Oh Look, the Miners are Pissed

Color me a stunning shade of not-surprised-at-all.  It’s kind of a very noncommittal grey.

Let’s review the last little while for miners.

  • Their products weren’t worth diddly squat because there were a dozen other sources for them.    CCP nerfed the other sources, removing all T1 drops from missions.  Prices haven’t skyrocketed but they have gone up gradually since then.
  • They were getting ganked constantly by dirt-cheap destroyers, cleaving through their naturally low hit point buffers like a chainsaw through lard.  Rather than say HTFU and “Tank Your Ship” CCP buffs the hell out of mining barges.  Which the miners hilariously still fail to tank all too often.

So now they are getting bumped, and ganked again.  BIG surprise.  CCP has even said bumping is not a petition able action.  So far anyway.  The mountain has come to Mohammed before and I suspect it will again.  The big difference between the two groups continues to be not one of playstyle, but one of outlook.  One side sees challenges, finds ways to have fun within the system, and when their sacred cows are smashed they find a new one.  The other side treats their sacred cow as an irreplaceable object and regards interference with it as heresy.  When the gankers/bumpers/jerks are made to change things, they find a way to adjust their playstyle to continue having their fun.  The other side lets their public face be completely dominated by rubes who simply do not want to be playing a multiplayer game (except for the part where someone else pays them for their efforts) while displaying a very unwholesome disregard for their own responsibilities with regards to things like safety.

Now I’m not saying all carebears are like this.  Fancy Hats slid by many a target during Hulkageddon that was well tanked, that was well prepared, and we whiffed on a few that managed to surprise us as well.  In addition there’s people like Mabrick show a very different face for the bearish folk of EvE.  The problem is the forum warriors are, well, caricature-ish and the drek they spew in local when folks like James 315 start bashing on them makes me cringe.  The issue with these folks isn’t that they aren’t being pandered to, because they have been, the issue is they want to have their cake, eat it, be able to sell it to someone else, and STILL have and eat it.  Eventually they will run into EvE and they will A) Grow or B) Leave and EvE will be better for it.

I don’t mind people leaving EvE because they aren’t compatible with the game.  It reminds me of the old Winston Churchill Quote

You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.
Winston Churchill

if you aren’t offending anyone, you probably aren’t driving anyone wild with delight.  I’ll take the days I squeal with joy in return for the days I bash my head against the keyboard, throw my headset across the room or crush the power button and start drinking heavily immediately, without bothering to try to get my pod out.  Yes I’ve done all those things.  I learned.  I grew.  I do them less now.  They are the price of admission for the awesomeness I get to experience some days.

I'm using it every time I can

I’m using it every time I can


About Corelin

An Eve playing Fool who occasionally writes about the shenanigans he and his minions get up to.

Posted on February 7, 2013, in Meta, PvE, PvP. Bookmark the permalink. 20 Comments.

  1. I think we should just solidly define “carebear”: n. 1. A person who denies the reality of PvP in EVE, and is thus accordinly shocked, chagrined, shamed, and short-tempered (along with whatever other alliterative associations are applicable) when said reality visits itself upon him. 2. A person, once so “visited” by the realities of PvP, does his best to effect change, to make the game world (and accordingly those asshat players) conform to his pacifistic view of EVE.

    With that simple definition, it’s fairly easy to classify carebears: those who actively believe PvP is not a _valid_ part of the game, and/or who take actions (whether forum posting, petitioning, etc) to neuter PvP to bring the game into line with their pacifistic views.

    People who recognize that yes, PvP can happen, and take steps accordingly (tanking, running away, etc), are then good EVE players, and by definition NOT carebears.

    Those who act as if PvP was merely an “overlooked” bug, who demand CCP bend the game to their whims of safety, those people, yes, all of them, are then by definition “carebears” who _are_ “bad for the game”. And, as the Good Lord Sidious quoth: “Wipe them out. _ALLLLL_ of them.”

    “But Hong, who’re you to say that PvP has a place in EVE? Shouldn’t it be majority opinion? and since ~60% of players live in hisec, it’s pretty obvious the majority wants safety, so give it to us!”
    To that, I answer: EVE was a PvP game first. Therefore, as a “carebear”, you are a guest in someone else’s culture. You don’t show up in Bumfuckistan tomorrow and demand that the people start speaking your language and adopting your customs. Doing so would in some cases provide an immediate example of real-life PvP, with you waking in the medical bay of the nearest hospital — you hope. In most other cases, it would result in your being ignored, marginalized, and eventually forcing you to either conform to a degree, or be so ostracized as to be unable to function in that locale.
    If you really want to emigrate somewhere and have instructions, etc, printed/spoken in your native language, and the ability to file grievances if it’s not, well, then there’s Murrica.

