EVE General Discussion

The concept of isk-tanking - i.e. my ship cost X isk therefor anyone who ganks it should lose >X isk - is complete bullshit if you ask me. It's so obviously stupid and yet some people honestly still support it

It is all about a healthy balance.

When one thing dominates over everything else then what is the point? Players will figure it out and when enough players are doing it will it ruin the game and end it. So you need to have a balance and this balance can show in many different forms. The cost factor is just one of them. It should only not be as primitive and as simple by consisting of a single factor, which is likely the thing you are concerned about - that it is too simple.

"ISK-tanking" is not dumb or stupid, but it makes the bill of materials to each ship. If "ISK tanking" was actually bad then Titans should not cost 60b ISKs and only need a single Tritanium to be build. Yet, do we all appreciate the difference in costs and efforts, and we do not want this to be turned into nonsense.

By the way, the only fear I have, is that destroyers may eventually lose their 8 high-slots. Rookies do not really need all 8 and it is only the experienced players who use all 8 and mostly for ganking. So if CCP ever decides to fix anything about ganking will it probably be a nerf to destroyers. The new destroyers already have less high-slots...

Both me and Baltec were talking of ganks before the barges buff, your fitting is irrelevant.


Edit: not just irrelevant, but it also got a resist hole.

So, you can't show me that magical 5M ship that can kill a tanked hulk? Thanks, no further questions.

Ganking should be profitable -- but only as a "risk vs reward" factor generated by the pilot stupidity (or bravado, as the case may be).

Specifially, if you're a freighter pilot overloaded with valuable cargo *OR* a mission runner with a faction fitted T2 bs, AND -- here's the important part for the folks playing along at home -- you do something very risky with either ship, then good luck to you -- and thanks for the loot.

Duh.

Is this where i get to say "I see what you did there"?

Yes?

Ok, I see what you did there.

If you believe this then all dumb stuff in EVE needs to pay off for somebody... You open grounds for all kinds of arguments just based on this one.

Shooting a ship for its modules should not be like shaking an apple tree for catching falling apples. I am thinking modules need to drop damaged, ranging from utterly broken to heavily damaged, because this makes sense. Further does the damage need to affect the modules' performance, because it, too, makes sense. One cannot expect a broken thing to work perfectly. And last but not least should the repair costs for modules scale with the market price, because it, too, makes sense. Or why should a 4b ISKs module only cost a few millions to repair? Or why should the nanos in the repair paste know how Mr. Estamel has modified his invulnerability field to be as good as it is? If nanos were this smart then one should be able to turn all adapt. inv. fields into better ones.

If you then shoot an Ibis with officer mods will it still be as easy as taking candy from a baby, but wrecking the Ibis with all those shiny stuff in it will have a massive impact on the values of dropped modules. You might still consider doing it just for the chance of getting a completely damaged officer mod and a huge repair bill, because you may find getting one of an officer spawn in 0.0 to be more difficult.

TL;DR: If one drops a bomb onto a weapons arsenal does one not expect it to rain brand new weapons from the sky either.

sure i open grounds for all kinds of arguments; and most of them can and will be answered with "apples vs oranges".

the simple fact is, i personally believe that if you do something dumb and some one catches you, the price should be high.
if you do something dumb and nobody catches you, lady luck was smiling at you.

then again, perhaps i misunderstood what it was that brought me to eve.


edit: oh as to the stuff i missed out in that quote, i like it.

By the same logic, CONCORD should be evadeable, and should require the victim to manually activate a "call for assistance" module. The fact that CONCORD can instantly detect any criminal activity in highsec and respond with a magical infinipoint from nowhere is clearly ridiculous, and makes no sense.

Nonsense. I am talking about sense and not logic.

You want logic? How about this: if modules and cargo would not drop as pristine as they do now would we need less of CONCORD.

The amount of time and effort as well as science fiction that goes into making T2 modules, from invention, to reactions, to holding moons, is ridiculous compared to how easy these drop from another player's ship.

The reason why we have CONCORD is because of this imbalance. If it was as complex to loot a ship as it is to make the items would we probably not need CONCORD.