I've always been curious about something - has anyone ever been known to go to the Fanfest, found a particular person that ganked or scammed that person, and then broke that person's nose right there and then in real life revenge?

dust put a damage control 2 and some tank mods on your hulks. more than likely you will survive.

That is true, but still. When I first learned about these tier 3 bc's i first thought of how null sov combat will change. With the super cap. nerf coming up along with these ships, it will even the game up a lot in regards to supercaps against sub caps. I guess to me, these ships do not mean so much of ganking, rather the liberation of null from the Red's.

So, pardon me for being willingly ignorant but these tools of destruction exist for a reason and when people use them to create pain for people who cannot fight back, I get a bad taste in my mouth. I have no sympathy for the victim, but I do have malcontent for those who grief.

Though, this makes me a bit sad for the Tempest.
After years of neglect and suckage, it finally found a role as a prime suicide ganking boat.
Made me so happy to see them suddenly lurking around every high-sec gate, SEBOs pulsing. The highwaymen of old, delivering pain and crushing dreams in an instant.

Forget the Tornado. You are all overlooking the fact that a T2 fit Catalyst will now put out enough damage to solo gank a Hulk.

Now, after having laid off 20% of its workforce, CCP plans to lay off 20% of the player base too. True story.




Nah, seriously, maybe it is about time for a revision of the criminal flagging system, from an age long gone, to the benefit of all parties involved.

Aye, the real trouble with Concord is that they're absolute. The only way to defend yourself from a gank is to shoot first, and if you do that, well shame on you, goodbye ship. Hi sec and Concord enforce helplessness more than anything else. You might as well mine in low, null, or WH space where your corpmates are allowed to shoot first.

yep. viz post no. 2

Aye, the real trouble with Concord is that they're absolute. The only way to defend yourself from a gank is to shoot first, and if you do that, well shame on you, goodbye ship. Hi sec and Concord enforce helplessness more than anything else. You might as well mine in low, null, or WH space where your corpmates are allowed to shoot first.

Then the obvious solution is to remove Concord

The majority of barge ganking is done by characters who are already -10.0. This means that they can indeed be shot first. However, because this would require some effort and expenditure on the part of the carebears, you will rarely see this happen. Carebears exist for the sole purpose of maximizing immediate ISK/hour ratios. Hiring a few pvpers to stand guard with insta-lock setups to remote-repair their barges and pop gank Thrashers is a big no-no for them, because it would mean their wallet count would go up slower.

When they get ganked, their wallets will go down anyway, but...Surely that's just a fluke, right? All they have to do to get that problem sorted is file a reimbursement petition and make a tearful post on the forums, right?

...Right?

So you're saying that someone who is deathly terrified of losing some imaginary spacepixel items in a videogame, would have the fortitude to put his real life well-being at risk in a violent act against the person who caused him the loss of said imaginary spacepixels? Does that not in the least bit seem absurd to you?

Careful. That sword of yours can cut both ways. Can I claim that someone willing to suicide his ship in game has a death wish in real life? Or does your theory only apply to carebears?

Careful. That sword of yours can cut both ways. Can I also claim that someone willing to suicide his ship in game has a death wish in real life? Or does this theory of yours only apply to carebears?

To be fair, it's those carebears who insist on in-game behaviour reflecting real-life intentions and motivations, and who keep accusing gankers of being sociopaths. So it wouldn't be much of a stretch to believe that those carebears would indeed do something as stupid (and, contradictory enough, sociopathic), whereas those who insist that it's just a game and that the carebears shouldn't get their panties in a wad, and who can separate that game from reality, are less likely to make such trivial in-game matter spill over into real lifeGǪ

So yes, it wouldn't be particularly strange if the theory only applied to the carebears in questionGǪ

My theory is that someone cowardly enough to decry pvp combat in a pvp-combat-oriented game is less likely, not more likely, to risk harm to his own person in real life. Assuming this individual is of sound mind, of course. Granted, my theory is highly flawed, and doesn't take into account the myriad details and quirks that make up a person's psyche.

