(tl;dr The new mining barges are excellent. CCP converted an upgrade path into roles. Roles are far superior to upgrades, are more suited to the EVE Online concept.)
That's why EVE Online has the longevity that it does. CCP doesn't have to introduce new ships with every expansion cycle, because we continue to fly a very wide variety of ships, not because we have too, but because we want too. We don't give up flying our current ship simply because we now have the skill points to fly something that requires more skill points. Battleships aren't better than frigates. They're simply different.
Skill points aren't gained simply to vacate our current ship to jump into the next ship in some upgrade path. We aren't striving to reach some ultimate ship. CCP doesn't have to keep introducing new ships, because there is no ship that trumps all other ships.
Upgrade paths do exist with certain module groups. If you can use a Damage Control II, there's really no reason at all to use a Damage Control I. But if you can use a MicroWarpdrive II, you're likely still going to stick with tech one versions, because of fitting and cost considerations. With modules, there are certainly items that are better than other items within a module group, but EVE gives us a variety of valid reasons to use lesser items over their better tech 2 variants.
Where an upgrade path has existed within EVE Online, and been most glaring, is with mining barges and exhumers:
Mining Frigates < Procurer < Retriever < Covetor < Skiff < Mackinaw < Hulk[1]This is all about to change. CCP Ytterbium's most recent devblog announces that mining barges and exhumers will be redesigned. No longer will the upgrade path exist, each ship will now have a well-defined role to play. (As well, all of the current mining frigates will be replaced with a new ORE frigate.)
One of the complaints from Hulkageddon victims is that none of the mining ships offer an option of defense. Given how dangerous mining can be in New Eden, it is a little odd that ORE didn't design for demand sooner. ORE finally came around, their delay has been but a miner inconvenience. Players will now have their heavy defense mining barge; it will be at the expense of cargo and yield, but there should be trade-offs.
| Ship Type | Resilience | Cargo Bay | Mining Yield |
| ORE Frigate | Low | Low | Low |
| Procurer/Skiff | High | Mid | Low |
| Retriever/Mackinaw | Mid | High | Mid |
| Covetor/Hulk | Low | Mid | High |
The table is an oversimplification. The Skiff's resilience will likely be off-the-charts compared to the Mackinaw. None of the frigate's capabilities will be comparable to the barges and exhumers. That said, the table does give a quick reference to the design differences between the ships.
So what are the roles? Frigates, for fast agile mining fleets in very dangerous locations. The Procurer/Skiff for solo mining in high-gank areas (the ship of choice for Hulkageddon). The Retriever/Mackinaw should be a capable solo and small fleet ship in highsec and lowsec. The Covetor/Hulk for fleet mining operations with Orca support.
These changes won't cure all the mining whining. There'll still be the knuckleheads who'll go for the highest yield ships and fly them solo, no matter the inherent dangers in doing so. But with these new roles, CCP can now rightfully tell the knuckleheads to HTFU and use a Skiff. CCP can ignore their desperate forum posts, let the playerbase deal with them the way the playerbase best deals with people like this (wardecs!)
So, yeah, roles are greater than upgrade paths. This is a very welcome change to EVE Online. So, congrats to CCP Ytterbium and the other devs working on the new mining barge iterations.
[1] An argument could made concerning Skiffs and Covetors, but the Skiff is certainly more versatile, even if it lacks defensibility and module slots. Either way, even if we flip Skiffs and Covetors in the list, a glaring upgrade path does exist.
I wonder if the T2 versions will still keep their roles for Mercoxit/Ice/Roid-eater abilities...
ReplyDeleteThat was my biggest concern. Where from Poetic's PoV holds true for the mining barges, I would see that the skiff, mackinaw and hulk having the roles described here (skiff for mercoxit, mack for ice and hulk for mass mining).
DeleteStill, it'd be great if ORE can dig deep down and find some more boosting power for those strip miners :)
Roles, to a degree, already exist in the Exhumers.
ReplyDeleteGoing back to my old carebear days, it was quite often to skip right over the skiff and go straight for a hulk. The upgrade path for mining ore was almost always Frigate -> Cruiser -> Retriever -> Hulk.
Because in T2, currently, the Skiff is for mining mercoxit, the mack is for ice and the hulk is for ore.
T1, sure, its a 'path' but the procurer and covetor are pretty much a waste of time... procurer isn't much better than an osprey, and by the time you can fly the covetor you're already well and truely on the way to a hulk.
