|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 18 post(s) |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
878
|
Posted - 2013.10.02 21:53:00 -
[1] - Quote
Wolf Kyosuke wrote:Is it correct for me to presume that, despite these changes, it is still considered an exploit to avoid concord by warping either on or off grid after ganking a miner in a destroyer even though it would be easier to do now?
Since align times aren't changing, it's not easier to avoid CONCORD in this fashion. But either way, avoiding CONCORD is still an exploit. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
878
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 10:35:00 -
[2] - Quote
Retmas wrote:it takes sixteen seconds for a hulk to align. a ceptor gang can be on top of you, in a 40 AU system, in about 14. ASSUMING perfect reactions by the miners. keeping a scout in another system is possible - if the scout is able to stare at the screen for hours on end.
Oh come on. Fit nanos, use a more agile miner or put a scout next door. You don't need to stare at a screen, all you need is to be able to hear a gateflash, and then have your miners warp to a few hundred km tactical so they don't waste time panic-warping 20 AU to POS/station every time a friendly jumps in but forgets to announce it in intel.
Anyway, if you're right and null mining and supply of high-ends do crash, what do you think will happen to the prices of those high-ends? You should be looking at this as an opportunity to outcompete inferior alliances' miners. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
878
|
Posted - 2013.10.03 13:06:00 -
[3] - Quote
Andy Koraka wrote:The main issue I have with the changes is the huge quality of life Nerf battleships arr receiving. When you add in 10% TiDi (read: any relevant nullsec warfare) the 20au warp time on a battleship jumps from an excruciating 6 minutes all the way up to 9 minutes.
Er, you might want to check that figure of 6 minutes for a 20 AU warp in a BS. OP says 54 s (was 37 s).
|
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
878
|
Posted - 2013.10.06 16:40:00 -
[4] - Quote
keira sama wrote:It seems, that even though ccp is supposedly balancing this game. all i see is that pvp is rewarded a whole lot more than indy or mining, which already can't do anything to get better profits in low sec/null because it's way too easy to gate camp any that try and now they are making it so it's even more impossible to escape that threat.
Not at all. Making miners more vulnerable is a boost to nullsec mining, because fewer miners means fewer minerals and an increase in mineral value. Competent miners will therefore see greater ISK/hr. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
878
|
Posted - 2013.10.08 07:51:00 -
[5] - Quote
Oh, just ban freighters from highsec then, or remove them entirely. The rapid transport of large volumes of materials is arguably bad for the game anyway, as it just ends up favouring the formation of a single lagtastic hub. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
975
|
Posted - 2013.11.13 17:01:00 -
[6] - Quote
Lady Zarrina wrote:So let me get this right, you believe it to be a good thing to make freighters take longer to warp on average. Have you ever used a freighter, and I don't mean one time every year or two. I would bet you haven't. I know you will now say you have but I can honestly call bullsh1t if you do.
I use freighters quite often, and I think it's a good idea. It's too fast and too easy to move large amounts of materiel. |
|
|
|