What's truly troubling, however, is that someone would bring real violence upon another over intangible videogame possessions (once again, assuming they were destroyed via legitimate gameplay mechanics and not, say, password theft).

Except that plenty of gankers have orgasms and get frothy at the mouth over "tears". Do they seem well-adjusted to you?

Except that plenty of gankers have orgasms and get frothy at the mouth over "tears". Do they seem well-adjusted to you? If these idiots are just playing a "game" why get so excited over making people mad and quit? Using a game as a tool to ruin people's fun is well-adjusted to you?

As well adjusted as any monopoly player who fans himself with his wad of cash with a broad smirk on his face.

They quit by their own volition. It is not our intent to make them quit. However, if they do, we will laugh and ridicule them.

Do you know what ill intentions are? Can you figure out how ill intentions make your example irrelevant to mine?

You were so quick to claim carebears likely carry their behavior into real life but so reserved in making the same claim about players that intentionally seek to upset people (ie collect "tears") in a game.

But that's not what I'm asking you :). I'll ask you again because you bypassed my question:

Do you think that someone that plays with the intention of hurting and making someone mad is well-adjusted? Or do you think, that it is likely they're a sadist in real life? You certainly make the claim that this is the case for carebears. So I'm curious if you're theory only holds for that one play style you hate :).

Watching someone rage and walk away/flip the board in a game of monopoly is 10 times more satisfying, and infinitely more hilarious, then simply beating them.

Watching someone rage and walk away/flip the board in a game of monopoly is 10 times more satisfying, and infinitely more hilarious, then simply beating them.

Come on, guys. I'm not asking a trick question. Tippia and Destiny Corrupted seem to think that carebear behavoir most likely transcensds to real life. I'm using your same logic to see if you feel the same should apply to in-game tear collectors.And if not, why not?

Do you think that someone that plays with the intention of making people upset (ie collect "tears") is likely a well-adjusted human being?

Come on, guys. I'm not asking a trick question. Tippia and Destiny Corrupted seem to think that carebear behavoir most likely transcensds to real life. I'm using your same logic to see if you feel the same should apply to in-game tear collectors.And if not, why not?

No, I never stated that. I simply stated a theory that dealt with one specific element of real/virtual world interaction. It was an opinion rooted in deductive reasoning, and not a statement of fact.

I never said that videogame behavior directly translates into real-life behavior, or vice versa. I simply stated that I think a rational person who is afraid of losing imaginary items will be more likely to avoid risking actual, tangible things, like his real-life well-being.

So you're saying that someone who is deathly terrified of losing some imaginary spacepixel items in a videogame, would have the fortitude to put his real life well-being at risk in a violent act against the person who caused him the loss of said imaginary spacepixels? Does that not in the least bit seem absurd to you?

Here:

And pray tell, how did you interpret that quote as a statement of fact?

He seems to be saying the exact opposite of what you are claiming he is saying.

A TLDR for ya:

Destiny Corrupted is claiming that carebears who are "terrified" of losing pixels mostly likely are also terrified of getting into fights in real life. Basically, behavior in-game likely translates to behavior out of game for carebears. I'm asking if the same could apply to grief players.

A TLDR for ya:

Destiny Corrupted is claiming that carebears, who are "terrified" of losing pixels, most likely are also terrified of getting into fights in real life. Basically, behavior in-game likely translates to behavior out of game for carebears. I'm asking if the same could apply to grief players.

However, it's important to note cause and effect. Such people have been ill-adjusted well before they bought their EVE accounts. EVE is but one of the outlets for their maliciousness, instead of being its root cause.

And I will ask again, because we keep avoiding the question:

Do you think that someone that plays with the intention of making people upset (ie collect "tears") is likely a well-adjusted human being?

Come on, guys. I'm not asking a trick question. Tippia and Destiny Corrupted seem to think that carebear behavoir most likely transcensds to real life. I'm using your same logic to see if you feel the same should apply to in-game tear collectors.And if not, why not?

Posting in a Gankers vs. Carebears thread.