So I don't think roles are quite doing what you think they are doing. What they ARE doing is suddenly making the underutilized hulls more tantalizing (I'm not for a second suggesting the skiff/mack are underutilized, but they are specialist ships) - A miner has a choice between a paper thin hulk that can pump out a shed load of ore per hour at the very real risk of getting squashed, or sacrificing ore in favour of something more durable.
I'm interested to know how the existing T2 bonuses will apply though - will the skiff still be the ship for mining explosive rocks? will the mack still be the ice miner? will the hulk still be the king of ore? If those distinctions still exist the choice becomes diluted - and the miners who are obsessed with yield will still chose the wrong tool for the job when the gankers come a-knockin'.
Good point about the bonuses forcing players to use the wrong tool for a given situation.
DeleteSomeone on the forums suggested moving the bonuses into mining scripts, which are then loaded into MLUs and IHUs.
The scripts suggestion was brilliant. It adds another level of choice and flexibility that doesn't exist currently.
DeleteBut the question that lingers: How much of a difference will (should?) there be between the "Mining Barge" and "Exhumer" tiers stat-wise? +20% tank on the Skiff? +20% cargo on the Mack? +20% yield on the Hulk?
What's the magic formula for differentiating between T1 and T2 in this subgenre of industrial ships?
I think a lot of the "whining" has to do with the nature of ganking, not the nature of the mining vessels. The bottom line is that gankers can gank far too cheaply and with very few skillpoints compared to the amount of destructive potential, which means that, for somebody who wants to gank, there's no real decision-making process. You will never have to put enough resources on the line for it to weigh on your wallet (much less your conscience).
ReplyDeleteWhen you add to this the fact that ganking is literally unstoppable, even in highsec (which is to say that you can do nothing about it other than dock up your mining vessel), it becomes clear that shit is massively out of balance.
Maybe the new Procurer/Skiff will be a defensive beast and prove me entirely wrong. But I have a hard time believing that it's going to be able to be resilient enough to deter gankers. CCP will bump up the stats and use that as an excuse to ignore the real problem, which lies mostly on the ganker side, and how ridiculously overpowered/out of balance it is.
The problem is that you're trying to balance 2 King Kong size gorillas on a teeter-totter. If you move the fulcrum more than slightly, one or the other comes crashing down, oh the humanity, etc.
DeleteThen again that may appeal to CCP and their sledgehammer is the right tool for EVERY job mentality...
From the devblog:
DeleteProcurer/Skiff: primarily made for self-defense. Better mining rate than the ORE frig, good ore bay, but capable of having battleship-like EHP.
That *should* deterr gankers, even with the Goon payout. Unless of course, they are doing it for the lulz. There is no stopping people who do it for the lulz.
If I'd were a ganker, with 3 or 4 others friends, I'd look for another ship types than a skiff, unless I want to fit BCs and lose them to CONCORD. If I can find (and I will), solo Hulks or other weaker targets AFK mining... I won't bother with the harder ones.
It makes perfect sense and is entirely reasonable that the balance is on the gankers side. Eve ain't fair - a combat vessel built to be easy to use should be able to crush a specialist ship worth an order of magnitude more in terms of time and isk invested.
DeleteAnybody who thinks that this isn't reasonable needs to go find a theme park mmo to play, willed with rainbows and unicorns, where your terrible choices have no consequence and you are wrapped in a warm blanket and given a puppy every time someone attacks you.
Mark my words, ccp will release a mega tanking mining ship and the miners will still min/max the hulk for yield - then whine continually about how unfair it is....
Hong: Oh, definitely. I'm not saying it's an easy task to balance these things. Personally, I can't describe how I would do it. It's a real dilemma, because I think it's quite obvious that the ganking of miners reveals a real imbalance in the game, and yet, what can you really do to iron this out without outright destroying one side or the other?
DeleteCrassus: The thing is, I think most gankers do it for the lulz. Most gankers are losing money on the deal, no matter what. It's just a matter of how much money they lose. So making it possible for Procurers/Skiffs to sport battleship-esque EHPs probably won't cut it. A battleship isn't exactly a hard target to gank.
