EVE General Discussion

Let me explain before you pull out that flamethrower you guys stol... I mean borrowed from the Team Fortress universe.

Before I start, I just want to make it very clear that I am an industrialist. My main source of income is from selling manufactured T1 ships, mods, and ammo using minerals that I refined from ores that I mined while purchasing some minerals that are usually not available in high-sec needed for production. You can say that I am carebear. Although I do tend to pick fights and lose often, so you can say I may be a grizzly bear.

Wait... am I monologuing? Where was I? Oh, ok.

It has become quite noticeable to me that some of you claim that suicide gankers don't suffer any risk. Well, I did believe that at first but then I realized something. I have survived some ganks in the past.

While it may be true that your interpretation of the word "risk" means "the possibility of losing your own ship to someone else who might be better than you" and that since gankers are intentionally setting themselves up to lose their ships 100% of the time then by that definition the ganker suffers no risk because they are just intentionally throwing away their ships to Concord.

However, "risk" comes with more than one meaning. Meanings such as "the possibility that the ganker may not succeed in killing the target miner and therefore must wait 15 minutes to at least try again, assuming the target miner hasn't decided to dock up yet. On top of that, the target my no longer want to mine in that system and will therefore move on to somewhere else and therefore the ganker has lost a target of opportunity because...

A. The ganker may have forgotten to overheat the modules or failed to train the skill needed to overheat mods.

B. The ganker was not at his optimal when he fired.

C. The ganker may have forgotten to prepare the system of its Concord spawns.

...or most importantly...

***The target miner may have tanked his ship properly so that you cannot solo gank it***

Even if a team of gankers was used, there is still the risk that the tank may not be broken in time until Concord arrives be it because the miner may have a hidden fleet booster, the damage type you are inflicting may not be the correct one to use, or some other outside factor that you either didn't consider or failed to foresee.

Not all ganks are successful. I know because I have trained up an alt to be specifically used as a ganker and I have failed twice already to gank a single Mackinaw in an ice belt.

And since gankers usually attack miners for either cornering the local or regional market or at least to profit from the loot drops that are salvaged from the miner wrecks, a failed gank means wasted ISK for the ganker. In most occasions the loot is already gone by the time you come back to salvage if you are a solo-type player who has to wait 15 minutes for the GCC to clear. And usually the loot is salvaged by the miner who you tried to gank and therefore not only did you fail to gank the miner you have also given them some loot to profit from.

As you can see, while having a 100% guarantee that a ganker will lose his ship is just risk-free pvp, the fact that there is a likelihood that the gank will fail automatically makes ganking a NOT risk-free pvp sport.

========================

Let's turn this around shall we?

What about the miner? The fact that the miner undocks in a ****-off tank Hulk fully expecting to be ganked as soon as he undocks automatically makes suicide ganking a risk-free sport. However, it's not. Even though it is risk-free pvp in the sense that there is a 100% guarantee that a ganker will come after him, it's different when you consider the chances of surviving one.

What if the tank fails?
What if the miner forgets to overheat the modules in time?
What if the miner's defense fleet fails to coordinate properly to counter the gank and save him in time?

The miner faces the risk of failure to survive the encounter.

========================

Therefore, high-sec suicide ganking is not a risk-free sport if you take into consideration success or failure.







Ok, I'm wearing my fire-resistance suit. Flame away.

My last gank attempt was p awesome. Group weapons in-station, load up faction ammo, warp to belt and wait for ship to completely stop, F1, watch only one gun fire because the game apparently didn't actually group the weapons even though it loaded one round into each gun properly in the station. GROUP YOUR WEAPONS IN SPACE.

Hulk
Volume of a Battlecruiser
Hitpoints of a Cruiser (Shield bonus for 1899, but fck load more structure)
Fitting Options of a Frig (slightly less PG and twice the CPU of a rifter)

Does that not seem wrong vs other ships in EVE? Any T2 ship can fit for gank or tank exceptionally well, but it can fit for both gank or tank just as well without leaving a glaring hole in it. Then the fact that cargo expanders eat into the structure. Its designed poorly, you don't see Freighterageddon or MissionBattleshipageddon because the Hulk has a huge freaking problem...its tank is mainly in the lows where it fits miner gank mods (mining upgrades) are impacted by a DCU and Bulkhead.