Enjoying the "tantrum" of the carebear and collecting the tears off him puts you in the same field as said carebear. You are all, simply sides of the same coin, pretending to be above, below or even sideways of them is kinda delusional. just sayin'

Anything someone has put time and effort into to achieve is a real and tangible thing if lost. The emotional and psychological impact is real whether you wish to treat "pixels" as real or imaginary. The laws globally are also changing regarding property rights and the "reality" of in game resources as well and have been over the past decade or so with a greater change to the reality and legal status to in game items being given.

So what you are talking about in illiciting tears, be they carebear, griefer, nullbear, or other, is in fact the destruction of someones time and effort in any given field and the emotional and psychological impact this has on them that is making you feel good about their loss and suffering. Anyway you slice this this is a sadistic aspect of humanity, to gain joy or satisfaction from anothers pain and suffering irregardless of what that is or how it is made manifest in their life.

The point of "collecting tears" is that if the victim has a melt down over the loss of their worthless pixels they have just proven that they are way too invested emotionally in the game, and most well balanced individuals find that more than a little bit amusing.

This applies to the people laughing at the person who tosses the Monopoly Board in a tantrum, or the German kid freaking out over getting killed in WOW (you know you laughed).

At that point amusement over how carried away the "victim" is over their imagined "loss" far outweighs other considerations.

It "is" amusing, because the emotional outburst is absurd in every sense of the word.

In other news, every attempt by legal means to obtain compensation for destroyed or stolen virtual goods in a game has failed, contrary to urban myth.

These things aren't real, and one of the main objectives of the game is to keep other people from destroying the virtual things you take the time to create.

While it is perfectly acceptable to have a gut reaction when you are bested in a game, it is completely inappropriate to have a tantrum or accuse the other player of being mentally or morally deficient when they have beaten you squarely within the rules of the game you are playing.

Your parents called it poor sportsmanship, your peers now call it emo rage, and it has not gotten any more appropriate (or less amusing to others) with age.

Actually its refering to ownership and tangible rights and yes there have been cases and there are games being created where the buying and selling for real currency is a legal entity already. In fact I read it years ago when it first became a sensation. Over the years its gone more and more towards this whether youd like to admit it or not.

Ive spoken to many people in game regarding this over a long period of time. I understand the mental mechanic quite well. No matter how you slice it its people taking enjoyment at taking away something from another person irregardless of the mechanic and trying TO induce the tantrum because it pleases them on a psychological basis. Not everyone does this and for some its a side benefit. But the psychology of it remains the same. Its the same reason why you link and watch and think its amusing for the German kid in WoW to lose his stuff. Its taking joy at anothers loss.

I've always found the "It's just pixels!!!!11oneone" crowd to be quite funny.

Because it's a convenient excuse to continue a behavior that isn't agreeable to everyone.

How many of the pixel pixies would hold true to their own proclamations of value if someone took a metal rake and wrecked the paint on their car, leaving some choice dents?

So it's not pixels, so it's an issue? Really?

How? The damage to the paint and the dents in the metal do not affect the ability of the car to be driven, nor do they affect your ability to get to work, and you even get an insurance payout if you have that level of insurance.

What about your digital music collection? It's just 1's and 0's. It's not real. It is completely useless without a software program to read the information properly. How many would just laugh it off and say "ah well, it's just pixels"?

How about your house? If someone comes through at night and covers it with graffiti, it doesn't affect you at all in regards to the purpose of a house. Keeps you warm, provides security for belongings, etc.
In fact, the paint itself is very much like your precious pixels. It's just particles of paint. Why does this not fall under the same rules?

What about your hair? You wake up one morning and it's all been trimmed off. Quickly, raggedly.
You experienced no pain, so why is it such a big deal? Bonus, it'll grow back in a couple months even. Yet people would go apeshit if it happened. Screaming and yelling would commence about "spaceships is a game! this is real life!!!"

So?

Why does the line of what is allowed to result in feeling emotions in general drawn at where *you* think it should be? Who defines those lines and draws them up, coincidently right where they fit in with *your* agenda?

Why is it that feelings of loss, sadness, anger and frustration are constantly pointed out as signs of someone "taking things to seriously" or that they are "sociopaths", but feelings of happiness, elation, giddyness, power and control are somehow totally different and have no connection what-so-ever to "taking things to seriously"?

