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.

Goonswarm Propaganda not being totally accurate about their motives? Whaaaaaa???


Anyway, I will qualify it. It's only done on a large scale for profit. How many not-for-profit Freighter ganks happen?

Tell them about how Concord actually works against them for these suicide ganks.

so you're saying that it should literally cost half a billion to kill an afk mining hulk, one with nothing fitted as far as a tank, absolutely nothing trained as far as tanking skills and no effort taken to mitigate the risk of being blown up

i'm not trying to put words in your mouth but that sounds like what you're trying to say by "it should cost more to kill a ship than what the ship is worth"

but more that the expenses should be higher for the attacker than the defender

not really, because by this logic you'll be equally safe in an 0.5 system as you would in a 1.0

It's not simply limited to the words of Goonswarm, perhaps zealous individuals that believe the propaganda? But then that still makes it true even if self fulfilling. Also in the case of freighters the damage necessary to kill the base hull will cost well beyond the rewards the wreck will leave. The same isn't true of any of the current exhumers. So perhaps that is a bad example. Maybe transport ships?

In either a 1.0 or an 0.5 the frigates wouldn't be free to engage for any length of time without some for of aggression or kill rights and even then they only held it so help could arrive. This isn't a fair comparison to a suicide gank or the balancing mechanics behind one.

Ask the GSF for their data on Hulk KMs. See how many of them were tanked well.

Soundwave just said that he wanted to make sure Suicide Gankers have to pay more than their prey loses. Pointing out that that is silly is perfectly valid.

you're right, CONCORD should be removed, that way you eliminate suicide ganking entirely

Yeah my point is that I don't think they should be profitable to gank. I think it should be possible, but not necessarily profitable (profitable might be the wrong word, but more that the expenses should be higher for the attacker than the defender).

Soundwave just said that he wanted to make sure Suicide Gankers have to pay more than their prey loses. Pointing out that that is silly is perfectly valid.

The new Skiff's going to have 2/3rds the EHP of a Freighter.

How many properly tanked Hulks do you see in lossmails in 1.0 space (where you need 3 Nados at a cost of 200m)?

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

Is the Active tanked Tengu up next for a buff? It can be one volleyd by a 70m Tornado when it's hull+subs cost at least 300m.

Ok, replace 2B Proteus with 300m Hulk, and 500k Frigate with 5m Catalysts. Tell me, why should Exhumers have protection explicitly related to their cost when nothing else does?

Is the Active tanked Tengu up next for a buff? It can be one volleyd by a 70m Tornado when it's hull+subs cost at least 300m.

This is where CCP acknowledges that gankers, as a group, are too chickenshiz to gank barges using wardecs, or venture out into gankland where wardecs are not needed and Concord cannot touch you.

99% of miners dont go anywhere where there is no CONCORD and will jump corp when wardeced. CCP are about to make mining as risk free as its possible to get in space as well as very bot friendly.

As to your comparison, how does the EHP of an purely active tengu compare to a purely active tanked hulk?

Soundwave apparently, but on a side note I'm not sure cost and performance can ever be segregated as we place a great deal of value in specialization and superiority as players.

As to your comparison, how does the EHP of an purely active tengu compare to a purely active tanked hulk? The goal can't be centered around isk for isk anyways as ships with high EHP roles but lesser costs make that impossible as well as the fact that even in the same role EHP doesn't scale with cost. Best you can do is decide a cost that a certain type of ship can be killed at and set EHP and fitting accordingly.

I just think it was a poor choice of words on soundwaves part that shouldn't be interpreted quite so literally, but I could be wrong.

Yeah my point is that I don't think they should be profitable to gank. I think it should be possible, but not necessarily profitable (profitable might be the wrong word, but more that the expenses should be higher for the attacker than the defender).

Ah finally a dev, with the carebear at heart.

Well then, perhaps they should crack down on bots...

99% of miners dont go anywhere where there is no CONCORD and will jump corp when wardeced. CCP are about to make mining as risk free as its possible to get in space as well as very bot friendly.

His wording is pretty clear.

Deciding on a cost to gank is fine (that's basically what a Freighter's EHP is). But there's no reason it should have anything to do with the cost of the ship.

The EHP on a purely active Tengu coming through a Gate is low enough that it can be single shotted by a Nado on the gate. The Hulk doesn't have any reason to fit an active tank in HS, and even if it did, it would have some 27k EHP, more than enough to survive 2 shots from a Nado.

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.