Just saying there was a 62Billion Isk Kill that involved more catalyst than any thing else.

Just goes to show, it is not what your are flying or what is ganking you. If it is shiny it will be destroyed.

"Just saying there was a 62Billion Isk Kill that involved more catalyst than any thing else.

Just goes to show, it is not what your are flying or what is ganking you. If it is shiny it will be destroyed.
Novis Initiis is Recruting - Ideas for Drone Improvement"



do you know how rare that kinda kill that is 33 ships would never hit that if there wasn't that much bling bling !!!!

Where is my Destroyer that can mount eight Cruiser-sized guns?

Let's add those too.

In conclusion WAI.

Everyone FINALLY understands ganking is good for the EVE economy.

i agree.

but i think tornados are a bit to cheap
before tornadoes there was the tempset which was quite expensive but cheap enough to get some valuable ganks in highsec.
ganks aside the tornado stole every role the tempest still had from the hull.

thats why i think the tempest should adapt launchers instead of turrets cause it wont steal all the roles from the typhoon and tempest would get back some of its use whil the highsec gankiing will get more expensive but can be profitable still

But the old tempest got insurance payments every time they ganked. Tornados don't.

And people would just use talos/naga/oracles/whatever.

no and ....no(but partly yes).

still with insurance payments included tempest ganks were more expensive its the same % on the resource value thus makes no difference in relative cost....

tonadoes can gank in 1.0-0.7? cause of alpha. and there ppl could not swap to taloses etc.
where they could swap to taloses (i didnt do the math but im pretty certain this is right) talosses are already more eficcient.
so the point is i should have been clearer on this:
-i should have said high highsec ganks are to cheap.
cause the difference in cost between 1.0 and 0.5 ganks is to narrow cause tornadoes are to cheap

great, so you agree being ganked is due to turning your ship into a pinata rather than the use of tier 3 battlecruisers.

now the thread can be closed as the OP has seen sense.

How were tempest ganks more expensive back when the insurance payout was literally more than the cost of the hull? Or when the hulls cost barely more than a 'nado does now, yet were still fully insurable?

I've lost haulers to Harbingers before, should we nerf those too?

Players set the prices. If you don't like them, try and do something about them. (Good luck.)


And what's to stop people just bringing two Talos? Or Three, or a gang of them if it's a decent catch. Or, hell, waiting until thier target crosses Niarja?

How were tempest ganks more expensive back when the insurance payout was literally more than the cost of the hull? Or when the hulls cost barely more than a 'nado does now, yet were still fully insurable?

I've lost haulers to Harbingers before, should we nerf those too?

Players set the prices. If you don't like them, try and do something about them. (Good luck.)


And what's to stop people just bringing two Talos? Or Three, or a gang of them if it's a decent catch. Or, hell, waiting until thier target crosses Niarja?

How were tempest ganks more expensive back when the insurance payout was literally more than the cost of the hull? Or when the hulls cost barely more than a 'nado does now, yet were still fully insurable?

I've lost haulers to Harbingers before, should we nerf those too?
Players set the prices. If you don't like them, try and do something about them. (Good luck.)

And what's to stop people just bringing two Talos? Or Three, or a gang of them if it's a decent catch. Or, hell, waiting until thier target crosses Niarja?

this is plain wrong. even before the cost increase in bs manufacturing cost a tempest cost twice as much as a tornado does now. (tempest was an average minimum of 140m isk before the increase the highest longtime average of a tornado was about 70m while it s price atm is 55m)
and again insurance do not make a change cause its a relative ammount of its manufacturing worth which is in both cases an close enough value to its sell price.

Look back to 2010/2011 (before the gunmining nerfs) and the Tempest was sitting at an average of around 85 million (+/- 5m); so manufacturing costs were in the 75-80m ISK range. This was (IIRC) before CCP started tweaking the insurance payouts every 6-9 months (so insurance was based on "base mineral value" of the hull), not to mention well before the release of the Tier3 BC and insurance payout removals.

You can not do stupid things like carry 100 plex in your cargo, you can fit a tank to your ship, you can fly with friends, you can stay away from high populated areas, you can scout ahead, you can stay in higher sec areas. Plenty of options for you which will keep you from getting ganked. Stop crying and learn how to counter gankers.

Suicide gankers don't need tornadoes, if they where removed.... they would just use thrashers or hurricanes (I see more thrasher suicide attacks as they are stupidly cheap... you just need a bigger gang.)

I don't see CCP removing a ship just because it makes a good ganking platform.

And if they were removed or made T2, what would you do to:

The ships that exist
The blueprints that exist
The niche they fill
The fleet doctrines
The people who can fly them now (If they go T2)

How would all of the costs, in ISK, materials, time and skills be reimbursed?



Also, OP, post your lossmail.

Also also, the Talos is one of the best looking hips in EVE. if you want it removed, I will pod you. Repeatedly.

Horribly written and argumented proposal with several exclamation marks- on normal forums, OP would receive a ban for badposting.

Ganking adds to the game (sometimes) imo. Freighters would deny it, but I think it makes their eve experience a whole lot more interesting and exciting.

Miner ganking on the other hand is something I don't support. I don't even want to think about how many ppl quit eve after repeated miner ganks. And its not even profitable for the gankers, its just greafing, plain and simple.

that my be partly right but if you go back this long you have to correct numbers by inflation. back then plex were about 400-410m is which nowdays are about 590-600m. so the difference in value is not as great as you may think.

secondly i struggle to see how a then broken(back then) insurance system helpst to disproove my point?