These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#61 - 2011-10-23 01:04:43 UTC
Jinn Rho wrote:
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.


They cant be more expensive than Tier 1 BS because if they are nobody is going to use them.
Those ships will be BCs, Tech 1, they will probably cost around 50m, maybe 60.
Who the hell would spend 200m for a Tech 1 BC Hull with crap tracking ?
Desudes
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#62 - 2011-10-23 02:08:28 UTC
I'd image it will cost more then a drake, less then a scorpion. How would it make sense any other way?

People suicide ganking as a reason to raise costs is ridiculous: if suicide ganking is really a problem there are plenty easier ways to address it that would have less collateral damage

Excuse me, but what the f*ck are you desu?

People's Republic ofChina
My Other Capital Ship is Your Mom
#63 - 2011-10-26 07:51:35 UTC
Tier 3 battlecruisers make me excited in ways one should not be excited over pixels. Orcas will be cheaper to take out.


LET THE WHALE HUNTING COMMENCE! MAN THE HARPOONS!
People's Republic ofChina
My Other Capital Ship is Your Mom
#64 - 2011-10-26 07:52:56 UTC
Desudes wrote:
I'd image it will cost more then a drake, less then a scorpion. How would it make sense any other way?

People suicide ganking as a reason to raise costs is ridiculous: if suicide ganking is really a problem there are plenty easier ways to address it that would have less collateral damage



Like?

Ships need to be exploded. No ship explodey, no need for replacement ships.
Dalts
Out of Focus
Odin's Call
#65 - 2011-10-26 09:50:03 UTC
+1 to the idea of getting rid of insurance in certain circumstances.

My personal opinion is that insurance should be invalid if you lose the ship to Concord or in 0.0/WH space.

Fixes lots of things, inc raising the bar at which suicide ganking is profitable.

Most importantly, it makes 0.0 wars cost ISK like they should, rather than the sorry state of affairs now where the only time it really hurts and alliance is if you manage to take out multiple Supercaps that they cannot replace in time for the next battle.

You see posts about battles or battle summaries on a KB and a quoted loss for each side that runs into the billions, but when you factor in the insurance it might only be under a billion that it actually costs each side, making it pretty pointless unless it results in a Tech moon changing hands or a handful of Supercaps going down. Would be lovely if those figures really did show the economic damage you were doing to the opposition. Might even make Titans and Supercaps a bit rarer like CCP intended. Even with basic insurance you get a large wedge of ISK back when a Titan goes down.
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#66 - 2011-10-26 10:03:48 UTC
You currently lose about 30mil on a suicide apoc.

I wager you'll end up losing about 15mil on a Tornado.

That's **** all difference, really.

People ganking for the fun won't care about cost.
People ganking for profit won't see a difference.

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#67 - 2011-10-26 10:49:34 UTC
I'll gank some for free, just because I can(with new bc's), no matter who no matter when and no matter what. I have all the tools for it and there's nothing someone will ever be able to do about it, plus will cost me peanuts.

After velator or atron's they're not newbies anymore right? -nice start for training gank online. Lol
Tauren Tom
Order of the Silver Dragons
Silver Dragonz
#68 - 2011-10-26 14:21:38 UTC
It's the equivalent of a redneck strapping the turret off an m1a1 abrams to the roof of his beat up ford pickup truck and then trying to blow up a grain silo.

It looks cool until you realize how stupid it was to sit in a tin can with a gun strapped to it with enough recoil to rip the can apart.
In the grand scheme of things... You're all pubbies. So HTFU.   "It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses." - Elwood Blues
Goose99
#69 - 2011-10-26 14:30:03 UTC
Khanh'rhh wrote:
You currently lose about 30mil on a suicide apoc.

I wager you'll end up losing about 15mil on a Tornado.

That's **** all difference, really.

People ganking for the fun won't care about cost.
People ganking for profit won't see a difference.


Wrong. Suicide ganking is all about the profit, and cost is one of the direct factors on profit. And you can't lose 15 mil on a 25 mil bc when insured. It's a t1 bc bpo, easily researched and produced in mass. The markup will be small and shorter than when Noctics were introduced (bpo seeds available in ore stations only) and same as when tier 2 bcs were introduced (a few mil markup, lasting for only a few hours).
Zircon Dasher
#70 - 2011-10-26 19:57:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Zircon Dasher
Khanh'rhh wrote:
You currently lose about 30mil on a suicide apoc.

I wager you'll end up losing about 15mil on a Tornado.

That's **** all difference, really.

People ganking for the fun won't care about cost.
People ganking for profit won't see a difference.



15mil sounds about right assuming:

*base mineral cost splits the difference between Cane and Phoon costs
*insurance payout - insurance cost = the current % range of base mineral cost of tier 2 BC

[/crystal ball]

Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'.

Goose99
#71 - 2011-10-26 20:06:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Goose99
Zircon Dasher wrote:
Khanh'rhh wrote:
You currently lose about 30mil on a suicide apoc.

I wager you'll end up losing about 15mil on a Tornado.

That's **** all difference, really.

People ganking for the fun won't care about cost.
People ganking for profit won't see a difference.