Anon: Oddly, the only people "theme parking" it in the suicide ganker vs. miner scenario are the suicide gankers. There is currently no easier decision to make in the PVP realm than whether or not to gank that Hulk. In contrast, the Hulk pilot has to think carefully before putting 300M+ ISK on the line against potential opponents who can effortlessly wipe it out any time they want. Suicide ganking miners is about as "theme park" as PVP gets in this game. Why exactly is it "right" that CCP has decided to make miners think long and hard about what to do, but decided, on the other end, that suicide gankers explicitly shouldn't have to do the very same thing? That which is a difficult choice for miners should be nothing more than a thoughtless action for gankers. So the question is: why do suicide gankers and those who defend them feel like they deserve this special treatment from CCP? You'd think, since they're big, bad gankers, that they'd be kind of embarrassed by having their hands held by CCP, no? Seriously, we need to realize that suicide gankers are the biggest pussies of PVP in EVE, and that they are bigger "theme parkers" than the miners they blow up.
haha, thats the most ridiculous argument. Suicide ganking hulks, the risk is guaranteed - you are going to lose your ship. You risk 100% of everything you're flying at that moment.
DeleteThere is no special treatment here - you are and others are advocating for an EHP buff purely because the hulk cost more than the gank boat. Where does the EHP buffing stop? would you like to see industrials tanking more because ganking on trade routes is unfair? How about newbie frigates.. or pods, lets give them an EHP buff...(my pod is the most expensive ship I fly, implant costs alone make most of my would be attackers ships look cheap - because i spent more should my pod get an ehp buff too?)
Its a mining barge, it is sensible that it has all the tank of a wet tissue.
Do I think suicide ganking is 'real' PvP? of course not - but it is entertaining, if for nothing else than reading the illogical conclusions of mining sympathizers who think that isk spent should somehow equate to tank/survivability.
If you don't min-max your hulk for yield, and you get some friends - one of which can fly a gang booster, and you actually tank your ship a hulk's survivability will go up incredibly. The problem is you don't want to sacrifice your yield, or your friend (who could be flying another max yield hulk instead of providing boosts) to protect yourself, then you cry unfair that a cheap battlecruiser blew up your shiny toy.
I've been on both sides of this equation, i used to mine and i've ganked miners. Frankly I've always been of the opinion that it is working as intended. Miners don't have to die - you can tank fit, use friends, watch dscan for probes (because mining at the warpin would be stupid)... if you lose your shiny 300m ship, 9 times out of 10 it was your own idiotic mistakes that cost you.
Previous Anon: Your argument is nonsense, because people suicide gank industrials for profit, not for the lulz, generally speaking. Which is to say that industrial pilots can generally avoid being ganked (except during a Burn Jita-like event) by controlling the value of their cargo relative to the value of ships that would be lost in ganking it. This is exactly what freighter pilots do when deciding on a maximum value of cargo to carry. Is it a perfect system? No. Do industrials get ganked just for the fuck of it sometimes? Of course. But generally speaking, it is an effective method to stave off most gank attempts, simply because of the profit-seeking dynamic involved in that particular form of ganking. Suicide ganking miners, on the other hand, is almost never related to the expectation of profit. Success is tallied in terms of ISK losses caused to the miner, and most gankers are going to lose money on the deal, even if they're getting "bounties" from Goons for doing it.
DeleteThere is literally nothing that can be done in a suicide gank attempt. Either the gankers have enough firepower to take you out, or they don't. Even if they fail, it's a failure caused by them, not by anything you did to prevent it from happening. At some point, we have to admit that these precautions you mention that miners can allegedly take are no longer really realistic. It's the old "Oh, you can dock up if you don't like it!" mentality, as though that presents a real solution that any player should have to live with. Sorry, but if that's all the game offers miners as solace for this problem that they have zero ways to defend against using ordinary mechanics, then that's pretty shallow. If CCP is going to treat suicide ganking as gameplay (which I'm totally fine with), then they need to make it so those who are gank targets have some sort of actual gameplay possibility, too, other than simply docking up, or having to always keep a friend outside (no, requiring an alt account--and let's admit, that's what it would have to be, because no friend, however strongly connected to you, is going to sit there for hours while you mine--is not "gameplay") boosting their EHP, or whatever else. Give miners some gameplay here. That's all I ask. If any of you ganker-defenders can provide a real solution here, go ahead. I'd love to hear anything other than a brainless defense of the status quo.
Its not brainless defense of the status quo. The status quo is exactly balanced in the most appropriate way in accordance with the game mechanics. Don't like being ganked? retaliate. go build an alliance to take on goons and end their ability to fund hulkageddon by crippling their ability to earn income. Difficult? of course. But don't expect CCP to buff your hulk's EHP to defend against suicide gankers under some umbrella of "gameplay" simply because you don't have the resources to take in-game action against what is happening to you.
DeleteD-scan also doesn't require ANY alt accounts. Don't mine on the warp in, and spam d-scan. See combat probes, GET OUT. The attention span of your average ganker will have him move on to another system.
The sense of miner entitlement because they spent 300m on a ship which by *design* can't defend itself is absolutely laughable. What is even more laughable is that the gankers know that your fit is going to have a full rack of MLU's, a full rack of cargo rigs, and maybe a shield extender and an invuln. They know that because of your obsession with yield. They bring a ship that will overcome that configuration every time. Want to know how to fix it? Drop the MLUs and fit some tank. Drop the mining gang links on your orca, and replace with armor gang links. Basically take some responsibility for your safety instead of bitching and moaning that you can't have maximum yield AND safety. You have options and you refuse to take them, then qq about how unfair it is that the gankers "take no risk" etc...
Literally nothing that can be done in a suicide gank attempt? Can't do anything to prevent it? Bullshit. Theres half a dozen or more things you can do. You just don't want to do them because you want your maximum yield and absolute safety because you spent more isk on your ship.
Wow is that way... go back to it.
tl;dr - the balance between gankers and miners is working as intended
It's not about lacking resources. It's about lacking gameplay. That's where you're getting it completely wrong. If you're telling miners that the only way to combat suicide gankers is essentially to stop mining, then I think that reveals a problem in gameplay and game mechanics. Players are exploiting one of those rare slices of the game where there is literally nothing a "victim" can do about it, and still perform their primary in-game task, other than stop doing it altogether. You seem to believe that, if CCP were to do anything about this, it would be an example of them holding miners' hands and babying them. And yet, the fact that suicide gankers can do what they do with so few skills and such little ISK invested, and that CCP is okay with this, seems like an instance of CCP holding gankers' hands via non-intervention. By refusing to deal with the issue, they are babying gankers.
DeletePlease tell me what can positively be done to stop a high-sec mining gank, which doesn't include not mining. I'd love to hear it.
Nothing positive can be done to stop a high-sec mining gank. AND NOTHING SHOULD BE DONE TO STOP A HIGH-SEC MINING GANK. Stopping ganking would be a really very NEGATIVE thing. The fact that you can't see that makes me again question the game you've chosen to play.
Deleteits working as intended.
You want to stop the ganking? get out of your expensive exhumer, jump in an inexpensive combat ship, and declare war on someone. Fight back. Stop being a victim. You're only a victim because you make yourself one.
Last Anon: I didn't mean that CCP can't do anything about ganking. I meant that the miner can't do anything about ganking. That's just bad gameplay.
DeleteAnd I love how your answer to suicide ganking miners is for miners to stop mining. Yeah, that's a real awesome solution. "Hey you, if you don't want me to disrupt you doing what you're doing, how about you just stop doing what you're doing (because that wouldn't also constitute an interruption, right?)."
My argument isn't that suicide gankers shouldn't be able to gank miners. My argument is that it's really stupid for CCP to treat suicide ganking like valid gameplay if they're not going to introduce mechanics that give miners a gameplay response to that ganking (i.e. some way of defending themselves that doesn't mean completely halting their mining operations and jumping into combat ships). The notion that miners could even hope to fight back against gankers is utterly absurd. Where are they going to find these gankers? The whole thing is just silly. The gankers are going to move on and find new miners to target, not sit around waiting for miners to come out in combat ships and take them on. It's a stupid, brainless "solution," and only serves to mindlessly perpetuate the an unacceptable status quo.
You are completely missing the point, and call the situation brainless because you don't like the fact that there is no need for a solution.
DeleteThis is a MMO, get some friends to defend you. Combat ships in the belts with you - your own fleet of suiciders to get the gankers first.
You think that something needs to be fixed ("unacceptable status quo") when it doesn't, then you fabricate your strawman around that flawed position.
The status quo is completely acceptable. It is *by design*. In eve, you have no right or entitlement to do any particular activity. Organised interdiction of your activities happens everywhere. I like to fly Guardians - does this mean everytime I run into a bhaalgorn and can't do anything about it that this is somehow broken? The solution, of course, is to bring a friend with his own Bhaalgorn, which allows me to continue being a space priest.