Lets not forget...Mining Upgrades cause CPU to rise while Missile/Turret/Drone damage mods don't cause CPU to rise...funny that as those three are +damage mods while mining upgrades is pretty much a +damage to asteroid mod. So a good fix for EVE would probably make damage mods cause the massive gun turrents to increase CPU and when you have fitting issues you might feel sympathetic pain

But no one cares, they just want easy gank targets. Remove mining vessels from the game and be done with it, they are pointless ****** ships to drive.

A properly fit hulk + implants and the correct boosts from an Orca is not an easy target for most gankers. The problem comes from people who can't be botherd to even try and fit a tank and then cry when their hulk is lost.

Mining yields are a tricky thing. If they are too low, then the population of willing miners may be too small to make some starting non-mining career paths workable (for example, missioning), barring botters. If they are too high, then mining is not tenable as a starting profession because of a glut in resources.

General mining yield factors aside, the issue with the Hulk is if it does not provide sufficient extra tank (a matter of some debate), then the primary improvements are (1) its yield improvements and (2) its expanded cargo bay. Fittings aside, the yield improvements come out to 15%--below the typical 20% bonus you get from a T2 module. The expanded cargo bay is nice, it's but I don't know that the extra space sees much use with jet can mining and orca mining options available.

If you're not going to give the Hulk a substantial bonus to mining ability over the Covetor, then it should be much tougher or the price differential should narrow somewhat.

yesterday one guy from my alliance self-destructed his cyno-frig on undock.

He is a hero! He accepted so big RISK!

but did the cyno drop or explode, that is what we all want to hear

The tl;dr: NOTHING NEW here.

As someone who ganks Bot-Macks with an alt, this is useless information. All of it.

Your gank will work or not, depending on a list of about 100 different factors.

Do NOT list them as we will all be asleep by the end.

Why do these forums pack in all this kind of nonsense posting every single H'geddon. EveryDAY in this game is technically H'geddon. All that's different is getting a prize.

It's just so funny every single time, the Paranioid CareBears post about how horrible and mean the game is, and the Gankers try to up the e-peen with fit after fit after posted fit.

And nothing at all has changed except advertising the fact that EVE is dangerous and score is being kept for awhile.

Big deal.

Nice to see some real discussion around here.



Me? Paranoid? Or are you talking about someone else? I don't see anyone here complaining yet about how mean the game is (on this thread at least). I'm confused.



Excuse me while I necro this buried and done thread.

I agree with you on the semantics part and that risk is risk and one has to include failure as a factor no matter their profession.



Well, let's assume that a gank fitted Catalyst costs 20mil and that a Hulk costs 250mil. It will take twelve failed gank attempts or 12 Catalysts ganking all at once to equal the cost of the Hulk.



That is not taking into account external factors. Even a ship scanner couple with one's EFT warrior skills doesn't take into account other factors that you cannot have known about. For example:

• What about a hidden booster?
• What if the miner has an alt standing by that is ready to alert Concord ahead of time by having his own alt shoot him?
• What skills does the Hulk pilot have?
• What if the Hulk has a RR standing by? Mind you, RRs don't have to be specifically logistics ships. Other classes can fit a RR and no one would notice.
• What about the other players who specialize in ruining your chances of a successful gank? Haven't we seen threads already where people have pledged to dedicate their RR ships to saving whichever miner they run into? They may be a small number of people in a galaxy of tens of thousands of star systems, but the risk of a ganker running into these sort of people is still there.
• What implants does the pilot have that affects the overall fitting or HP?
• Ship scanners don't always give the correct number of fitted mods. It still helps making a damn good estimate as long as you remember how many high/medium/low/rig slots the Hulk has, but the results of the scan are a bit skewed and therefore you run the risk of ganking on an incorrect guess.

As I have learned over the years, no matter how small the possibility of failure may be, the possibility is always there. One of these days, a ganker will run into a miner who is smarter than he is. Goons hate miners that survive every gank.

Ok then. How much are you willing to sell me a tin foil hat?