EVE General Discussion

That's because you don't argue with facts and he does. He keeps saying the same thing over and over again because he is right and you are not only wrong but a liar.

I found it, 30 mil dropped to three 2mil isk Thrashers. Hmmmm, I'm not all that good at math but this certainly looks profitable.

How about any of the figures he posts actually make sense?

Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
Exhibit D
Exhibit E
Exhibit F
Exhibit G

This from ZKill's frontpage. It's between 6-14 mil. If half of that drops you're looking at 3-7 mil in loot.
We've had this conversation before: he'll say "it's 12 mil for a Thrasher", I quickly look 'em up on ZKill and what does my leery eye spot? 2.06 mil, of course. That's off by a rather large margin. It does not inspire confidence in any argument he might have -- and by now I don't even know what point he's trying to prove anymore.

I'm just debunking false figures for those who might take them at face value and work from there. Whenever numbers get posted and arguments spun on top of those: do take the time to VERIFY THEM people. Seriously.

If you're going to call his numbers out as bad don't ignore all the profitable nados on the same page. On the first page of losses in highsec there are 10+ profitable nados and potentially 10 more if you get lucky on the drops.

If ganking is your business and profit is important, I expect you to come up with the most cost-effective ship.
Plus, a tier III battlecruiser is the worst possible example.

BUT please allow me to approach the situation from a different angle: IF it were so profitable, then why doesn't every destroyer I meet during my travels shoot at me? Why focus on those ships who are allegedly the least profitable of all?

Could it be that perhaps the argument that everything below battleship size is profitable to gank is false? Could it be that perhaps your puny destroyer would simply blow up to the combined DPS of gateguns and whatever my ship is dishing out?

"cherrypicked". LOL. I'm not picky-- please please do try.

And now we move the goal posts. Seriously man I know you are more intelligent than this, you are just arguing to argue at this point.

I'm not sure why you perceive me as trying to say gankers are victims. I am simply posting what is true and what is not.

Drac said the TD3 that was ganked was not profitable, it was. Then Brokk cherry picked a bunch of unprofitable nados while an almost equal amount of profitable ships are sitting on the same list.

Yes I am a ganker, no I am not taking sides, I am pointing out disingenuous posting.

@Teckos: I thought you didn't approve of idiocy? And yet here you are applauding people who have supposedly done the math and determined that they could be getting (by their own numbers) 50 million isk in *pure profit* ganking the hordes of idiots in literally any t2 fit ship other than a mining ship....Yet they are so stupid they choose to gank *the only idiots in EVE* whom they actually lose money ganking...Rather than leaving them to the bumpers (who don't have to spend a single isk on the endeavor - but still prevent them from mining)... Why is this particular brand of idiocy Teckos approved?

@ Loyd: The entire conversation came up because baltec was whining (once again) about how unprofitable ganking mining barges is, and how it is unbalanced compared to any other t2 fit ship. This was a clear attempt to gather pity and, presumably, to convince CCP that they should take pity on the gankers and nerf mining barge hp... Otherwise it would seem to be utterly random and I don't know why you would even be talking about it - let alone defending it so adamantly.

@ Chicken: I don't know what you are typing yet... But it is a pain when the forums eat your post, isn't it

I don't know man. Couple of pages ago he claimed a catalyst can solo HACs and strategic cruisers.
Then he doubled-back and said it had to be failfit; proceeded to assert anything sub-battleship with cargoextenders and T2 mods is profitable to gank- also false.

Not one to give up easily, he then come up with "AHA! But how about this Tornado- that's profitable right?" and while I don't disagree it's perhaps profitable (if you don't take :opportunity cost: into account, amirite?), it's not nearly as profitable as he claimed it to be. Like one eighth.

Now if you insist to take a notoriously no-tank ship and insist I fit it expensive on purpose, I don't even know what he's arguing. But it's nowhere near "anything below battleship", that's for sure. And he sure as hell won't be soloing it either.

From such a big name (the man has a doctrine named after him for crying out loud), member of the infamous Pandemic Legion, I was expecting less bullsht. I know some of you are here for popcorn but imagine for a second someone here didn't know any better and bought it all, hook line and sinker?

I don't argue when facts or personal experience support the claim, but I had to call him out on this. It's just false. All of it. You can dance around the subject some more but that won't make it true. Back to the basics: IF it were profitable YOU WOULD DO IT. Simple as that. It's a load of baloney.

You didn't expect me to formulate an argument in his place did you? Those are his goalposts that keep throttling around. Slippery devils they are, those ECCM nano goals.

Dear OP, I shared your tragic story with some starving kids from Central Africa. They said that they now feel much better about their situation, knowing that it could be much worse. Some of them expressed a heartfelt desire to send you some relief funds. Let me know where they should send the camel poop to.

Seems more like lying as usual.