    And everybody wonders why I call Murrica “RL hisec”, and “home of the carebear”. 😉

    • “You don’t show up in Bumfuckistan tomorrow and demand that the people start speaking your language and adopting your customs.”

      That depends on how many of “you” there are, doesn’t it? In RL terms this is known as gentrification – and possibly as inavoidable as the tendency of players to form mega-coalitions.

      • A) Original definition of carebear was the biggest load of one sided bollocks ever proposed.

        B) “You don’t show up in Bumfuckistan tomorrow and demand that the people start speaking your language and adopting your customs.”

        The whole Western world has been engaged in doing just this for the last 60 odd years. In what way don’t people do this?

        C) I am a carebear. I would fight. I watch my step. I LIKE the fact that I am doing “carebear” activities under the threat of PVP. So don’t tar us all with your filthy “I was here first” brush. Pick a fucking philosophy and stick to it.

        Woah. Bad mood today. Sorry. 😉

  2. In other news, and actually responding to what you wrote, Core:
    People like _that_ are always going to be pissed about _something_. Make hisec perfectly safe, kick out the griefers and gankers! And after a while … you’ll hear more bitching. Probably along the lines of “mineral prices are tanking, CCP do something! Maybe NPC buy orders for them?” heh heh heh. Then they decide to become the middleman and get into industry and trade, only to find that hisec markets are stagnant, because nothing gets blown up there, and those “ebil mean flashy red ppls” are locked out of hisec forever, and thus unable to buy the carebears’ wares. Of course, the carebears aren’t going to venture haulers and freighters out to low/null to get ganked, so their stock will sit. And rot.

    And eventually, that carebear will get bored, and leave the game anyway.

    That, to me, seems enough justification for marginalization — chasing “true carebear” subs is picking up pennies and nickels off the floor while ignoring the pile of cash on the table.

  3. The irony of being a carebear (albeit one with teeth) suggesting it was time to evolve and use other methods and ships to avoid ganking, and being shouted down by other carebears is not lost on me.

    I’ve become used to the barge changes, but it seemed that every man and his dog was suddenly in the belts once it hit. With a result of driving down the mineral prices. Which actually meant less carebearish profits, at least for a while. All together now, D’oh!

    Similarly James315s platform seems to ignore the fact that we live and play in the sandbox. It is all interconnected. The “nerf highsec into oblivion” stance is fine from a pay attention to me, political windbaggery point of view.

    The reality of such changes would be downstream affects dire enough to threaten the game because of lost subscriptions. New player retention bad as it is would go further into a screaming decline.

    Neither the hardline view of the uitrabear nor the rabid wolverpeer does the game any good at all.

  4. Speaking as someone who would have been lumped in under the “carebear” category a year and a half ago, it’s not the ganking that annoys me; the answer to that was always to use equipment whose replacement wouldn’t break the bank, and accept that sometimes you would come up empty when you got jumped.

    (And besides, the one time someone tried to suicide-gank me when I was tooling away on a hideously underpowered laptop, my barge was the last thing left standing on the field. I always mark that as my first PVP kill, even if CONCORD did most of the work.)

    It’s the demands of obeisance.

    It’s the assertion that the ability to destroy is inherently superior to the ability to create.

    In essence, it’s not that your sandcastle got stomped flat (there’s always more sand); it’s the insistence that you kiss the feet that have just undone your work and kicked sand in your face.

    Now that raises the blood pressure.

  5. NeverMindBollocks.

    cleaving through their naturally low hit point buffers like a chainsaw through lard. Rather than say HTFU and “Tank Your Ship”

    please explain for the audiance how a single middle slot, two low slot ship is tanked. include your response how CCP put in the suggestion through the Active Shield certificate, to support said tank.

    why is low ehp “natural” in a combat game? if all ships are valid targets and can at any time be agressed – there would not be a consideration for a better tank. maybe… CCP did not think that the pirate player base would chase the most weakest of ships for mere sport?

    oh and the tank in the hulk – needs at least one power module to fit. picture a combat ship without support modules, and just about every module needs to tank. and to fit that tanked hulk – so many maxed skills to fly the only possible survivor of hulkgeddon pre-buff? but on the other hand – combat pilots are told they can be in the game from day one – grab that frigate get into the action.

    the non combatants like ORE ships should never have been put the game in first – if PvP is so badly the prime desired style.

