Welcome to Jester's Trek.
I'm your host, Jester. I've been an EVE Online player for about six years. One of my four mains is Ripard Teg, pictured at left. Sadly, I've succumbed to "bittervet" disease, but I'm wandering the New Eden landscape (and from time to time, the MMO landscape) in search of a cure.
You can follow along, if you want...

Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Comment of the Week: Ain't nobody happy

COTW honors goes to this one, from an anonymous commenter posted yesterday about the mining barge changes:
there is a 122 page WHINE thread on the Eve forums that might explain why they are nerfing the resists. The gankers are going wild about not being able to gank in easy mode:


I think it is a sad state of affairs that the hottest topic in Eve is about the two professions that were once beneath contempt to serious Eve players.
Honorable mention to this one from KA:
Having not been around long enough to see large-scale changes to the fundamental structure of an existing ship...

"All of those Hulk pilots fitting tech 2 cargo rigs are going to be unhappy."

...what is the end result?

"Tough shit, pilot. HTFU" and they eat the cost of the those now-useless rigs, or will CCP provide some sort of compensation?
I think this is a fun pair of comments to address at some length.  It reminds me of an exchange from Star Trek: Deep Space Nine that always makes me laugh when I hear it.  One character says, "Someone once said that a successful compromise is one that nobody is happy with."  The response: "By that measure, this compromise is extremely successful."(1)  Here too, what we have is a compromise that nobody is happy with, not even CCP most likely.  Let's look at each aspect in turn, starting with KA's comment since it's the easiest.

Will CCP be providing anything at all for you players that cargo fit your Hulks and Macks?  No.  Matter of fact, they won't even mention it.  You'll be eating the cost of them, at the cost of some 150 million ISK for those of you that went for the T2 rigs.  When the Oneiros buff hit, I was extremely happy with it, even though I had to eat the cost of a Tech 2 Ancillary Current Router on one of my Onis.  The previous iteration had a serious grid deficiency.  When the buff hit, that deficiency disappeared and the only good response was to rerig my ship.  Similarly, when carriers lost their large cargo holds a few years back, hundreds of players had to destroy billions of ISK in cargo rigs.

That's just how CCP rolls, yo.  "Tough shit, pilot, HTFU" indeed.  Next item.

I'm sorry, but suicide gankers are spoiled rotten.  Destroyers got a massive buff and for a good long while there, you could gank Retrievers one or even two at a time with a single Catalyst if the miners were dumb enough.  Hulkageddon V was the glory days of this.  But now the drug these guys get off on is not going to be quite as potent any longer.  Like a long-term addict needing a fix, they're going to have spend a lot more money to get the same high.  I'm sorry, but I just don't have a lot of sympathy.  Using a ship that only costs a few million ISK to destroy a ship worth some 200 million ISK in high-sec is over-powered, it always was, and CCP is fixing it.

For those of you using suicide-ganking as a career, you'll have to be smarter about it.  I assure you there are still miners out there that will use dead-space small shield boosters and ridiculously over-priced meta Mining Laser Upgrades at the advice of an out-of-date, badly written mining guide.(2)  And if you can't find miners using too-shiny mods, there are certainly Tengus that are.  You'll just have to adapt and evolve, just like the rest of us.  And for you Goon types that don't care about money and only do it for the tears, this doesn't change anything at all, right?  You'll just up-ship to Tornados and glory in the beauty of explosions regardless of cost, so I don't have to worry about you.~

Again, "Tough shit, pilot, HTFU".  The irony that they can't handle this message isn't lost on me, I assure you.

But the miners whining that the Hulk should be good at everything is almost as bad, honestly.  The same message applies to them.

CCP is already taking a little bit of pity on miners, after all.  If you look at it logically, the Hulk should be the ship with the biggest capacity and the Mackinaw should be the ship with the largest yield.  The Hulk, after all, is physically bigger and should hold more.  But miners are so focused on yield above all else that if the Mack had the greatest yield despite the enormous numbers of Hulks already in space, the tears would flow like the Amazon.  At least this way to keep making the maximum profit, you can stick with the same ship you've been flying.

