just pure nonsense. 8 of the ganks on the first page are with less than 10 people. Every excuse made, at both ends of the scale, has numerous counter-examples.
All of this was the case before as well. The EHP increases aren’t just in terms of potential limits, but also in the base raw figures.
You’re thinking of it from a binary perspective, and not a data-over-time perspective. Over time, there will be a direct decrease in ganking due to the changes because the available firepower will be split between fewer targets. There will also be additional impact from burnout due to needing more accounts, being unable to go after many targets due to not having the numbers at the time, etc.
All of this will snowball into less ganking over time. And like I said, if that’s the intent, then that’s great. But let’s not pretend like this change didn’t and never intended to have any such effects and that things should continue as they always were, and if they don’t, that means the gankers are getting lazy.
Just keep in mind that with less ganking, that production/destruction delta will keep widening, and that might not have effects that players will find favorable in the long term.
Also, before anyone goes down the road of accusing me of whining, keep in mind that I’m not a ganker, and that CCP has already removed my primary play style from the game about half a decade ago. I don’t particularly care about ganking beyond the negative effects the game’s economy would experience if it decreases/is removed.