    • Speaking as a “carebear” according to the definition of some tanking a barge is tanking for an estimated time of gank vs CONCORD intervention. In hi-sec. You are not tanking the things for combat elsewhere. A tank for a barge outside hi-sec is a warp stabiliser.

      For tanking see this and have your mind boggled by the tank potential of a Procurer.


      I too find it hard to read posts starting with the anti-bear rhetoric above but at least our Mad Hatter recognises there are shades of ‘bear. You have to abandon reading “as” a miner and consider things from all sides. Forget your natural bias. For example read minerbumping and realise that as much as James 315 exposes the darker/dafter side of hi-sec in the form of AFK mining, perhaps some botting, via the death of “innocent” miners he also exposes the inherent invulnerability of the gankers to reprisal – temporary corps immune to wardecs, etc.

      Remember that EVE is a sandbox. You find sandboxes in playgrounds with children in them.

  6. Is it wrong to be upset when your 200million isk ship gets ganked by cheap catalysts?

    Industry always seems to be the whipping boy with some pvpers crying about how they can’t gank mining ships effectively any more. This is totally untrue even ‘tanked’ mining ships can still be blown up with organised cheap gank and any mining ship can be destroyed if the gankers want it so.

    So it I must ask the question why can’t gankers pay for and execute ganks against 200million isk barges. Or to put it another way why are gankers allowed to be such pussies that their combat skill and isk management can only gank untanked mining ships in really cheap destroyers (pro tip :there are other ships).

  7. Corelin your argument is made farcical by the “Which the miners hilariously still fail to tank all too often.” comment. Clearly you’ve never flown one, or tried to tank it. It’s a waste of time and ISK to fit tank modules to a mining ship. I’ve yet to see any fits for any mining ships that give them any real protection from modern ganking tactics.

    My solution?

    I’d like to see the cost of any insurance payout come out of the pockets of the aggressing pilot(s) in the event of a CONCORD response. These deductions would also be able to push a characters balance below 0. For those that don’t know what that means… you can’t use stargates with a negative balance. In the case of multiple parties appearing on a killmail, the cost would be shared evenly between them. The insurance payout on the victims ship remains unchanged.

    So sure, you can still gank stuff. But you’d better be prepared to pay for it, or at least be sure that it’ll be profitable enough to cover your losses. I know that if it were my Hulk that just died (Full Disclosure: I’ve never owned a mining ship) the line “The full cost of your insurance payout has been recovered from your attacker(s).” appearing in my insurance eve-mail would sure as shit make me feel better about the situation.

    • Unlike you, I have flown and tanked mining ships. All you have to do is have either the EHP or the tank to last until CONCORD does show up. I even linked fits for miners to use during Hulkageddon. The new ones are even easier, but they still get ganked because miners simply don’t want to be responsible for their own safety.

      As for your suggestion that insurance come from the aggressor: Fuck no. Let me make one rule of EvE clear. YOU are responsible for YOUR OWN safety. Whether that means tanking your ship, constantly moving to avoid being an easy target, aligning when you see “catalyst” on D-Scan, having an alt in a scythe providing remote reps, or whatever you may wish, YOU are responsible for YOUR own safety. Expecting someone else to pay for your own losses whether it’s due to carelessness, lack of attention, or outright stupidity, is asinine.

      Want to tank a retriever?

      [Retriever, Retrieverxorz]

      2x Modulated Deep Core Strip Miner II (Mercoxit Mining Crystal II)

      Medium Shield Extender II

      Mining Laser Upgrade II
      Reactor Control Unit II
      Damage Control II

      3x Medium Core Defense Field Extender I

      5x Hornet EC-300

      20k ehp against blasters, and with the hornets out most gankers wouldn’t even bother coming after you. Not for a ship that costs, what 50 mill all told?

      For a hulk?

