EVE General Discussion

So in your opinion how FEW 10 mil isk destroyers with no defenses should it take to destroy a 6 billion isk ship with the best defenses it can fit?

"ludicrous amount of firepower" - You are kidding right?

IF CCP doubled the EHP on your chosen sitting ducks, you would still gank them - If CCP reduced EHP by 50% you would still complain it is too hard.


CCP has removed all risk from ganking and you still complain.
** Is it any wonder people laugh at gankers with their "we are entitled" attitudes.

You'll have to find someone else to troll now, as this discussion is terminated with you.

Hell, if you ask me, jump freighters should not be allowed in highsec at all. Besides that, cost is not a balancing factor, and suggesting it should be doesn't even border on insanity, it straight pole vaults over the border.

Value tanking is not an option, in real life or in Eve.

15 or more Catalysts pushing circa 600 DPS each (total of 9k+ DPS) isn't a ludicrous amount of firepower?

If CCP doubled the EHP of the "sitting ducks" they would still get ganked, and it would require twice the amount of resources to do it; people like you would still complain that it's too easy to gank regardless. Gankers on the other hand wouldn't complain if EHP was halved, they'd just gank more people with less resources.

Do you know what the word risk means? The chance of failure is a risk, the chance of the loot fairy keeping all the shiny loot and leaving all the crap is a risk, the chance of somebody interfering with them is a risk, etc, etc.

I don't see gankers shouting about being entitled to anything but that which they pay for, ie access to the servers, I do see their victims shouting "we are entitled to be safe in a PvP game"

Try reading the post I responded to, then delete all your replies to my post - because none actually address what I posted.

Oh and seriously, value tanking works well, when "profit" is the motivator.

Ganking is quite well balanced when it is for profit. Of course when ganking is used as a pass time it is less balanced, as it should be.
The groups who gank for profit are very professional in how they go about it, isk is their driver.
If anyone who had the urge could go ganking it would mean the mechanics are not working and need to be balanced. Ganking has become an Eve "profession" and like everything else in eve, when you want to specialize in a profession you have to put in the time and effort to be successful.

Ganking is in the exact place it should be compared to the rest of Eve. You will only get out of it what you are prepared to put in. If ganking was, as has been suggested here, "too hard", no-one would be doing it.

This has definitely been a popcorn worthy thread. Ganking in high sec is a pain.. it will always has been part of the game, and always will be. As people have said, there is nowhere in EVE that you should be completely safe from PvP.

That being said, as so many people like to say when a "carebear" comes to the forum complaining about being ganked in highsec, this is a PvP Sandbox game.

As a 75% PvE/ 25% PvPer, I am going to use this same line to all of the PvPers that seem to be moaning in this thread.. this is a SANDBOX game.. if players don't want to play the game how you want them to play the game, TOO BAD FOR YOU.

Even CCP can wipe their hands of the blame to a fair degree too.. they gave us a sandbox to play with.. the nullsec/low sec mega alliances and corporations that have done nothing but crap in their part of the sandbox, and are now more active on the forum complaining about lack of content, than carebears on the forum complaining about high sec camping.

With the douchebaggery, blue donut null space, blops and hotdrops, compulsory requirements for corp/alliance activities as well as ship doctrine and skill point requirements to join said corps.. why would any casual player want to be part of this?

I am seeing a lot of PvPers on this thread and a number of other threads having a cry because they have crapped in their part of the EVE sandbox and are upset that noone wants to play in their crappy part of the sandbox.

I have seen some suggestions about spreading out high sec more so that they are small islands in a sea of lowsec/nullsec chaos. It's a good idea in theory, however, this would not force the PvE players to PvP.. it would just condense the PvE population into these small islands of relative security (Never 100% safe which is as it should be)

I have to admit though, all of these PvP tears because people aren't playing the game how they want them to, are absolutely delicious

…because he was responding to your post, not mine, and his response fits what you posted. So suggesting that he should delete his answers only suggests that you can't really respond satisfactorily.

If you do the math you'll see that tornados have just as much alpha as the gank battleships of old. Talos have FAR more dps then you could achieve with the gank battleships of old (easily +1300 without implants). Even accounting for the insurance change the actual cost is around the same as the days of old while having superior performance.


The rest of your post had nothing to do with what I said.

There were brief times in this game (during market changes) where you could self-destruct a battleship and make a profit on the insurance. Gankers during those times would actually get paid more than the cost of their hull for each gank. It was like a gank reimbursement from James 315, but from CCP!

No matter how cheap you think a Tornado is, it does not cost a negative amount of ISK.


You said "Ganking pretty much has never been easier or cheaper." The rest of my post points out in detail how ganking is occurring near historic lows. If it has never been easier or cheaper, why are less people doing it?

…but that's not what's happening, and if ganking was actually commonplace, you should be able to trivially find instances where it happened more often than 15 minutes. There are restrictions on how those mechanical limits apply that allow that to happen — guess what they are?

No. There is automatic loss but no automatic return. It used to be that ganks — indeed any ship loss — would automatically pay out more than you lost, often even with fittings included; this is no longer the case. No matter how cheaply you think you can do it, it is still infinitely more expensive than it was. The only way for ganking to be profitable these days is if the target decides it should be. This is nothing the gankers can control and it is yet another reason why we're seeing less than one happen per hour: a viable target actually has to make itself available at the right time and place, or the effort to set up the gank is wasted.

Maybe you shold look into hyperdunking and its outlawed cousin, especially if you think that it is in any way, shape, or form more effective or less costly or requires less preparation. It's a gimmick strategy that is easer than all other ones to evade, counter, or just outright survive.

And again, this hugely inefficient strategy has been ruled legal because it relies on the mechanisms that were evaded by boomeranging — an evasion that automatically labelled boomeranging an exploit and which allowed it to do a whole lot more damage for a whole lot less than hyperdunking will ever do. The ruling is consistent; it also makes no real difference in how costly or difficult a gank is to pull off.

Eh, not really no. That's kind of the point: the ABCs simply allow you to bring the same battleship-sized firepower package as before, but at a higher cost than before the insurance changes.