These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Tornado battleganker - the horror of poor hulkster?

First post
Author
Akara Ito
Phalanx Solutions
#41 - 2011-10-21 21:11:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Akara Ito
Grey Stormshadow wrote:
Suicide gankers have national holiday to celebrate their new toy of joy...
How does your freighter feel? Discuss.


Who says the Tornado will be able to fit a full rack of 1400mm Arties ? If they can only fit 1200mm the alpha is already halfed and it would probably not worth it to use a Tornado instead of a Hurricane.
Seriously wait for the specs of a ship before you cry about it.

And fyi my Freighter feels pretty good today. Its a bit nervous when docking at 4-4 because of those mean Pirates in front of the station but it started a therapy to get over that and I'm sure this will work out well. Its also quite happy to deliver those BCs to fellow Goons that go and blow up Exhumers with it because its always been afraid of small ships.
MNagy
Yo-Mama
#42 - 2011-10-21 21:17:34 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Vastek Non wrote:
Five words:
No insurance for concorded ships.
Its never made sense in the past, and it makes no sense now.
It made perfect sense in the past, and it makes perfect sense now: the game rewards you for destroying ships — for doing the thing that keeps the economy going.

Really, ganks should pay double insurance… Twisted


I say get rid of insurance all together.

Either use a ship that you can afford to lose or don't.

Getting rid of it solves more problems than keeping it and the problems it creates.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#43 - 2011-10-21 21:23:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
MNagy wrote:
Getting rid of it solves more problems than keeping it and the problems it creates.
Nah. Getting rid of it doesn't solve any problems, and adds a few instead.

Keeping it does solve a number of problems.

Thus keeping it trivially solves more problems than the alternative.


…oh, I suppose that there is one problem that removing it would “solve”: people's inability to figure out that game mechanisms are not real. I say “solve” — with quotation marks — because it's not an actual solution to that problem, but rather a way to keep it from occurring quite as often and at best solves mitigates the whining that their collective ignorance creates.
Russell Casey
Doomheim
#44 - 2011-10-21 21:34:31 UTC
Why is a battlecruiser with large guns suddenly more effective than a battleship using large guns? And for that matter, why do people think insurance will cover a tier-3 ship?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#45 - 2011-10-21 21:42:09 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Reilly Duvolle wrote:


I dunno whats worse tbh. The CSM with members with conflicting interests or a CSM that the Goon uses to further their own narrow goals. I think it is blatantly clear that the current election process need "iteration" - to use a CCP buzzword - to ensure a CSM that is more representative of all players.


These narrow goals being fixing blasters, supercarrier imbalances, new ships, fixes for old bugs, new technology to fight lag to name but a few.

Russell Casey wrote:
Why is a battlecruiser with large guns suddenly more effective than a battleship using large guns? And for that matter, why do people think insurance will cover a tier-3 ship?


They wont and they insurance will be as effective as teir 3 battleships.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#46 - 2011-10-21 21:44:59 UTC
Russell Casey wrote:
Why is a battlecruiser with large guns suddenly more effective than a battleship using large guns? And for that matter, why do people think insurance will cover a tier-3 ship?
Because it will provide similar damage to a BS for less cost, and because the insurance covers all other tier-3 ships.
Vastek Non
State War Academy
Caldari State
#47 - 2011-10-21 22:17:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Vastek Non
Vricrolatious wrote:
Vastek Non wrote:
Ingvar Angst wrote:
Someone needs to reassess his cost/benefit analysis with regards to using these as disposable ships.


Five words:


No insurance for concorded ships.




Its never made sense in the past, and it makes no sense now. You want to suicide a ship, sure do it, but you have to pay a cost.


Oh yes, and i'm really looking forward to the Gallente/Amarr versions Big smile


Insurance means nothing when Dear Leader offers to pay you for the kill that you before Concord destroyed your ship!


And of course everything is about Goons Roll

You may try to read the part where it said "it has never made sense in the past, it doesn't make sense now". You are just a current example of a suicide ganker, not the only one ever. Get over yourself.

And thinking about it, the no insurance is another option that might work +1. It might actually bring back that feeling of risk that seems to be missing from a lot of combat. Too much isk, too many bots.
Jada Maroo
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#48 - 2011-10-21 22:26:57 UTC
Adunh Slavy wrote:
Razin wrote:
The best solution is to have no insurance, period.



+1


Absolutely!
Generals4
#49 - 2011-10-21 22:39:43 UTC
Russell Casey wrote:
Why is a battlecruiser with large guns suddenly more effective than a battleship using large guns? And for that matter, why do people think insurance will cover a tier-3 ship?


Because you lose less isks reducing the cost of suicide ganking with a certain firepower.

_-Death is nothing, but to live defeated and inglorious is to die daily. _

Jennifer Starling
Imperial Navy Forum Patrol
#50 - 2011-10-21 22:44:14 UTC
Jada Maroo wrote:
Adunh Slavy wrote:
Razin wrote:
The best solution is to have no insurance, period.

