If that were true, then why is it that every time CCP reports ship usage 75% of combat ships are barely used?
1 Like
Can you link to an example of CCP showing that?
Going through the MER (which is also a CCP report), each month an overwhelming majority of ships are used in combat. Last month for example, there were 355 unique ships lost in combat with 261 of those having more than 100 losses in the month.
That is reflective of what the MER shows every month.
So where are CCP reporting that 75% of combat ships are barely used?
1 Like
They referenced it in Fanfest presentation in the past and I dont feel like looking it all up, but I will refer back to the MER since you want to use that information.
I used the kill_dump, which shows kills only. I am assuming that the ships represented here are fairly close to the distribution of ships used to do the killing. I removed structures, drones, shuttles, and industrial ships.
That leaves 274 unique ships. Those ships died a total of 206k times last month. My gauge of barely used is any ship that shows up less than 1/274th of the time, or 0.36%.
Based on that, that leaves 79 combat ships making up 156k kills. That is 75% of all deaths.
Also based on that, 79 of the 274 unique ships make up 75% of the deaths, that is 28% of the total unique ships.
My assumptions could be off, but its close to the off the hip 75% above.
which still does not provide any other reason to spend devs time on creating new mining ships than âbecause i want itâ
one thing to keep in mind in eve is that a change somewhere has consequences on many aspects of the game including some that you are not involved in. Even a new mining ship. So things need to be carefully balanced.
Then we should see no new requests for combat ships that donât fill a need not already covered by an existing ship. Which means that until some new content is added, no new ships are needed.
Thank you!
EVE has enough problems with the ships it already has.
OK, if you are just going by âyour guageâ then certainly you are entitled to an opinion on what you personally consider âbarely usedâ.
That is vastly different to where I see âbarely usedâ, since there are many ships in the ones you disregard, yet those ships make up in a lot of cases, similar numbers.
Taking last months MER for example, your cutoff point is somewhere around the Iteron dying 985 times last month (to get 74 ships), yet just after that, there is a host of other ships that also died more than 900 times, including:
| âBifrostâ | 953 |
|---|---|
| âFeroxâ | 946 |
| âScytheâ | 935 |
| âMuninnâ | 933 |
| âRepublic Fleet Firetailâ | 928 |
| âNereusâ | 921 |
| âCerberusâ | 913 |
| âHoundâ | 912 |
You can easily extend that into those that died more than 800 times or more than 700 times in the month; and they arenât ships that are rarely used. Ships that die a lot might be more popular overall (or alternatively they just doe more frequently (eg. Venture at 12K losses last month) that arenât really âcombat shipsâ but common cyno ships.
When you look at the combat ships, itâs far more inclusive than 1/274th of losses just because that fits the narrative of a specific month. 1/274th is an arbitrary decision (and an ok one to have an opinion, but surely you can see that each month your arbitrary number is going to change slightly). It isnât an objective basis for deciding what ârarely usedâ means.
Take for example the Hound on the list above that is in the ârarely used combat shipâ group. More than 30 losses a day. There arenât too many people out there that would put the Cerb in the ârarely used combat shipâ class. Or the Vexor Navy Issue, Drekavac, Wolf, etc.
1 Like
This game doesnt need anymore mining ships for petes sake. There are plenty already.
Im going to quote this statement as well. I was here in EVE back in that day of mining in an osprey and using cans for a long time. When i first joined this game back in 08, i just happen to run into a person that was willing to take a chance with meâŚleased me an osprey with the option to buy ( I mined in a bantha for a bit ) and i mined ore for the guy until it was enough to pay the osprey off. In all that time, i cant even tell you how many times i was flipped, bumped, and blown up.
To me that was great times. It showed me great appreciation for many people in the game later on. It also made what i had built up mean something.
I dont have any of my old mining equips any longer. I wished i still did just for great memories sake.
1 Like
No such thing
Because they are not ganking, its just PvP
Yeah, but attacking any non-combat ship with the intent to blow their expensive stuff up is gankingâŚI donât care what space youâre in. Attacking a mining ship or freighter pretty much anywhere is ganking. Just because you donât get concorded somewhere, doesnât mean anything. A freighter cannot defend itselfâŚperiod. A mining ship canât really fight backâŚ(drones arenât going to stop anyone).
I dunno man this sounds like you havenât even tried. I once tried to use my pirate breacher on two covetors hanging out by their lonesome out in lowsec and died in a fireball to the drones.
Sounds like a made-up classification in your head. I guess I shouldnât be surprised seeing as youâre making a semantic argument in the first place.
1 Like
Unskilled players canât fight back, but skilled players in mining ships can fight just fine:
etc.
etc.
Get gud.
1 Like
My âcommon cynoshipâ Prowler just tackled a Hoarder, which in return opened fire on me⌠making me remember this thread
Thatâs not âbarelyâ, thatâs âbelow averageâ. âAverageâ is a horrible metric, especially if standard distribution isnât taken into consideration, too.
Iâd rather consider ships that had a median zkill appearance (attacker or victim) interval less then once per week in the last month(s) as rare.