There are just going to be other viable choices other than the Hulk too, now.  That's breaking a lot of hearts.  But can you imagine the tears had the Skiff been given the highest yield and the smallest ore bay?

The threat of a permanent Goon Hulkageddon is only making that worse.  After all, the Exhumer with the best tank is the one that pretty much nobody owns.  That means that if you want the tanky one, you have to buy or build one, which means enriching the Goon tech monopoly still further...  The gankers, meanwhile, are claiming that there's no reason to fly the Skiff since the Mack will have a strong enough tank that it won't be ganked.

Uh huh.

The thread in question is up to 126 pages, but don't waste your time.(3)  I skimmed it here and there and it's nothing but noise and counter-noise.  My favorites are the people claiming that the Mackinaw, or the Hulk, or the Skiff, or the Retriever is now useless.  My second favorites are the people who claim that suicide-ganking will end and high-sec mining is now "safe" no matter which ship you choose.  My third favorite are those that claim the Hulk isn't for single-player mining any more.  They're all equally wrong, of course.

Clearly, ain't nobody happy with this compromise, which means that it'll probably work for the time being.  Thanks for the comments, guys!  Sorry if I upset you with this one.

(1) I really need to go back and rewatch this show.  Best of the Treks, IMO.
(2) Yeah, I went there, but in my own defense: it is badly written, and the editing is worse.
(3) This contribution is kind of fun, though.  Yeah, that's what you think it is.


  1. Cyno Procurer FTW!

  2. I'll take my offence at one bit: "Using a ship that only costs a few million ISK to destroy a ship worth some 200 million ISK in high-sec is over-powered, it always was, and CCP is fixing it."

    ISK-to-ISK ratio should never be a measure for balance. In my days as a ninja, I´ve used ships under 10 mil to kill 500 mil+ Gravy Ravens - and take their 500 mil ransoms to boot. Likewise, I've lost 120 mil+ Harbingers to less than 30 mil in corpmates showing up at inopportune moments.

    You fit a ship for a purpose, and you spend the ISK on that. If your purpose does not include "buffer", expect to be blown up by a ship fitted for "alpha".

    Next thing you'll hear is people complaining about losing their multi-billion-ISK jump freighter to some shitty interceptors worth less than 100 mil each...

    1. Take offense all you want, it's true nonetheless. *In high-sec*, it should not be possible to kill a 200m ISK ship with a 5m ISK ship.

      The rest of your examples conveniently skip the "in high-sec" part. I have no problem with inties and bombers killing freighters in low- or null. But they can't do it in high-sec, nor can a single Tornado or battleship, nor should they be able to.

    2. i don't think there's going to be a shortage of easily gankable carebears after august 8th. *shrug* hulkageddon V proved that. I don't think i ever spotted a high sec kill that wasn't fail fit.

      I find it laughable griefers are sabre rattling. they should be chortling with glee about the foolish hordes resubscribing falsely believing their fail fits will survive a single catalyst.

      here's a question Jester nor any of the others have asked. And i think it foolish not to ask: "why exactly is the mackinaw the favorite ice miner?" Answer: it outputs more ice than the hulk.

      Create a system where the hulk mines more ice and carebears will fly that effing untanked or fail tanked...and it's not like they know how to fit them...So it's not the 'balance' per se as much as "a well fit ship designed to defend against alpha strikes should by all rights be safe from a piddly destroyer"

    3. bah. ignore my last. personally, i think it's fantastic i play a game where there is risk everywhere and that noone is safe unless they play jita 0.01 isk games all day.

    4. Why do we carebears focus on yield? Because even we find punching rocks boring after a while (like 'real PvPers' do missions) so we try to speed the process up. The gankers are always saying they can beat any fit so the bears could take the view that they won't even bother. As I recall from the 'whine' the howling only really started when CCP Soundwave announced that suicide ganking although a valid game style, was never intended to be profitable (which they also said to the goons post the FW LP fiasco) and should be a cost to the ganker.

