EVE General Discussion

Nothing, that is why I said I respect the 10x Tornados....

I never said there was a difference, just more salt in the wound that one guy can do it. But comprehension for the barbaric seems low in this thread.

So you respect the 10 tornado fleet for planning and executing a gank, however dont respect the catalyst guy/fleet planning and executing a gank... because :reasons:?

Because the Cat fleet has nothing to lose. They can gank just for tears, where the Tornados have to gank to cover their costs.

And no Tippia, 5mil for a Cat is not "cost" its pennies.

So the cost of the ship is your primary sticking point. You think the cost of a ship is how to balance ship strength. Its a good thing you arent in charge of balancing.

Whine & petition spam.

Why the heck would you need to use T2?

In other words, webbing is a counter, as is warping in your new direction. Neither is dependent on something the game can't handle — in fact, they both work exactly because the game can handle them.

…and you can escape them again, just as easily.

Uh-huh. You are dismissing all the existing, perfectly working counters because they are not 100% effective. To fix this oversight, you suggest that a module is made that breaks the physics engine. So yeah, no. That's pretty much exactly what you're asking for.

Oh, and your entire reasoning for needing this is fundamentally flawed since you incorrectly assume that bumping is 100% effective. The only reason you think it's that effective is because you choose “none” when you are picking which of the existing counters to use.

Shhh, he's supplying comedy gold. We don't need him to learn the facts just yet.

Want to guess what happens while it does?

No, it really doesn't. A T2 catalyst is highly preferable since it drastically reduces the time, setup, and co-ordination required.

Yeah can we stop dancing around this please?

We all know what the difference is; the final cut per actual person involved (e.g. the human at the keyboard).

Hyperdunk gank team only has to gank targets with sufficient value to get a cut large enough to warrant three people involved. A fleet has to gank targets with sufficient value to get a cut large enough for the 15+ people involved.

But let's boil it down even further so we can approach this simplistically. Let's assume ALL ganks are done by one perfectly rational multiboxing human.

Traditional freighter gank: 1 bumper + (14 or more gank pilots, depending) = 15 accounts to PLEX from the profit

Hyperdunk: 1 bumper + 1 bowhead/orca pilot + 1 gank pilot = 3 accounts to PLEX from the profit

Provided the hyperdunker is able to gank at least once for every five ganks done the traditional way, they will come out even or on top in terms of profit per account. The primary limitation on traditional ganking is not the time to gank, it's the GCC, so while a hyperdunker is not going to gank as frequently as a traditional ganker, they are still very likely going to gank at better than a 1 to 5 rate.

Net effect? Value of a ship worth ganking just got lower.

For the record, I have no problem with this. I wish every gank was a hyperdunk, it's really easy to defend against (1 remote repper and you're 100% safe). But that doesn't invalidate the concerns raised by the above math.

(EDIT: I forgot to spell it out so in case it's not clear, profit is unchanged in either scenario; drop rates are the same and number of cats/material cost to gank is identical or nearly so -- yes this is a slight oversimplification but the addition of one or two cats to deal with passive shield regen on a hyperdunk is balanced by the traditional method likewise requiring more cats than strictly necessary unless you want to borderline fail a bunch of ganks with 3 hull HP remaining on target).