CCP gave lot of tools for miners who were dying left and right. After the largest buff any ship class received in the history of EVE... miners are dying left and right and demand more buffs. With this post I want to tell how easily one can defend himself against suicide gankers.
Let's see the first and most important mechanic: security status. As its name clearly tells, it's about the security of the star system. "The higher, the better" should be obvious even to 1 hour newbies. Numerically it defines the response time of CONCORD, the invincible cops of EVE highsec. According to my own combat logs, in 0.5 you can gank for 25 seconds, in 0.6 20, in 0.7 16. Of course it can be affected by lag and rounding errors but you clearly get the tendency. In 0.8-1.0 you can practically only alpha-gank, meaning firing one salvo from a long-reload gun. Typically Tornado battlecruisers are used for it and they cost 100M. In 0.7-0.5 you can use sustained DPS ships, like the 11M Catalyst. You probably see the difference between these options. Considering that there are lot of belts in 0.8-1.0, there is absolutely no reason for risk-averse miners to move to 0.5-0.7. Yet they do.
The second concept that constantly evades dead miners is "tanking". Ships have shield, armor and hull. Each have HPs. To kill a ship, all three must be reduced to zero. You can increase the value of all three and also their resistances. A shield with 50% resistance to a damage type is just as strong as a twice bigger shield with no resistance. This mechanic coined the term "effective HP": the HP of the ship with zero resistances that lives as long as the current ship. Let's see a max-yield Retriever in EFT (third party EVE ship modeling program):
Now let's put on an Adaptive invulnerability field that increases shield resistances, and replace one Mining laser upgrades with a Damage control module that gives a small increase to shield and armor and big to hull. Since they need CPU, we'll need one processor overclocking rig. To the other two rig slots the optimal choice is a medium core defense field extender, but that's expensive, so let's just go with rigs that increase your weakest resistances: armor kinetic and armor thermic. While the armor explosive and shield EM were smaller, gankers prefers doing kinetic and thermal damage. Of course if you put on only resistors for these, they will adapt, hence we stick to the adaptive invulnerability field. Let's see the ship now:
Finally let's compare all the Barges and Exhumers with max-yield vs reasonable tank:
Can you see the extreme differences between the various ships and fits? Then why are the 0.5-0.6 belts are full of naked Retrievers?! The only possible answer is stupidity and laziness. It is practically impossible to gank miners who choose ships and system security properly and fit their ships well. Yet the only thing slowing miner ganking is waiting out GCC.
Finally, something trivial: AFK-ing. How can you seriously think of going AFK in a game and win? How could going AFK in a dangerous place mean anything else than sure defeat?
Let's see the first and most important mechanic: security status. As its name clearly tells, it's about the security of the star system. "The higher, the better" should be obvious even to 1 hour newbies. Numerically it defines the response time of CONCORD, the invincible cops of EVE highsec. According to my own combat logs, in 0.5 you can gank for 25 seconds, in 0.6 20, in 0.7 16. Of course it can be affected by lag and rounding errors but you clearly get the tendency. In 0.8-1.0 you can practically only alpha-gank, meaning firing one salvo from a long-reload gun. Typically Tornado battlecruisers are used for it and they cost 100M. In 0.7-0.5 you can use sustained DPS ships, like the 11M Catalyst. You probably see the difference between these options. Considering that there are lot of belts in 0.8-1.0, there is absolutely no reason for risk-averse miners to move to 0.5-0.7. Yet they do.
The second concept that constantly evades dead miners is "tanking". Ships have shield, armor and hull. Each have HPs. To kill a ship, all three must be reduced to zero. You can increase the value of all three and also their resistances. A shield with 50% resistance to a damage type is just as strong as a twice bigger shield with no resistance. This mechanic coined the term "effective HP": the HP of the ship with zero resistances that lives as long as the current ship. Let's see a max-yield Retriever in EFT (third party EVE ship modeling program):
Now let's put on an Adaptive invulnerability field that increases shield resistances, and replace one Mining laser upgrades with a Damage control module that gives a small increase to shield and armor and big to hull. Since they need CPU, we'll need one processor overclocking rig. To the other two rig slots the optimal choice is a medium core defense field extender, but that's expensive, so let's just go with rigs that increase your weakest resistances: armor kinetic and armor thermic. While the armor explosive and shield EM were smaller, gankers prefers doing kinetic and thermal damage. Of course if you put on only resistors for these, they will adapt, hence we stick to the adaptive invulnerability field. Let's see the ship now:
Finally let's compare all the Barges and Exhumers with max-yield vs reasonable tank:
| Name | Naked, yield | Naked, EHP | Tanked, yield | Tanked, EHP |
| Retriever | 1.28 | 9.6 | 1.17 | 17.1 |
| Covetor | 1.40 | 7.2 | 1.29 | 13.3 |
| Procurer | 1.17 | 29.1 | 1.07 | 67.9 |
| Mackinaw | 1.34 | 14.5 | 1.23 | 31.3 |
| Hulk | 1.44 | 10.9 | 1.32 | 24.0 |
| Skiff | 1.23 | 36.3 | 1.13 | 109.5 |
Can you see the extreme differences between the various ships and fits? Then why are the 0.5-0.6 belts are full of naked Retrievers?! The only possible answer is stupidity and laziness. It is practically impossible to gank miners who choose ships and system security properly and fit their ships well. Yet the only thing slowing miner ganking is waiting out GCC.
Finally, something trivial: AFK-ing. How can you seriously think of going AFK in a game and win? How could going AFK in a dangerous place mean anything else than sure defeat?
0 comments:
Post a Comment