    5. I'm the "anonymous" from the top there. Jester, when I spoke of my ninja days, that was all in high-sec. I had a quick look at my old corp's killboard and found this recent gem from my former wingman Leffy:


      The so-called "Ruppy of Doom" costs less than 30 mil. However, as a thoroughbred combat ship built specifically to kill active-tanked mission runners, it made short work of a 1.6 bil Machariel. In high-sec. Who considers this unbalanced?

      Throwing ISK at your ship does not in and of itself entitle you to a competitive advantage - not even in high-sec.

    6. You forgot to take the Insurance Nerf into account when you're talking about the Dessy buff.

      Crucible made it more expensive to kill Hulks with Suicide ganks because instead of a Meta0 Insured Brutix, you have to go with a T2 Catalyst. And a T2 Catalyst is more expensive than the post-insurance cost of the Brutix.

  3. Wow.. that thread is just.. sad.

  4. bah. DS9 only got good once Worf appeared. otherwise it was bullshit shat by gutterrats gorging on plague victims.

    As for the generally whine-tastic flavour of this blog post. I'm all for it! more tears from griefers and carebears (both risk averse) is just glorious.

    1. There's certainly no lack of tears on both sides, as the first comment correctly states.

  5. There is another issue. Since most devs don't play the game they don't have experience with either mining or ganking. They only hear about these things from the players, but don't have the hands-on experience to see which issues are real and which are not in both sides.

    Ok, ok. I know I went the easy way and blamed CCP for it ;)

    About the strong reaction from the ganckers, it isn't hard to understand why. if you analyze KMs as part of a skinner box, you will see they are too strong of a reward to be messed with. Just make any suggestion to remove killmails in xyz situation and see what a response you will get from the players ("Lore-wise killmails are post-accident analysis done by CONCORD, so perhaps we should suggest CCP not to generate them from kills in 0.0 reg... wait, wait!! Why is everyone pointing guns at me?")

  6. Quick question from a non crying ganker (also watery eyed colleagues, you're a disgrace, you should be theory-crafting not crying) I have often wondered are the rocks in hisec even big enough to justify maximum yield fits?

    I mean what is the point of fitting for maximum yield if the rock is depleted half cycle?

    (If this is dumb question do say so, I have no clue about mining other then how to explode them, but I have ganked untanked max yield fitted Hulks that had their beam pointed a tiny lump of scrodite and wondered...)

    1. Physical rock size doesn't mean anything. Most of the rocks in high a full yield Hulk can dig into for a few cycles. Even when they are less than a cycle you can just stop it if you're paying any degree of attention, and this will lead to only marginally reduced efficiency.

  7. On the cargo-expanding rigs. I believe that in the past with major ship changes CCP have stripped rigs from hulls and moved them to the cargo hold. With so many Hulks being fitted for increased cargo space I'd hope that they do it for this patch. (Of course that'll just mean tears from the resultant price-crash!)

    Also I'd bet that many miners have been lazy like me and not re-done their fits since the introduction of CPU rigs. Bearing in mind that mining is generally CPU-limited this could actually be a good opportunity for a lot of miners to improve their fits.

    1. Huh? They've never unfitted rigs from ships, not even once.

    2. Maybe I'm mis-remembering then, and it's just modules that have been stripped...

    3. Yeah, that they've done from time to time.

    4. something like this?

      high: Strip x 3
      mid: civ shield
      low: MLU2 x 2
      rig: overclocker x 2, cargo expand
      implant ee-603, mx-1003

      pulls in more than a hulk max tanked and fully insured


  8. My instincts said "Tough shit" would likely be the CCP approach, but had no prior frame of reference for comparison. I appreciate your insight using past examples of ship revamps.

  9. EVE community: the Jersey Shores of MMOs. Going on about being so awesome but not being clever enough to realize they're just jerks at best. Call them on it and they assume you're jealous.

    Being an a-hole about something is not the same as being good at something. EVE doesn't seem to know the difference, at there's your problem. "Come at me bro!"

    CCP might actually gain from just getting rid of the forums. I look at them occasionally,and it's just painful. The whine-threads about making ganking hard is pure irony and would be funny if not mixed with an unearned sense of elitism.

  10. " I really need to go back and rewatch this show. Best of the Treks, IMO."

    IMO It would have been the best if Michelle Forbes had got the leading role.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.