To be fair, either you are mistaken or some of your peers are lying.

If in a different security, different engagement rules and irrelevant to the situation being discussed.
If the frigates were able to trick the proteus into engaging then the proteus chose to engage and irrelevant to the situation being discussed.

It isn't relevant because the situation being discussed wasn't a suicide gank and as such soundwaves statement doesn't apply.

There is still quite a bit of room for interpretation. When I read it I took it as hull for hull, not counting variables including fit and cargo. But as I said before, I could be mistaken.

It shouldn't (and doesn't even in the hulk's case with similar costing ships). Your illustration proves that. Maybe what we have is more of a response to the social evolution of the game then.

Bot argument is a false argument and goes against and makes fools of gankers rather than suit their arguments.

The efforts against bots come in the form of banning bots. Also it's entirely possible and probable that a number of non-botting players will take advantage of these changes. Despite their presence, bot are a non issue in this argument.

No need to be an expert to realise a simple buff to some "pixels" will not and suddenly make bots be smarter.
Thinking or pretending the other way around is just being idiot, paranoid, lacking totally of software knowledge (this is harder than be able to count up to 3) and talking out of an hairy pubbie arse.

Penalizing bots should not be prioritized over giving non-botting players (AFK or otherwise) wider and more relevant choices.

Saying that they are homogenizing mining ships doesn't make it so. They are doing the opposite of what you suggest.

Right. And when CCP tallies the votes (aka subs,) who do you think has a bigger voice? The high-sec gankers? Or the high-sec miners? I think it's pretty obvious that CCP values the miners' concerns over the high-sec gankers' concerns.

The real question is: will the high-sec gankers unsub over the mining ship changes? Because, you know, this game isn't for everyone.

For tanking ganks hopefully to the point that gankers move on to someone else obviously. Also like all the other ships in game they have trouble doing their job as a wreck.

You should try flying a current retriever in a low SP character. Triple 0.6 sec frigs seriously risk to kill you - even shield repairing - before you warp away.

You know, the game as also to cater to those so despised and spat in face newbies.

survey scanner and mlus.

That's one thing I don't quite get, that mining ships are pretty near the only ships not expected to use modules that enhance their primary function to be viable.

That's one thing I don't quite get, that mining ships are pretty near the only ships not expected to use modules that enhance their primary function to be viable.

Impel + DCU EHP > All mid/low/rig slot tank EHP on an exhumer.

Edit: Double actually while still having 2 free lows for expanders and not using the rig slots.

For tanking ganks hopefully to the point that gankers move on to someone else obviously. Also like all the other ships in game they have trouble doing their job as a wreck.

Too bad that will never happen.

Nothing is free

You don't know what T1 resists are?

Hulk shields:
0/50/40/20

Hulk armor:
60/10/25/35

Shield resists are same for all exhumers and mining barges.

What kind of tank you would suggest?

This fit has 22k EHP with current stats on SiSi.

[Hulk, Tank Fit]

Damage Control II
Micro Auxiliary Power Core II

Medium F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Limited Adaptive Invulnerability Field I

Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II
Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II
Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II

Medium Ancillary Current Router I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I

So if the don't buff the hulks tank we should have no issues with the changes?

Seriously? Come now.

Because it's able to make effective use of it's ~20%(25% now) yield bonus over a Mackinaw/Skiff.

That's why it's better than a Mack/Skiff in a fleet.

I think it's pretty obvious that the "Ganking isn't meant to be profitable" statement is meant to cover your average case with common sense fits involved.

Now if a ganker takes the time to scan carefully and single out the multitude of players that sink way too much isk into way to fragile ships that is a completely different story. Bad fits and bad decisions are the bread and butter of the suicide ganker, as it should be.

Low sec gate camps are not intended on the average to be hilariously profitable either, however nothing stops the occasional freighter pilot screw up. That does not mean that CCP intends that the errant freighter pilot cannot or should not die, just that under "normal" circumstances it is not the normal profit situation for the gate camp.

Suicide gankers should absolutely be able to make a profit at their chosen profession, but (as is CCP's intention) to be profitable they need to take the time to find the ones that Darwin has selected for extinction... not just gain profit from every potential victim that crosses their path.

People will still figure out a way to fit their Mackinaws without a single tank mod beyond "permatank the serpentis spy in the belt" and they'll still die to a few Catalysts. This will not change.

I could be mistaken, but I think you are assuming a sensible fit... which for your average AFK miner is not all that likely... to be honest

The ONLY person responsible for a ship being destroyed are the people shooting at it.

No, it really doesn't. Those people went looking for someone worth killing in the case of searching for an untanked miner. If it were somehow purely the miner's fault they would explode upon contact with the "harshness of space" when undocking without a tank rather than need to wait for a ganker.

These consequences are completely arbitrary. As he said, he didn't explode for no reason. Someone made a decision to shoot him. The fault lies with the shooter, period.

Lets be clear here: i'm not saying ganking is necessarily wrong. You just need to accept the fact that the ganker is responsible for pulling the trigger. If bitching/whining/patching is the result of abusing it, well, that's your own damn fault.

I've done both of the things you mentioned, and in each case thought to myself, "In hindsight, that was pretty dumb." But it doesn't change the fact that a friendly group of HIC's and nano pests in one instance and a mael (pre gank insurance nerf) were more than happy to make themselves available to teach me those lessons.

Since the consequence is a gank, that would make gankers responsible for ganking. Others just aid in target selection.

Shield Management 5, Tactical Shield Ops 4, Engineering 5, Electronics 5, Exhumers 5, Shield Upgrades 1, Energy Management 5, Hull Upgrades 1, Shield Rigging 1

And it's different from mining?