I've always found the "It's just pixels!!!!11oneone" crowd to be quite funny.

Because it's a convenient excuse to continue a behavior that isn't agreeable to everyone.

How many of the pixel pixies would hold true to their own proclamations of value if someone took a metal rake and wrecked the paint on their car, leaving some choice dents?

The difference is all of the things you describe are real, and are my property.

The virtual items in EVE are not yours, you do not at any time own them, they are not your property.

You'll find that information cleverly hidden in the publicly available EULA, the one we all agreed to when we chose to play this GAME.

Idea of ownership .. how cute.

I take it you disagree. Excellent, give me your computer.

bunch of drivel

The second you make a RL comparison, the game is over. And the longer you go on with the argument, you end up grasping at nothing.

The difference is all of the things you describe are real, and are my property.

The virtual items in EVE are not yours, you do not at any time own them, they are not your property.

You'll find that information cleverly hidden in the publicly available EULA, the one we all agreed to when we chose to play this GAME.

Why?

Because your real life posessions have value? To whom?



Ah the last resort of the desperate. Hide behind the EULA to justify your actions.

You seem to be pretty touchy about *your* property.

It's almost as if you imply that you accept that those things are yours. Are they? Maybe in your case specifically they are, but how many of the suicide ganker types who "farm tears" are making payments for their car or other possessions via credit card or loan? Look at the contract terms (same as an EULA, but real). Those items are not yours if they are financed by someone else, and there is a whole industry in repossession that will prove that to you if you decide to stop paying.

The core of it has already been hit on once. Time and effort are a big part of all this stuff which the EULA supposedly claims we do not own.
Logging in daily or weekly, depending on your skill in training is a part of real life. You pay for electricity, you pay to keep your computer up to date, and you pay for the service provided by CCP known as Eve. You spend two months training skills and running missions or whatever in order to obtain use of a specific set of code lines in the program labeled "hulk". You've paid $20 or so in sub fees and put effort (casual or not) into obtaining access to that program code.
And when someone comes through who has trained for a few weeks at best, paid no money, and put in a significant less amount of time and blocks your access to that code, you expect the entire human race to react in a manner that *you* deem appropriate.

Apparently you, the perfect human being, are the ultimate judge on what constitutes value to other human beings, and therefore are the final word on data/information/bits/pixels.

Praises to thee, o god, for blessing us with your perfect wisdom.

sure thing... if you dont mind waiting few bilions years.

Apparently I only have to wait until next year for all things to devolve into entropy. I'll collect the computer then.

These repetitive threads about 'carebears', 'griefbears', 'suicide ganking' and 'collecting tears' are getting really ******* boring.

I am convinced it is impossible for me to be wrong about anything that might cause me to have to change the way I play a game in order to accommodate for the difference between myself and other human beings.

If you don't see things my way, you are obviously wrong

I shoot people in a game because I'm a murderer in real life


There, I said it.

I am not smart enough to formulate a rational argument, and will therefore forge a statement by my debate opponent in the form of an ad hominem attack as a last resort to save face.

That is unfortunate.

Didn't you say you blocked my posts? Why the sudden change of heart?

Sounds to me like the OP is arguing against basic human nature.

And again over-buffed destroyers gonna be actually the most used spaceships for suicide-ganking i guess. Unless Freighter ofc.

(from:Thread

According to that particular comment, you believe that people who play the game are justified in their actions and attitudes because it's "human nature".

So boasting, arrogance, deceit, ganking and other similar things are sanctioned "human nature" and therefore acceptable, however self preservation, whether in RL or unintentionally in a fictional game, is not "human nature"?

Why are you so scared to consider that maybe you are wrong?

Humans, except Ranger 1, are not perfect. There are no absolutes. Your supposition that carebears take things to seriously is an arrogant assumption that all humans should conform to the psychological makeup and patterns produced by your brain, and that humans in general can be categorized by absolutes.

Destroyers will be useful for something at least, and dirt cheap compared to the T3's.

