all these discussions are not needed as long as the insurance system is not being fixed.

If the insurance would be more realistic, there would not be so many useless (for the fun of it) high sec kills.

In real life if you buy a car. and you crash it while it is insured completely you get most of your money back unless the police tells the insurance company that you used your car for killing other cars. in that scenario, you don't get any money from the insurance company and you need to go to prison.

If you use your car and some pirate hits you but you can't find the pirate that hit your car you get money from a generic government insurance fund.

If you are just too stupid that you bump your car into wall now and then, you might end up with some very high insurance costs.

In the current scenario, there is no real financial penalty for aggressive behavior in areas where you should not have that aggressive behavior.

Once this is fixed, there are no real problems anymore. Gankers can still kill ships in high sec, but now they really need to keep in mind if the gank is worth the money and the hastle (insurance papers/police work).

Keep it so that sacrifices have to be made to make a tank but it would benefit all space for it to be possible to fend off a ganker long enough for Concord to arrive, for help in null sec, low sec or worm hole space to arrive from your corp / alliance.

Hulks dont need a buff to there tank, its just everyone who flys them is too stupid to fit a Damage Control II, they'd rather use there precious low slots for mining upgrades or expanded cargoholds. Fools and there isk are easily parted and need to stop QQing on the forums about it

You just said yourself that you can tank against arty thrashers, so how does the cost of ganking to the ganker cost 2m isk? It comes down to how the pilot tanks it, if there foolish and in it for isk then yes, they can lose it at that cost, but if they're smart about it they can drive up the risk for the ganker. And of course you'll lose it to hurricanes, it comes down to whether one on one you'd be able to tank a single hurricane, because at the end of the day, you can tank more, but gankers will just bring more

Dont believe everything you read on the forums. at least 75% of the forums is bullshit of wild speculation and rumors.

Things to remember.

1. most posters are trolls and rumor mills
2. WHAT is on the test server IS NOT guarenteed to be in game. IT's a test server. CCP RESERVES the right to make changes at the last minute based on player feed back or other issues.

3. just put some shield extenders or some invuln fields on the hulk and you are fine or maybe put on a shield gang link the orca for more resists and ehp.

4. rigs are there for a reason. if you put on a em shield rig and explosive armor rig most gankers will be deterred.

There is already a hulk buff on TQ, it's called mining in a battleship.

#1, You don't lose that much income per hour.
#2. Less ganks will come your way since it takes more ships and expense for a less desirable killboard blip or isk return.

All the hulk needs is another buff in PG and CPU for the pilot to choose between either a LSE, Mining upgrade and DCII or, Two Mining upgrades.

It will still get ganked, just by ships that actually cost the same as it, not 2 million isk in the form or Arty Thrashers.

If the insurance would be more realistic, there would not be so many useless (for the fun of it) high sec kills.

Being able to fit an LSE would not even double its tanking ability, so it would not require ships of a similar cost to gank itGǪ You simply raised the price from 2M ISK to 4M ISK (and made it more likely that you drop something valuable to make up for that difference).
A couple of things. Insurance isn't meant to be realistic GÇö it's the notion of game mechanics having to be realistic that has spawned this idea that CONCORD should be nerfed, so that's a particularly dangerous train of thought to follow. In fact, insurance in EVE has pretty much the exact opposite purpose of real-life insurance. More importantly, though: why should there be fewer for-fun kills?

Adding 2500 shield hit points with 80% resist will do alot. Im not trying to make them ungankable.

Anyway As I've said given the choice I would actually change them to armor tanking ships and force miners to either tank them, get a great yield or alot of space.

More importantly, though: why should there be fewer for-fun kills?

Question for Tippia : Why should there not be fewer for-fun kills?

Once you fully have it down to a science how to gank a hulk, its no longer a challenge and just riskless combat to make your epeen get a little more girth and length. Heck, its as challenging as running level 4. You just cannot loose against a Hulk or Retty, just as much as a mission runner popping Serps or Angels.

Once an answer has been supplied, she further responds "Why?" with your response "Because!" and she responds "Why?" over and over again.

Wouldn't buff to miner barges( or w/e things used for mine) only buff bott's its not like they own us already.

I have been seeing a lot of comments on the forums requesting that CCP nerf Concord. One person asks that Space be made "less Safe."

As a high-sec Carebear, I don't mind a "Concord Nerf", that is, if the HULK is given a buff to its tank at the same time.

The new Battlecruisers with their BS sized weapons (is that a pun?), plus a nerf to Concord, would lead to a complete inabiltiy to mine in high-sec, or anywhere.

In another thread, someone suggests T3 industrial ships. (I could not find a link to that thread)
I think T3 industial ships would be a good idea. a Single industrial ship with different modules to optimize it for whatever job its being used for.
One such module could buff the tank of the T3 mining ship, so that it would take several battleships to destroy it before it got into warp.

I know. I ran the numbers. I'm just pointing out that your claim that they'll only be gankable by GÇ£ships that actually cost the same as it, not 2 million isk in the form or Arty ThrashersGÇ¥ doesn't really hold up. It's a fairly simple numbers game: double the EHP, and you at most double the cost of the gank. In order to have a situation (with the costs you quoted GÇö whether they're real or not is somewhat besides the point) where the gank costs the same as the Hulk, you'd have to increase the tank by two orders of magnitudeGǪ
I don't knowGǪ they already do that to some extent. MLUs compete over slots for space and over CPU with the tank. A full tank already takes up pretty much every last slot except the highslots, and adding space seriously weakens the ship.

The ideal number would be to enable you to boost the EHP enough that it takes (5-8) destroyers to gank a hulk. When you get into the 5-8 pilot range, you're talking enough coordination that I begin to appreciate the kill. Boosting all of the mining barges / exhumers would go a long way towards making it a multi-pilot affair rather then a solo kill (or a solo+alt) kill.

It's why I don't care much about freighter ganks, there you need 12-16 pilots (maybe 20 to be safe) in order to pull off the gank. That's a good amount of coordination and they're definitely putting effort in for getting the gank.

Hulk - 9027 EHP base, 22192 EHP max-tank
- Only has 43.75 PG, has to use small shield extenders
- Often has fitting issues due to lack of CPU and PG

Anyway As I've said given the choice I would actually change them to armor tanking ships and force miners to either tank them, get a great yield or alot of space. I would also remove local repping mods of hulks. Not needed by anyone other then botters, at lease in highsec, Never mined in null so should they need to be active repped I will withhold that idea. [/i]