15mil sounds about right assuming:

*base mineral cost splits the difference between Cane and Phoon costs
*insurance payout - insurance cost = the current % range of base mineral cost of tier 2 BC

[/crystal ball]


15 mil sounds wrong. You should use tier 1 and tier 2 mineral cost difference (cyclone and cane) within bc class as template to likely cost of tier 3, not ships one class up. All t1 ships has followed the same pattern. There is no reason to assume tier 3 bc will break from the pattern.
Zircon Dasher
#72 - 2011-10-26 20:58:46 UTC
Goose99 wrote:
Zircon Dasher wrote:
15mil sounds about right assuming:

*base mineral cost splits the difference between Cane and Phoon costs
*insurance payout - insurance cost = the current % range of base mineral cost of tier 2 BC

[/crystal ball]


15 mil sounds wrong. You should use tier 1 and tier 2 mineral cost difference (cyclone and cane) within bc class as template to likely cost of tier 3, not ships one class up. All t1 ships has followed the same pattern. There is no reason to assume tier 3 bc will break from the pattern.


I think you misunderstood the point I was making even though I underlined and bolded the important part.


Fun Fact:

if Tornado cost : Cane cost as Cane cost : Cyclon cost...... the number is roughly the same as splitting cane and phoon costs.

Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'.

Goose99
#73 - 2011-10-26 21:31:09 UTC
Zircon Dasher wrote:
Goose99 wrote:
Zircon Dasher wrote:
15mil sounds about right assuming:

*base mineral cost splits the difference between Cane and Phoon costs
*insurance payout - insurance cost = the current % range of base mineral cost of tier 2 BC

[/crystal ball]


15 mil sounds wrong. You should use tier 1 and tier 2 mineral cost difference (cyclone and cane) within bc class as template to likely cost of tier 3, not ships one class up. All t1 ships has followed the same pattern. There is no reason to assume tier 3 bc will break from the pattern.


I think you misunderstood the point I was making even though I underlined and bolded the important part.


Fun Fact:

if Tornado cost : Cane cost as Cane cost : Cyclon cost...... the number is roughly the same as splitting cane and phoon costs.


I have 18/26/61 mils for cyclone/cane/phon in Rens. The gap is bigger than splitting the difference. Not to mention that unlike phon, Apoc is tier 2 bs that cost significantly more.
Daquaris
People of the Saiya
Silent Company
#74 - 2011-10-26 21:39:54 UTC
Tippia wrote:
mkint wrote:
Now we get a tier 3 BC that does the same job as a tier 1? Why not just go ahead and remove the tier 1's from the game altogether?
That's less of a problem — the tier-1s need to be fixed regardless.

The larger worry is that these tier-3s will obsolete the tier-2s just like the tier-2s did to the tier-1s.

Hopefullly, that “less tank than a battleship” is a typo, and they actually mean “less tank than a battlecruiser” (as in, tanks like a cruiser, at best).


FWIW the version I've been playing with so far (in pyfa - based on the early leak) has about 25k - 40k ehp.

Seems about fair.

Also, with the right setup, the Talos will push 1700+ dps right now.... YUM!
Zircon Dasher
#75 - 2011-10-26 22:16:58 UTC
Goose99 wrote:
I have 18/26/61 mils for cyclone/cane/phon in Rens. The gap is bigger than splitting the difference. Not to mention that unlike phon, Apoc is tier 2 bs that cost significantly more.


At first I was like.... YAY wicked arbitrage!!

Then I realized that you moved the price comparison goal posts. Sad


As for the Apoc: Yep, I ignored the comparison with a tier 2 BS of a different race for my totally crystal ball loss amount on a tornado.

Better grasp harder bro, the straws seem to be slipping away faster and faster.

Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'.

Ladie Harlot
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#76 - 2011-10-26 22:26:25 UTC
Goose99 wrote:
Wrong. Suicide ganking is all about the profit

lol what

The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet.

Zircon Dasher
#77 - 2011-10-26 22:29:53 UTC
Daquaris wrote:
Also, with the right setup, the Talos will push 1700+ dps right now.... YUM!


I dont have pyf, so is that a faction fit glass cannon or a t2 fit with armor/shield buffer?

Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'.

Goose99
#78 - 2011-10-26 22:40:06 UTC
Zircon Dasher wrote:
Goose99 wrote:
I have 18/26/61 mils for cyclone/cane/phon in Rens. The gap is bigger than splitting the difference. Not to mention that unlike phon, Apoc is tier 2 bs that cost significantly more.


At first I was like.... YAY wicked arbitrage!!

Then I realized that you moved the price comparison goal posts. Sad


As for the Apoc: Yep, I ignored the comparison with a tier 2 BS of a different race for my totally crystal ball loss amount on a tornado.

Better grasp harder bro, the straws seem to be slipping away faster and faster.


Apoc, 8 1400s for alpha. Gank standard issue. Anyone who knows enough to comment should know. I was replying to this:
Khanh'rhh wrote:
You currently lose about 30mil on a suicide apoc.

I wager you'll end up losing about 15mil on a Tornado.

That's **** all difference, really.

People ganking for the fun won't care about cost.
People ganking for profit won't see a difference.


And yes, price comparisons to even cheaper tier 1 bs is pointless, as the tier 1 bs will cost roughly twice as much as the bc, 3 times for tier 2. As a bc, Tornado will be far cheaper, while still having the same alpha as a tier 2 bs for gank purposes. Hence this thread.
Zeerover
TunDraGon
Goonswarm Federation
#79 - 2011-10-26 23:00:44 UTC
It's not the new BCs that will be the battleganker, it's the updated destroyers. 600+ DPS Catalysts will be an incredibly cost efficent suicide package.

[img]http://i.imgur.com/Qrwa2.png[/img]

Desudes
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#80 - 2011-10-26 23:38:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Desudes
If you think CCP doesn't know these ships will be suicide gankers friend, I don't know what to say.

If they wanted to stop high sec ganking they would turn off PvP in the areas they don't want people being ganked, like every other MMO.

Excuse me, but what the f*ck are you desu?