EVE General Discussion

Overall, kind of a grim picture for highsec aggression lately;

-First, came the PVP Probing and (semi-ineffectual) Orca hotswap nerf, to protect mission runners from themselves.
-Then CCP hit the mercs by sanctioning sham wardec evasion, rendering highsec POSes nearly invulnerable.
-Infiltration-gankers started finding themselves booted from corporations and Concorded while IN SPACE, mid-gank.
-Now we have an insurance nerf aimed directly at suicide gankers, and a possible Concord buff on the way.

Effective or not, it is clear which way the wind is blowing.

As Bladewise would say, "CCP is clearly hugging carebear nut-sack".

But no tears here. Right or wrong, we need to understand the nature of the change, and adapt accordingly.

---

There are two types of suicide ganking, for Profit and for Tears/Industrial Warfare.

1. Successful For-Profit gank - the cargo/mods dropped must be worth more than the cost of the gank.
2. Successful For-Tears gank - the value of the ship destroyed must be more than the cost of the gank. (ie, if it costs you 240M and sec status to kill a 200M target, its hard to call it a victory)

I understand that there are plenty of 'tears' to be reaped while killing haulers/CNRs for profit. Others might quibble with the second definition....for some, the KM is worth it regardless of the cost.

But I'm interested in how the 'math' changes in various scenarios, choice of ship vs target considerations, whether or not you gank for profit, ways to cut costs, etc...

My own circumstance?

---

Solo Ganks vs Hulks
This generally requires a T2 Tempest, as few other ships have the firepower to do it reliably alone.
ISK reserves are essentially limitless, so I gank for Tears - but that doesn't mean wasting ISK/sec status/time on Retrievers.

Current insurance system:

Gankboat: T2 fit Tempest: 12K volley + torp damage.
Costs:

93M Hull (Dodixie market, less if manufactured from my BPOs - market cost will likely fall if ship falls out of favor)
22M Insurance Premium
30M in T2 Mods. (mainly 6x T2 1400MM at 4M each + Gyro II)
1 hour of time fixing sec status.

Target of choice, T2 Exhumers (mainly lightly tanked Hulks with 10-13K EHP)

5M Mods recovered from Exhumer/salvage
15M in mods recovered from Tempest
72M Insurance payout.

Total Cost to attempt a Gank = -53M per Exhumer + sec repair time.

Damage inflicted to miner: Around 210-220M.

NOW; Remove insurance (and premium cost)

Cost becomes -103M (+ sec status repair time), slightly more if you fail.

---

So, what does this mean????

Exhumer Ganking-for-profit in either scenario is right out the window, barring faction fitting or Intact Armor Plate drops. No way (outside of extortion or Goonswarm-style market manipulation) to earn ISK. In fact, even with swarms of Thrashers, I see no way to make Hulk-bashing profitable.

On the other hand, Ganking-for-tears is more complex:

-Hulks generally are still 'worth' solo popping - UNLESS they tank them up. A DCII Tanked Hulk would likely cost more alpha to kill than the Hulk is worth. Trading 103M of Tempest for 200+M of Hulk, still an efficient use of time and energy.

-Single Mackinaws are no longer 'worth' using a 'Pest on, as trading 103M worth of 'Pest for 130M worth of Mackinaw is not efficient. UNLESS you manipulate Concord into a slower response and blast two Mackinaws with a single 'Pest. (not too hard anymore, hattip Goonswarm )

Insurable T1 Mining Barges - wasn't worth it before, not worth it now. Guessing that with victims collecting T1-insurance, its hardly worth it with even the smallest of gank-boats, let alone an Alphapest.

---

For-profit Hauler Ganking:

Ganking haulers for profit obviously depends on the value of the cargo. In general, profitable targets will be far fewer, meaning far more time wasted 'fishing'. Many tanked industrials will be almost completely safe because 'ganking at a loss' will only occur after a long night of blue balls and no good targets, if you know what I mean.

Taking down a Freighter will become massively more expensive, and thus, more rare.
20 T2 Tempests = 2.0 Billion ISK in losses, guaranteed, meaning the Freighter would need to hold 4 Billion in goods to 'break even'. To garner a 100M profit, the operation would need to take down a freighter worth around 8 Billion - not something you see frequently.

Orcas? Even less profitable than freighters, due to the magical, unscannable, no-drop corporate hangars and high EHP.

---

Wild Card: Tornado

If this BC alphas like a 'Pest AND can be built for around 40M, the cost of a 12K alpha gank without insurance will roughly equal the cost of 'Pest ganking, with insurance. Hopefully it is released in an 8 Turret form that allows this, despite the recent lobbying of the nerf-Tornado whine brigade. Orca-deployable size is a big plus for outlaw gankers.

Myself, I'll probably be busy killing pods with alts, just to see what is on the KM.

If you're doing it for tears you shouldn't care about making money anyway, because you're a big, strong scary badass who spends all his time outside of EVE talking to girls. And if you're doing it for money you should be hitting something worth the cost of your ship, otherwise you're doing it for tears.

that's the dumbest remark i've seen on the eve forums in the past month. and it tastes a lot like failpvp tears.

It is tongue in cheek. If the 0.0 changes don't promote growth in numbers and growth in prosperity, we are heading back to the Mission grinding alts in empire that CCP tried to minimise about 18 months ago.

Perhaps I should have made it with my Macabre Votum alt just to keep you happy, oh but then we would both be posting with failpvp alts.

Dump them all on the Chinese server.

It's called Singularity.

I'm pretty sure the Tornado will become Ganker's Choice™ The low hull price paired with the same output as a Tempest makes it the logical choice.

Tears from an alliance called "Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service".

Hmm...

Interesting post you got going there. It's nice to know that the Orca and Hulk actually create more pain for the gankers than what I thought. What I came to realize long ago is that miners can also extract tears from gankers. If the miner manages to survive enough ganks, then the chances of a ganker going into a rage increases as they become more determined to kill that miner just for the sake of beating their tank and getting it done with. Therefore, the objective of a "F-U Tanked" miner is to make the gankers suffer a big of a loss in ISK as possible before they can finally succeed in ganking.

Speaking of the Orca-Hotswap nerf, it just dawned on me that the nerf also adversely affected miners who attempt to strategize with the Orca to survive. I tried experimenting with a hotswap while mining ice in Ignabaener. It worked just fine as a practice run when I swapped my Hulk for a cruiser. Then came the real test - being ganked for real.

There I was mining ice when I was approached by a frigate and a Hurricane. As soon as I was illegally attacked, I tried swapping my Hulk for the cruiser. That's when the message popped up telling me I can't swap ships because of the illegal aggro I am experiencing. Thankfully, my Hulk survived, but that's when I realized I can't swap while being on aggro. Mind you, the objective was not to shoot back with the cruiser once swapped, but to simply break the target lock that they had with me at the time so that they can only get one shot on me before they realize they aren't targeting anymore while Concord is on the way.

Keep in mind that I did not provoke the gankers. No cans were flipped (what cans?) and no npc wrecks were stolen (they were abandoned). I just thought that the nerf part only applied to when you legitimately steal something from the miner or missioner. I was wrong as it applied to every situation. I was forced to rethink everything at that point.

Hehe, interesting to see how this Miner-vs-Ganker relationship that we have here is actually creating an enjoyable experience and more gameplay than what the developers at CCP hoped for. XD

As for the Orca ship mant. bay nerf.

What's more "carebear" and "risk averse" than instantly tucking your ship away into complete safety, 100% consequence free, even if you were aggressed and tackled?