+1

Absolutely!

Or top it at 500k so newbs can still get their first frigates covered.

Or double the insurance fee with every accident.
Jinn Rho
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#51 - 2011-10-21 23:41:56 UTC
Ingvar Angst wrote:
Someone needs to reassess his cost/benefit analysis with regards to using these as disposable ships.


Pretty much.
How many suicide gankers willingly each spend over 150-200m+ on a single gank?
Tier3 BCs are obviously going to be expensive. I wouldn't be surprised if the required manufacturing materials clock these ships over 180m.

Let's see CCP slap on a silly tech book that has you lose a lvl every time you lose a Tier3 BC, similar to the current Tech3 Cruiser.
Now that'd be funny, conservative, and actually tactical... no need to outdate current Tier2 BCs.
Solhild
Doomheim
#52 - 2011-10-21 23:52:36 UTC
TBH should be a BS. Simples Shocked
XIRUSPHERE
In Bacon We Trust
#53 - 2011-10-21 23:54:58 UTC
Why would anyone bother wasting the isk. You can take a mack down with a thorax and a hulk down with a brutix. If you want industrials you can set up a 1000 scan res rupture.

If you want to do large scale damage then the only option is a tier 1 BS with 8 slots and the grid to support the bombs, lol tank for the lucky cycle and cap injectors.

The advantage of a bad memory is that one can enjoy the same good things for the first time several times.

One will rarely err if extreme actions be ascribed to vanity, ordinary actions to habit, and mean actions to fear.

Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#54 - 2011-10-22 00:13:34 UTC
Well I was about to tell how gallente is going to be ****** once again in this Tiers 3 battle cruiser since now he'll have to run more (run forester run) to catch the battle cruiser shooting from almost 100km with his 800mm AC's

But then, I read "Mittani" and " Goons"

Got owned by trolls Cry
Igualmentedos
Perkone
Caldari State
#55 - 2011-10-22 00:51:08 UTC
Vricrolatious wrote:
Igualmentedos wrote:
Vricrolatious wrote:
Vastek Non wrote:
Ingvar Angst wrote:
Someone needs to reassess his cost/benefit analysis with regards to using these as disposable ships.


Five words:


No insurance for concorded ships.




Its never made sense in the past, and it makes no sense now. You want to suicide a ship, sure do it, but you have to pay a cost.


Oh yes, and i'm really looking forward to the Gallente/Amarr versions Big smile


Insurance means nothing when Dear Leader offers to pay you for the kill that you before Concord destroyed your ship!


what?


If I take a Thorax or a Brutix (or something else cheap and disposable) into Empire and pop a miner in an ice belt, sure I'll lose my ship, but I'll get paid a bounty from the alliance wallet. Insurance is great, but bounties are better.

Goons, putting the game back in the player's hands!



No man, I got the point, I was just poking fun at your post. I'm not gonna lie, that is kind of cool that the Goonies do that though. Sometimes you guys make me /facepalm but other times I think you hit the nail on the head.
Igualmentedos
Perkone
Caldari State
#56 - 2011-10-22 00:53:55 UTC
Ptraci wrote:
Here's a thought: index insurance to the player's security rating. It follows the concept of insurance, where you charge higher risk people higher premiums (or in this case, pay out less). Since repeated suiciding will decrease the sec rating, insurance would provide diminishing return over time if the person is a "serial suicider"...


Wow, I really like that idea. It would really add a new dimension to being a pirate. Of course, they should balance that by making a pirate exclusive activity.
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#57 - 2011-10-22 01:06:41 UTC
Ptraci wrote:
Here's a thought: index insurance to the player's security rating. It follows the concept of insurance, where you charge higher risk people higher premiums (or in this case, pay out less). Since repeated suiciding will decrease the sec rating, insurance would provide diminishing return over time if the person is a "serial suicider"...


It'd only make sense, right? Just like how mining barges should be paid out less if they're being blown up in high-risk areas.

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar

Pr1ncess Alia
Doomheim
#58 - 2011-10-22 02:53:35 UTC
So anyways I'm thinking 'mwd/painter/1400mm tornado wolfpack' with light tackle support

u down?
Shade Millith
Farmhouse.
Simple Farmers
#59 - 2011-10-22 02:57:28 UTC
Vastek Non wrote:
Ingvar Angst wrote:
Someone needs to reassess his cost/benefit analysis with regards to using these as disposable ships.


Five words:

No insurance for concorded ships.

Its never made sense in the past, and it makes no sense now. You want to suicide a ship, sure do it, but you have to pay a cost.

Oh yes, and i'm really looking forward to the Gallente/Amarr versions Big smile


So long as Concord has it's time to arrival doubled. Back to what it used to be.
CCP Phantom
C C P
C C P Alliance
#60 - 2011-10-22 10:55:27 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Phantom
Moved from EVE General Discussion.

CCP Phantom - Senior Community Developer