      [Hulk, Hulk good tank Mission/Mining solo]

      3x Modulated Strip Miner II (Pyroxeres Mining Crystal I)

      Thermic Dissipation Field II
      Kinetic Deflection Field II
      Thermic Dissipation Amplifier II
      Small Shield Booster II

      Co-Processor I
      Mining Laser Upgrade II

      2x Medium Core Defense Field Extender I

      5x Hornet EC-300

      24k EHP *and* a shield booster. Give CONCORD 16 seconds to get to you and figure 800dps for Catalysts (which I don’t think they can really do anymore) and it takes 30 seconds to kill it with the booster off. With the booster on it kicks up high enough to require > 3 catalysts. Most people will just pick another target. These are things most miners can do, but they CHOOSE not to and because of their CHOICE they suffer CONSEQUENCES.

  8. Lemme 1-up you! (And I’m a now gone strait ex-ganker, this once stopped me and 4 of my (T1) catalyst buddies).

    39.1K EHP (43.1 heated), 104DPS (155 heated) active tank (concord will arrive before you’re out of boosters).

    [Mackinaw, NeckBeard]

    Damage Control II
    Beta Reactor Control: Diagnostic System I
    Beta Reactor Control: Diagnostic System I

    Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
    Medium Shield Extender II
    EM Ward Field II
    Small Ancillary Shield Booster, Cap Booster 25

    Ice Harvester II
    Ice Harvester II

    Medium Anti-Thermal Screen Reinforcer I
    Medium Core Defense Field Extender I

    Hornet EC-300 x5
    Hobgoblin II x5

    Inherent Implants ‘Squire’ Engineering EG-601

  9. @Corelin
    ‘Hulk good tank Mission/Mining solo’
    I personally would suggest the skiff rather than the hulk. Bigger ore bay, better ehp and may even outperform a heavily tanked hulk.

    Also don’t try to overtank a retriever they are still pretty weak and cost 3-4 times the pre retribution ones.

  10. I used to be indy when I started. I found a low pocket and started mining there too. I enjoyed it but never, ever lost a ship. How? I came to EvE looking for a hostile environment to play in, and I prepared myself for that environment.

    When I want unmolested farming I play FarmSim2013 (fact, good game, try it)

    • Hahaha fucking A. Ah the Farmsim comment is great. This man gets it. Don’t sit in the same system bitching…adapt/move/whatever. Hell I run level 4’s in lowsec and rarely get hassled. Instead of acting like a victim think: how the hell can I make these guys lose their ships? FYI gate level 4 missions in lowsec are great for baiting fights (people go nuts when they see 2 Tengu’s on d-scan…BUT oh shit it’s a pvp tengu!).

  11. The mining ship HP discussions always remind me of a tidbit which I now wish I had written down. In a podcast interview (I think Lost in Eve), I remember Seleene relating that many years ago, CCP allegedly buffed the HPs of all ships across the board, because weaponry had gotten too good. I bet back then many people also cried ‘Learn to Tank!’ in protest.

    I see the recent mining barge/exhumer buff in the same vein: an adjustment to bring them up to date with the rest of the game. Which on the flipside means that now miners really only have themselves to blame if they lose their ships.

  12. I agree mining ships should fit a tank. All of you are so quick to say miners should remove their ability to mine efficiently in order to tank their ships. Well, I’m all for tradeoffs! I think PVPers should only be able to carry 2 shots of ammo in a tier 3 battlecruiser. It makes sense if they mount battleship sized weapons on a small ship that they have little room for anything else. Make them choose between smaller weapons with ample ammo and less dps or massive guns with little ammo. Yeah…such choices are always great for the other guy, right?

    • Actually i like T3 bcs getting more limited ammo capacity. Have to figure something for oracles though.

      Remember there is a trade off for pvp ships. They trade damage and agility for tank or vice versa.

  13. [Mackinaw, anti gank permatank]

    Modulated Strip Miner II
    Modulated Strip Miner II

    Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
    Small Shield Extender II
    Thermic Dissipation Amplifier II
    Survey Scanner II

    2x Mining Laser Upgrade I
    Damage Control II

    2x Medium Core Defense Field Extender I

    5x Warrior II

    35.5k EHP against blasters, 37.5k EHP with overheat (all V), no need for cap boosters, doesn’t need you turn off the strips to achieve it. Loses at most 15% yield over a max yield fit, but will live far longer than one.

  1. Pingback: A Bump in the Night | Mabrick's Mumblings

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: