open All Channels
seplocked Science and Industry
blankseplocked Hulk ganking
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 [3]

Author Topic

Victoria Akmea
Gallente
Taishite Kami
Posted - 2009.06.29 01:41:00 - [61]
 

Edited by: Victoria Akmea on 29/06/2009 01:42:45
This is with all level V skills, but you could artificially make that with implants.

--Hulk--

--Lows--
Damage Control II
N-Type Adaptive Nano Membrane I

--Mediums--
Small F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction
Small F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction
Invulnerability Field II
Invulnerability Field II

--Highs--
Ice Harvester II
Ice Harvester II
Ice Harvester II

My EFT may be out of date, but anyway. That's a 22,483 EHP.

Next I did a Hype, All level V skills no implants, Neutron Blaster IIs with Caldari Navy Antimatter, Mag Stab IIs in bot, as well as 3 Ogre IIs and 2 Hammerheads IIs for full damage possible. 1418 dps 4829 volley + drone volley, whatever that is. 1418 DPS would take a good 15 or so seconds to kill that Hulk? By then, CONCORD is there going OMGLAIKHAI2U2HYPE!!11!1!1oneoneeleven. Even if this Hype could kill the Hulk, it wouldn't drop enough to be profitable. Even 2 cheaply fitted Hypes would probably cost more than you'd get.



--TL;DR--

Fit a tank on your hulk and quit whining.

Steve Hawkings
Posted - 2009.06.29 13:05:00 - [62]
 

Originally by: Clair Bear

What on earth would you need plates for? You are dead as soon as concord shows up. There is absolutely no need for tank.




lol

Sergo Mor'Zert
Posted - 2009.06.29 14:57:00 - [63]
 

Originally by: Victoria Akmea
[Even if this Hype could kill the Hulk, it wouldn't drop enough to be profitable. Even 2 cheaply fitted Hypes would probably cost more than you'd get.


Huh you forget overheated guns, only moronic suicidal ganker dont use that option. Also hulks in high sec tend to be active tanked with costly modules plus chance to get t2 rig components, it is profitable.

But with good EHP buffer tank on Hulk its possible to survive ~90% of the suicidal attackers. Makeing miner risk as close to zero as possible in EVE. Few good setups was already posted here ~30k EHP is enough for almost every suicider.

Ana Vyr
Caldari
Posted - 2009.06.29 15:00:00 - [64]
 

I wonder if CCP should allow us to insure T2 barges with some decent coverage to help offset this?

Zuhlaetah
Posted - 2009.06.29 15:48:00 - [65]
 

Quote:

And while you're on the topic of "zero risk", what risks are there in ganking mining barges and exhumers in a scenario where you know you're going to get blown up by CONCORD anyway?



Like they don't know what to do to not trigger concord response despite aggressing.
Do you REALLY believe anyone of the "many hulks killed" are actually coping with the single downside of that, security loss? No, there are multiple ways to kill them and lose minimal standing at all, it's how it's done.

Zero risk, maximum grief, zero cost.


Quote:

If i have to live with crappy insurance for a t2 ship then miners need to learn to live with their crappy insurance for their t2 ships. Just because they dont know how to fit a tank to their t2 miner doesnt mean my t1 ship should get less insurance



Feel free to show a fitting that would save an hulk off a determined suicide ganker.
In case you did not notice, hulks are not exactly made to tank players.


Quote:

The main problem as i see it is the t2 miners- ie hulk- are fit for mining and only mining. Seriously would it kill them to fit a tank



Because even fully mining fitted they earn a QUARTER of the second-last worst profession?

Nice, then give mining ships 3-4 more high slots and the grid to sustain a real tank?


Quote:

2) Gank for fun - This is the element I view as being outside the risk vs reward balance, because the ganker is not looking for a conventional reward, and there is limited scope for the victim to discourage someone who really wants to gank them. I would like to see this element discouraged by the game mechanics as far as possible.



Gank for fun is still fair in an unconsensual PvP game.
What's out of whack is the:

- stacking and one sided-ness of the "deal": defensless sitting duck vs determined "pros". Defensless regardless of any other factor, even by being aligned, even hypotetically fitting warp stabs... in any case you get 1-3 shot.

- complete lack of any downside for doing it. You are ALWAYS insured a kill, you are ALWAYS insured for the kill to be profitable (T2 fittings), you are ALWAYS getting paid by insurance at almost full. Basically, in a "pros and cons" game like EvE is, there's this particular fight where there's no downside and only upsides.


Quote:

If you are playing the game- PLAY THE GAME
If you fly a t2 expensive ship- realize that you are flying a mostly uninsurable ship. Im sorry if game mechanics prevent you from doing whatever you want, how you want, when you want.



A barge is crap and will be targetted even more. Same fitting required (covetor) but a fraction of the HP.
Losing the ship and having to find another and the always scarce or thief costly modules is the factor, not the < 100M. Using a barge won't fix this.

Moreover there's no "cheap" miners. The T1 are 2M each here, they are not gifted due to them requiring high amounts of megacyte to make.


Quote:
The fact that they use a t1 insurable ship and miners use a t2 ship is besides the point


No, it's not. Being repeatedly stripped off an income source does not change: someone else just did it and because it's free.


Quote:

And besides that check out the whole security status issue they have to deal with.



Read above: those who do it in a professional way can avoid the security status issue in several ways.


Quote:

has 111 defence with maxed skills, i get 110 for 6 minuts. I still have a good minign yield and even got a spare low slot to play with(barely no pg or cpu though :P), and can probally squeeze in two named MLU's.
yes it is a 40 mil shield booster, but hey its saving my 100 mil ship



This is 40M that EVERYONE with a brain will want to try to get. It's almost free to them to try after all.

Karentaki
Gallente
Oberon Incorporated
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2009.06.29 16:35:00 - [66]
 

Originally by: Future Mutant
This topic started off well- hulks were going splat and plenty of lol's were had by all....
Then the unimaginative came in with their O M G they r killing our ships! How can that be fair? NERF NERF NERF NERF

Heres a tip- you dont like losing your ship learn to fit a tank already. Learn a skill not ore related. I would suggest one of the shield variety. Theyre called extenders get some.


This. Really, I don't see what's so hard to understand about this being a PVP game.

Governor LePetomane
Rock Ridge Brokerage Solutions
Posted - 2009.06.29 18:01:00 - [67]
 

The ones who are really going to suffer from this are the freighter gankers. If insurance gets removed from suicide ganks that line of work will effectively be killed. And if the current level of noise about this gets goon antics piled on top of it that's probably what'll happen; CCP said they were "looking at that" or similar just prior to the last suicide nerf.

All of which suits me just fine of course, since I don't mine any more but I do occasionally have a freighter in play. *ganks a hulk and comes back to post about it*

buttesauce
Posted - 2009.06.29 19:21:00 - [68]
 

not gonna lie if you are talking about suicide gankig using tier 3 BSes and t2 modules you should probably just go back to pvping

Jauqs
Caldari
Posted - 2009.06.29 19:57:00 - [69]
 

Originally by: Zuhlaetah
Quote:

And while you're on the topic of "zero risk", what risks are there in ganking mining barges and exhumers in a scenario where you know you're going to get blown up by CONCORD anyway?



Like they don't know what to do to not trigger concord response despite aggressing.

Do you REALLY believe anyone of the "many hulks killed" are actually coping with the single downside of that, security loss? No, there are multiple ways to kill them and lose minimal standing at all, it's how it's done.




I call BS. We are talking Suicide Ganking of hulks - you trigger CONCORD. We aren't talking can-flipping, which by the way, the miner deserves to lose his nice shiny t2 exhumer if he falls for a can flipper. Suiciding a miner costs security standing - no ifs ands or buts - it is an unprovoked attack subject to CONCORD (i.e. game) rules.


Originally by: Zuhlaetah
Quote:

The main problem as i see it is the t2 miners- ie hulk- are fit for mining and only mining. Seriously would it kill them to fit a tank



Because even fully mining fitted they earn a QUARTER of the second-last worst profession?

Nice, then give mining ships 3-4 more high slots and the grid to sustain a real tank?



The problem with giving mining ships 3-4 more high slots and grid to sustain a tank is 1). highs don't help you tank, and 2). a miner will STILL fill it with stuff to improve his yield and forgo a tank. It is the "herd mentality" solution to risk vs. reward. Miners see it as: "if I can run my mining op XX out of YY times without getting ganked (i.e. they gank someone else in the herd), than it is more ISK to just forget the tank".


