Ships & Modules

Think you'll find you're incorrect, 30 seconds of google says they have plenty of guns onboard and sometimes even small jury rigged mounted weapons.

The pirates of which you speak also usually turn up in a 30ft inflatable or wooden dingy armed with RPG's. This kind of explains why theres not much point in major armaments. The RPG's are a deterrant, and so are the guns on the ship, nobody wants to shoot cus they're all sitting on a massive floating dirty bomb.

Sorry bit off topic for a sec there. Anyway, you can slap metal plates on a truck and make it an "armored" truck, but if you want a tank dont armor a truck and complain it dont work like a tank...

A hulk without three strip miners is not "properly fit". To fit an MSE on a hulk you need to use a MAPC, to fit a LSE requires removing strip miners.

If you use the lows for tank you get less yield as a mining BS.

But it's well known, that CCP HATE miner+industrials (check my sig).

- bad joke CPU + Grid
- bad joke anti-gang. Anti passive targeter? Anti cargo scan? WHERE ARE THEY???
- bad joke slot layouts. Multi million ISK BC sice hull with less slots then a damn T1 frigat??
- agility and speed like rocks

And all this for what? A tiny bit of more cargo space?

one word: STUPID!

^^ This!

Hulk is just pointless.
300mill ISK ship and pointless

And just dont get me started talking about the rest of the exumer line.

No. The orca is under the capital ships section.

And they name it 'Hulk'

Of course you can tank a Hulk to some extent, just like a hauler with plates. But doing that you also gimp pretty much the reason why it is in the game. That then would make other ships far more viable to perform that role.

A plated hauler will still be a hauler but with way less capacity for a slighty more chance of survival. But it would still be a hauler and marked prime for the suicide. Rack a BS with expanders in the lows and you have about the same cargohold as the gimped hauler but with no exposure what so ever to it's intention.

A barge/exhumer allways had to go for max yield fit to make the mining worthwhile with the mineral prices over the years due to bots and what not.
Now that the bots might be flagged as priority to deal with the prices are going up. Now you could argue that fitting a tank, ergo gimping yield, would become more viable. But atm it would just ensure you get the same income from mining now as you had with the lower mineral prices yet with a slighty better surviveabillity.
So mineral prices would need to go up even more to effectively provide a better income and make tanking a sound option.
Yet then you face a huge rise in ship prices, esp the hulk wich allready is patheticly expensive for such a ship, and in turn suiciding such ships with some more investment in gankships would remain the same as now.

The ships have to be looked at to provide yield plus survivabillty at a decent level. It would still be doable to suicide those ships but would also ensure that investment in both procuurment ships aswell as suicide vessels wouldnt get to a point that it is way to rediculous to be in the game.

Difference is that a Iteron is a tech1 ship that costs a few million to buy, The Hulk is a Tech2 specialised mining ship that costs 200million to buy.

So yes, we expect it to be a bit more durable.

I looked at the market few days ago and Hulk costs 300mill ISK now.

Stopped reading at "your an IDIOT!"

What other ship needs to lose weapons in order to be able to fill mids and lows with tank sufficient for its role? Even Caldari missile boats have sufficient CPU and PG to mount enough tank to do the job without sacrificing high slots.

As has been said in this thread already: a miner is actually better off flying a Covetor than a Hulk, because the Covetor can be flown with a maximum yield fitting, platinum insurance, and the inevitable loss will be more than compensated for by the difference in income between that Covetor and the max-tanked Hulk it replaced.