The same is true of mining. You can't defend yourself by design. You need to get friends who can fill that part for you. You have a number of choices. You can tank your hulk and sacrifice yield, stay aligned and give up a few minutes of mining until the threat passes (this would require you to be actively spamming dscan), or you can bring friends, or you can find something else to do.
Nothing with the mining ganking is broken. Not even a little bit. Not at all.
In high-sec, you can't have friends "gank the gankers" because they're on-grid before you'll ever have a chance to lock them and blow them up. Not to mention the fact that your defenders won't have kill rights on them, as the gank itself is what aggresses them to you and gives you kill rights. And therefore CONCORD will blow you away if you try to kill them preemptively as a defensive measure. In other words, you can't do shit about high-sec ganking until CONCORD has already done it for you. And there's no preemptive measure you can take. What it ultimately comes down to is either the ganker fails because they didn't bring enough gank (not because of anything you did, really), or you blow up. That's the extent of the gameplay between suicide gankers and miners. How can you possibly support that?
DeleteIt's been consistently demonstrated, by the way, that a big tank is only going to foil suicide gankers once, if at all. You sacrificed yield to boost your EHP and got away with it? Great! Get ready for more gank next time, and it's still not going to be anywhere close to deterring the average suicide ganker. Oh wow, yeah, they had to bring out a couple more throwaway dessies to blow you up. That sounds like a magnificent "option" for defending against gankers, to me.
By ignoring this severe imbalance, CCP is "entitling" suicide gankers to easy, inexpensive kills on miners. You apparently find a pro-ganker bias just fine, but any sort of change that would shift the favor meter even slightly toward miners is somehow an abomination to be avoided at all costs. I'm sorry, but the way things are right now is not a happy, "neutral" state. CCP ignoring the issue constitutes a positive bias toward those who gank miners and against those who mine.
step 1, put your own gankers in the belt with you
Deletestep 2, shoot ANYTHING that turns up on grid with you
step 3, accept the loss of a cheap ship to concord, as the price of protecting your expensive ship..
your last paragraph is absolutely correct, except for the 'severe imbalance' part - its perfectly balanced. My pro-ganker bias is more than just fine, it is supported by the people that write the game. And its wonderful and should never change because there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. The only people who find a problem with it are the miners who are completely devoid of all creativity and want to afk mine while they socialize in a $15/month chat room. Instead of sitting here bleating about how unfair it is, start fighting back you worthless scrub.
Its a sandbox. YOU find a way to fight back against those kicking sand in your face. This is not CCP's task in the slightest.
I'm not even a miner, but leave it to idiots such as yourself to believe that the only people who can see imbalances in the game are those who are directly affected by them.
DeleteSo, these gankers who the miner presumably gets to sit in the asteroid belt with him. Are they good friends? Are they paid to be there? Are they alts? How are they going to be able to gank the gankers before the gankers gank the miner and/or CONCORD shows up and blows them away for aggressing the gankers?
If this is the best method of defense you can summon, you don't have a leg to stand on.
I don't care who the defenders you put in the belt with you are. Pay them. Get friends. Use alts. Doesn't matter.
DeleteYou gank the gankers before they gank the miners by shooting first - don't even ask questions. Someone shows up in your belt, shoot them. Sacrifice some cheap ships. Typical hulk ganking ships have paper thin tanks - use the same tactics the gankers use to gank the hulks - massive alpha strike.
CCP isn't going to, and shouldn't, take sand out of the sandbox just because miners want to cry that they can't cope with people using valid in game mechanics to interdict their activities. What is your solution? Buff the shit out of the mining ships so that they cannot be alpha'd? the gankers will just bring more ships. Then you will cry again.
See, unlike you, I am a miner. I don't mine a great deal anymore but I mined solidly through 3 hulkageddons, and didn't lose a single ship. Don't AFK mine. Don't fit for maximum yield. Bring friends to boost you. Don't mine at the warp in. Watch local. Watch intel channels. Keep an eye on the map for hot zones. Move your mining activities to quieter systems. Get friends to shoot first.
You literally have dozens of mechanisms at your disposal to defend against the gank squads. But none of those are appealing to you because the miners can't fit for maximum yield, turn up and AFK mine for an hour at their favorite belt with no risk. And you call me an idiot.