Originally by: Zuhlaetah
Quote:

If you are playing the game- PLAY THE GAME
If you fly a t2 expensive ship- realize that you are flying a mostly uninsurable ship. Im sorry if game mechanics prevent you from doing whatever you want, how you want, when you want.



A barge is crap and will be targetted even more. Same fitting required (covetor) but a fraction of the HP.
Losing the ship and having to find another and the always scarce or thief costly modules is the factor, not the < 100M. Using a barge won't fix this.



Obviously flawed logic is obvious.
1) If a Hulk and a Covetor are presented to a ganker in a belt, the HUlk will get targeted over the Covertor 100% of the time: the Hulk has a greater chance of being pimped out and/or being flown by a macroer

2). If the "Same fitting required (covertor) but a fraction of the HP." and "Defensless regardless of any other factor" than flying a covetor is logical because your LOSS to a gank is less with a barge (insurance) than with an exhumer (uninsured). You are simply refusing to recognize that it isn't the ship that is foremost in the miners thoughts, it is the ISK/hour. You WANT to fly a Hulk because it makes more ISK, but the game mechanics means the finacial loss is more. So your plan if action is NERF!!


Originally by: Zuhlaetah
Quote:

And besides that check out the whole security status issue they have to deal with.



Read above: those who do it in a professional way can avoid the security status issue in several ways.


Name it or it doesn't happen. Unprovoked attack = CONCORD security loss defined by the security status of the system it occured in. You take several sec hits and then you go off and work your security status back up to do it again. Rinse and repeat: there is no minimizing it.

skye orionis
Posted - 2009.06.29 21:30:00 - [70]
 

Goons recently attempted to gank one of my character's hulks (not saying who, because this will just mean more gankattention - goons can be very stubborn), they failed, I salvaged the wreck and made plenty of cash from the fittings and salvage parts.

Now I know there are carebearish types who're probably going to think twice about mining in the same location after a gank attempt, but you should endeavour to get back to where you were, because now you'l have a concord escort with instant reaction time.

Tesal
Posted - 2009.06.29 21:50:00 - [71]
 

Originally by: Governor LePetomane
The ones who are really going to suffer from this are the freighter gankers. If insurance gets removed from suicide ganks that line of work will effectively be killed. And if the current level of noise about this gets goon antics piled on top of it that's probably what'll happen; CCP said they were "looking at that" or similar just prior to the last suicide nerf.

All of which suits me just fine of course, since I don't mine any more but I do occasionally have a freighter in play. *ganks a hulk and comes back to post about it*


I think it would be a mistake to nerf suicide ganking too much more. That has already been done. I think the part that is missing is the retribution part. Suicide ganking is like guerilla warfare, its asymetric. Small lightly armed groups swoop in and strike and disappear and can't be shot at or forced to fight. A viable way to bring in pvp to shoot -10 players and suicide gankers would be a lot more interesting than nerfing suicide ganking more. I think extending kill rights to 90 days, giving pod killing rights, and making them transferable would be a better way of dealing with this. You could sign over your kill rights to a merc corp with a contract that gives payment upone death, they will hunt them down for fun, and there will be pew pew and explosions and all will be set right.

Other steps that could be taken would be transferring low security status players into NPC pirate corps. That would be fun to shoot at. You could also make security status transfer to your corp with a corp security status. You can have corp standings for agents, why not for security status as well. You could also remove the bottom for security status. A person could go to -500 then. That could bring some fun new mechanics, perhaps giving them positive standings with pirates. I also think there should be an eve wide criminal organization to rival concord. That would be fun too and would be a way to create an inverse benefit to being an outlaw and a way to attack them.

I think any changes should be fun and build on the EvE story and enhance the game. These evil acts are taking place already, they should be brought into the story and mechanics of the game in a fun way for everyone.

Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS
IDLE EMPIRE
Posted - 2009.06.30 01:53:00 - [72]
 

Originally by: yani dumyat
It started in this thread.