1 Like
maybe the guy had done a Kolmogorov-Smirnov or a Shapiro test to check the normality of the distribution⌠but i highly doubt itâŚ
Iâm super glad that you figured out how to go to zKillboard and copy links, without actually paying attention to what is in them.
Almost none of the kills on those boards are fighting back killsâŚthe VAST majority are some damage they got on a Concord/Police killâŚthe next most common is popping Cyno ships/unarmed mining frigates. In only a very miniscule amount of those kills could you convince anyone that it was âfighting backâ as I specifically said.
Yes, of course a decently skilled set of drones can kill a frigate, or even a lone destroyer with not too much problem. Maybe even 2 or 3 destroyers, Iâm not sure (I didnât actually look for any instances of fighting back against more than 1 ship, because they were already VERY few and far between). But that would be the exception anyway, not the rule.
I looked through hundreds of killmails from those links, and at least in the case of the barges and exhumers, there was not a single instance of damage dealt from anything but a drone. Because those are non-combat ships, the drones however are combat defense in this case. And yes, one could argue that you âcouldâ take a mining ship with drones and go attack stuff, I kill rats with my mining ships to clear the Skilling Sprees while Iâm out in them, so that is true. Because the drones are combat, not the mining ships.
Anyone who argues that mining ships are not ânon-combatâ are being pretentious or a troll.
1 Like
Not even close to âthe VAST majorityâ (and for whatever stupid reason vast is capitalised).
Go do the analysis and youâll see your assumption isnât correct, though I concede, vast is a rather subjective term, so Iâm sure youâll find a way to justify another assumption that hasnât been validated before claiming it.
Then go look. Those arenât all of the kills by those ships, just the solo ones.
1 Like
Vast - of very great extent or quantity; immense.
That is maybe somewhat subjective, kind of.
I opened up those links and then went through and looked through hundreds of those kills and far more of them were small amounts of drone damage attached to a concord/police, next was kills against unfit ships, (maybe arguably combat) but less than a 1/3 of all kills could really be construed as Combat. I was definitely wrong originally when I assumed there were far less actually combat kills than there actually were, but killing offline POS components, unfit ships, or cyno alts is hardly combat relatedâŚ
However, to be fair all the way around, I donât know that it would be fair to analyze it like that anywayâŚmost concord kills are grouped together⌠like a group of gankers show up, your drones get some damage on a bunch of them before concord blows them up, so each individual kill may not necessarily be prudent to the potential argument. The same could be said for the large list of POS bashingâŚ
I am surprised at just how much actually PVP is happening with barges and exhumers, even at less than a 1/3 of the killmails being what I would consider PVP or actual combat, it is still far more than my assumption before this conversation.
And I will definitely concede that my original statement was not correct:
I was referring to ganking, your drones are not going to save you from a ganking fleet, Concord will. So I was correct in my meaning (drones arenât going to stop anyone âfrom ganking youâ) but my statement was too broad and technically incorrect.
1 Like
And to the statement you quoted
Very few kills looked like they were âfighting backâ kills, and Iâm talking someone flies up to you and attack you, and you survive and kill them. There definitely was some that would fit that criteria, but most were concord kills, unfit ships (which obviously arenât attacking you), non-combat fit ships (cyno alts, exploration fits with no turrets/missiles, other mining fit ships), and killing stuff in a larger fleetâŚwhich donât fit the fighting back that Iâm talking about.
I am open minded. I donât apply made up labels that donât exist in the game like ânon-combat shipâ. Nor do I hang big sweeping consequential judgements based on those labels, hanging morality or deeming playstyles âworthyâ or âunworthyâ off of them. I evaluate ships holistically as they are.
I am sorry you find my viewpoint âpretentiousâ or âtrollyâ, because what that tells me is that youâre hopelessly stuck in your viewpoint. Itâs not that Iâm trying to change your mind, itâs just that your mind isnât even remotely open to being illuminated with a different idea in the first place. And thatâs a shame.
Ah well.
I am sorry if I have come off that way, I have dealt with far too many people in this community who say something just to get a rise out of people, you however, do not seem to be one of them, and I appreciate that and would love to have a legitimate discussion about this stuff.
I realize there is no specific label of non-combat shipâŚhowever:
seems either pretentious or comes off as being a trollâŚeven without a specific in game label, anyone can look at the information in the game and understand that certain ships are designed for certain intended purposes. Just because something can be used in an unintended way, doesnât change what it is.
And while the specific label may not be in game, the labels/categories that are in the game mean somethingâŚ
Frigate, Destroyer, Cruiser, Battlecruiser, Battleship, Dreadnought, and Carrier are all types of warships (a ship equipped with weapons and designed to take part in warfare)
a Hauler, Barge, or Freighter on the other hand are ships that carry freight.
So a mining frigate kind of falls in the middle, as well as expedition frigates, but then we should definitely look at the intended purpose and infer from there.
so sure, there isnât an official label of non-combat, but it is certainly implied in the ship typeâŚ