So the only way to counter a ganker is to become a ganker? That's really your solution?
Deletewouldn't call it a 'solution'. solution implies that there is a problem. But yes, that's one of many ways (many MANY) ways you can defend yourself.
Deletewhat's your 'solution'?
Well, one would simply hope that, if you were going to present a method of defense, that it at least be somewhat plausible. Are these gank-defenders going to alpha each ganker on their own? Please explain the feasibility of this line of defense.
DeleteOh and also, please explain the "many MANY" other ways that miners have at their disposal.
how is it not plausable?
Deletemackinaw fleet is mining in a belt. 5 suicide thrashers turn up. even having a pair of alpha tier 3 fit tornados at your disposal will deal with most if not all of them in an 0.5 system before concord show up. Bonus is that concord is then spawned in the belt - an early warning system (if the gankers 'clean up concord' its time to move to a new belt).
I've explained the many other things miners can do - watch dscan for combats, don't mine at the warp in, tank fit your exhumer, mine in quiet systems, watch local for -10 pirates and dock up for 10 minutes until they pass, fit some shield links to your orca, get a shield boosting command ship buddy in your fleet, mine scanned grav sites (no easy warp ins, would require probes to find you - you were watching dscan, right?), fly with some protection who will shoot down anyone who comes near your fleet and damn the consequences...
Not once have you proposed what you would like to see changed to fix this 'problem' you are bleating on about. I'm telling you there is no need to fix the 'problem' because the 'problem' does not exist. But since you seem convinced that poor unfortunate space rich miners who can afford to FLY 300m isk ships (the don't fly what you can't afford to lose axiom would suggest that they have the isk to replace these) need some sort of mechanic change to swing the balance in their favour. So tell me, great game designer, what is your proposed solution? I promise not to point and laugh, much....
1) Watch d-scan for combatants: And then what? Dock up until they leave? Oh, the gameplay is strong with this one.
Delete2) Tank fit your exhumer = get alpha'd the next time, if you happen to be lucky enough to not be alpha'd the first time anyway.
3) Mine in quiet systems: Except, quiet systems are only quiet until they're not quiet. Again, the gameplay is strong with this one.
4) Fit shield links to Orca: Requires you to have an Orca, and a second account from which you can run it (or a friend/corpmate who's willing to sit on his ass and boost little old you, because he's got nothing better to be doing, clearly).
5) Get a shield boosting command ship buddy in your fleet: Read above.
6) Mine scanned grav sites: Have the worst mining efficiency ever.
7) Fly with protection who will shoot anything that moves: Completely implausible and probably wouldn't even work anyway, which is why NOBODY does it.
My solution is to introduce CONCORD fees for popping invalid targets in high-sec. The only way to put miner ganking on par with industrial ganking, in terms of there being an adequate counterbalance that makes the ganker at least have to consider what they do before they do it, is to introduce a financial disincentive for doing it. If you're cool with paying fees on top of ship losses for ganking in high-sec, then cool. Gank away. If not, then at least you'll have a decision to make.
The ganking types have very little forethought, very narrow points of view, and no clue about mining except that it's a great way to cause grief by blowing them up. Exhumes already have roles, as pointed out by people who actually use them. Clueless gankers don't know this. This "fix" is just going to be one more example of CCP's standard fuck-ups of late. The calls for the narrow minded that anyone who doesn't like the ganking situation can leave, is the mindset of a seven year old. In the adult world, that kind of "brilliant" marketting strategy doesn't pay the bills. If they're lucky, the ganker types will hit triple IQ points and realize that the more people that leave because of them,the less likely there'll be a game for them to be angry little assholes in.
DeleteLooking forward to those changings. - I welcome them. Of course it will not stop all the mining-whining, but you always will have some sort of whining people around. Just the idea to have at least a "Mining-Ship" that is not that an easy target in High-Sec to be ganked is in my personal opinion an awesome change, and a question of choice along with the days of Goons paying ISK for each 10th Mining-Vessel killed. I vote as well for keeping the bonuses still the way as they are if it comes to the specialisation of ICE-Mining and all that. Thumbs up
ReplyDeleteVery satisfying to read Poetic swallow her pride and do a piece on this, since she was one of the biggest advocates against the barge buff.
ReplyDeleteI was against a Hulk buff for the sole purpose of silencing the whining.
DeleteHulks didn't get a buff. The other mining ships did.