I think many do, I have had some interesting discussion with people who just fitted for yield for example. People make the choice to fit for pure yield, it is a justified decision for them.
My slant on this is a little different, I see it as player against player in what is a reasonable level of multi-boxing in a restricted area of the game.
I work on a DPS of 700, and 22 seconds in 0.5 systems. 15,400 per catalyst.
So if the tanked mining ship could not be tanked to survive 2 catalyst in that 0.5 system then they were not viable. My assessment was that I had to look at 5 Catalysts as being the benchmark which is greater than 77,000 EHP which makes the tanked Mackinaw viable at 80k. So that is all tank and only a single Mining upgrade laser.
Previously I had benchmarked the Skiff at needing to be at 13 Catalysts because there was one guy running around miner ganking with that many accounts, now 9 is fine.
I suppose we sort of see it the same way, but I happen to think that more targeted ganks are a better thing for the game.
What do YOU think would be good values for a max yield solo non-attention semi-afk mining barge for highsec-use?
More than a combat-battlecruiser? more than a brick-tanked commandship? more than a slave-implanted-fleetboosted-battleship? where is the limit that is still reasonable from your perspective? maybe after remembering that they cost barely 50M and are available after a few days of skilling…
I have already said that they are now in a good place, if the miner goes full yield then it will take two catalysts in a 0.5 system, that is a good base point in my opinion.
so then, if miners have a fair value for their ships now, in which sections ganking still needs to be nerfed from your perspective? haulers? freighters? mission-/abyssalrunners?
Wouldn’t you agree that gankers should be able to make a profit from ganking, and either the cost of the catalyst should be reduced, or the value of mining modules be increased? Afterall, it wouldn’t be balanced if ganking is not financially sustainable. Miners earn isk/hr from mining, but gankers have no financial incentive to shoot them.
highsec ganking shouldn’t be in the game in the first place no more, its outdated game design, there is no mmo on the market left which forces their players into permanent pvp for a reason
you hs gankers make less than 1% of all pvp yet cause way to much frustration, especially for newbros checking out the game
And this is where the mentality behind ganking became a problem.
I’ll never advocate for ganking to be removed from Eve, but you’re not entitled to profits from ganking. Ganking used to be about making a point, a statement, or just having fun. The moment people began pursuing it as a ‘career’ path is the moment Concord should have been recoded to be more adaptive and patrol high gank locations much more heavily, in much the same way a real world equivalent police force is supposed to work. But Concord is static, and Eve favors the aggressor, generally speaking. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, favoring the aggressor, mind, but the two together allowed that ideology of 'ganking should be profitable and pursuable as an actual career to flourish.
That’s where the issue is. If you want to gank, I 150% support you. But you’re not entitled to profits, and in light of Concord not being able to react fluidly, well, yes, an imbalance occurs, and we end up here.
If you want to live in nullsec, I 200% support you, but the moment you try to turn it into a career path and feel entitled to earn isk, that’s where I draw the line.
You literally misrepresented my position as somehow equivalent to something about Null sec, so you could then attack it. That’s literally the definition of a strawman.
A straw man fallacy occurs when someone takes another person’s argument or point, distorts it or exaggerates it in some kind of extreme way, and then attacks the extreme distortion, as if that is really the claim the first person is making.
Now, either open the cans of the good stuff, or don’t bother.