Agreeing with Karox that carrying a sensor booster and point in high sec can get you a surprising amount of kills.


it started way before that thread Laughing

BezerkFury
Posted - 2009.06.30 02:49:00 - [73]
 

Would grief gankers be less inclined to pick on hulks that have an escort? (such as a BC)
Just wondering.

Rip Minner
Gallente
ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries
Posted - 2009.06.30 05:10:00 - [74]
 

Edited by: Rip Minner on 30/06/2009 05:11:52
I would love to see the insurence payout removed when Condorked.

I am even been helping to bring this into action by Fiting Dominix's for gank and Insurence. If you do it right you can fit a Dominix for gank at around 60mil pluse 18.5mil Insurence thats 78.5mil the pay out is 85mil. Pluse salvage loot and if mybe there jetcaning :)

Its funner then running level 4's or mining.

Edit: I am ganking Hulks becouse its geting them to mine less and the lost in high sec mins will be felt if there are more and more of us doing it.

Zuhlaetah
Posted - 2009.06.30 09:08:00 - [75]
 

Quote:

I call BS. We are talking Suicide Ganking of hulks - you trigger CONCORD. We aren't talking can-flipping, which by the way, the miner deserves to lose his nice shiny t2 exhumer if he falls for a can flipper



Inform yourself better (and no, I am not going to tell you how to do it, CCP does not appreciate. Hint: they talk about it in game in some chats).


Quote:

2). a miner will STILL fill it with stuff to improve his yield and forgo a tank.



They changed how strip miners fit already, so the precedent is here. They can add a maximum of them like they do for turret and missiles available slots already.


Quote:

Obviously flawed logic is obvious.
1) If a Hulk and a Covetor are presented to a ganker in a belt, the HUlk will get targeted over the Covertor 100% of the time: the Hulk has a greater chance of being pimped out and/or being flown by a macroer



You suggested to switch to lower barges, I just proved it's worthless. Moreover the non-fleet miners are 80% of the time alone at belts, the "hulk or covetor" dilemma does not even happen, there'll be one ship there.


Quote:

2). If the "Same fitting required (covertor) but a fraction of the HP." and "Defensless regardless of any other factor" than flying a covetor is logical because your LOSS to a gank is less with a barge (insurance) than with an exhumer (uninsured). You are simply refusing to recognize that it isn't the ship that is foremost in the miners thoughts, it is the ISK/hour. You WANT to fly a Hulk because it makes more ISK, but the game mechanics means the finacial loss is more. So your plan if action is NERF!



The ISK loss for being without a mining ship and the annoy factor to find all the bits again (ie lasers at 2M in another region and not 3.5M each here) can easily deny days of difference in ISK generated by an hulk vs a covetor.


Quote:

Name it or it doesn't happen



Sure, I am gonna get myself banned to tell the internet anonymous what he can easily read himself.


Quote:

I think it would be a mistake to nerf suicide ganking too much more.



Suicide ganking is fine as long as the general consensus is that high sec is high sec enough.
It's common sense to acknowledge that a guy carrying 1B item in a indy is a fool, none would side with him.
Plus ganking the fool actually costs a possibly T2 fitted boat and sensible security loss.

But now enter a scenario where the victim cannot do anything "real", where the gank ship is an insurance freebie T1 ship with meta 0-1 items and where security loss can be often circumvented (with a trick you can't do vs indys) and the idea of high sec changes into a big "WTF NERF THEM!"

Result: to please some hooligans you kill the gate suicide camp profession as soon as CCP enters with one of their elephant delicate nerfs.


Abrazzar
Posted - 2009.06.30 10:31:00 - [76]
 

I wonder. Can you put your hulk into the orca ship bay when you're under fire?

David Jason
Posted - 2009.06.30 11:49:00 - [77]
 

Edited by: David Jason on 30/06/2009 12:28:22
i think if you get concorded the insurance should not pay up. if i ramraided a shop in my car the insurance would not pay for my car why should it in eve. but i dont think it will happen.

sorry didnt see the thread mentioned below.

Abrazzar
Posted - 2009.06.30 12:00:00 - [78]
 

Originally by: David Jason
i think if you get concorded the insurance should not pay up. if i ramraided a shop in my car the insurance would not pay for my car why should it in eve. but i dont think it will happen.

You should discuss that here. This thread here is about something slightly different.


Pages: 1 2 [3]

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only