A lot of people make the Tornado out to be the second or third ship that a newbie hops into. I think the new BC's will be used for ganking in a lot of situations, but for the most part only by well financed groups who can afford to build and throw them away.

Depending on how far the hybrid change goes, the Catalyst could be the ship of choice for people that aren't skilled for a T3 yet.

and yeah, I fell into the off topic trap, but it's a subject that I've found fascinating since the first time I read a thread on it a while back.

Hey, don't get me wrong - I'm a big fan of the Dessie buff too....

The main problem with Dessie ganking is that it requires a group for the high-EHP targets. (and bigger ships hold up against gate guns longer....)

1 Tempest (or Tornado) = 1 or 2 dead Hulks - 90% of the time, no fuss, no wait, no coordination required.

Don't get me wrong, great things can be done in groups - but arranging a group is non-trivial thing, especially when you are in an out-of-the-way timezone like I am. And lets face it - sometimes I just want to log it, go out there, stick a locator agent on a miner I've killed before, track them down, and instapop them without having to fleet up.

If ganking required a group to succeed, far fewer people would participate - and that would be terrible for the game.

Solo PVP will not be truly dead - as long as we can repeatedly crush Hulks with a single T1 hull. MMMM Solo PVP.

The main problem with dessie ganking stems from a flaw in the 'sec status penalty' system.
(And YES - obviously none of this applies if you are using -10 alts....)

However, if 5 pilots gank a target, ALL five get a steep 'ship kill' penalty.

CCP should change this - so only the pilot that got the KM gets the the 'large ship kill' penalty. The other gankers are only guilty of 'aggression', and should only be penalized as such. (This would encourage non-outlaw Gankers to operate in dessie groups as well as the -10 outlaws.)

If the gang prefers to preserve its sec-status, it is FAR more efficient for ganking to be a solo or tandem activity, as the cumulative sec-penalties are far less per kill, if a bit more expensive in terms of ISK.

The other thing I would change is eliminate the silly '15 minute' timer system for gaining sec status. Each aggressive act gets a penalty, so it should work the same way while 'repairing' your sec status. Each NPC gives a sec-status bonus, just as each one gives a bounty.

So you're saying that someone who is deathly terrified of losing some imaginary spacepixel items in a videogame, would have the fortitude to put his real life well-being at risk in a violent act against the person who caused him the loss of said imaginary spacepixels? Does that not in the least bit seem absurd to you?

Because there is no need for it GÇö you already have 36k+ m-¦ cargo hold, 50k m-¦ ore hold, 40k m-¦ corp hangar, and a 400k m-¦ ship hangar. That's plenty.
...

A tanked Orca can have almost 300k EHP and carry nearly 530k m-¦ of stuff.
A cargo-expanded Orca will easily drop down to 80k EHP and will carry maybe 570k m-¦ of stuff.
That minuscule increase in carrying capacity is not worth the massive reduction in EHP.

You're welcome.

I suppose I really should point out that you (and every other player of the game) also agreed that everything you "accrue" while playing EVE has no value what so ever, but if you wish to exalt me as your personal god of common sense and maturity who am I to dissuade you.

Though this definitely works, they will never do so; tanking barges means they will make less ISK/hour.

Carebear greed is the one constant that can always be counted on.

That's questionable. Some quick EFT testing shows you can get about 22k EHP on a hulk with a damage control, invulnerability field x2 and shield rigs. Compared to 11k EHP with just an invulnerability field and more +mining yield mods.
So the tanked hulk will survive one volley from the Tornado fit in the OP, but will still die if
-it gets to fire two volleys
-if there's two Tornados

Personally I think Hulks should have a stronger maximum tank, at the cost of more mining yield. Though I suppose you could argue just flying a cheap Covetor is the best gank defence of all.

not really. have you heard about "sexual harrasment"? In many cases it doesn't make any physical harm. However it exist. And you can catch or get caught because of it.

The same is with "imaginary subpixels". You only need good lawer to make real revenge.....

That's questionable. Some quick EFT testing shows you can get about 22k EHP on a hulk with a damage control, invulnerability field x2 and shield rigs. Compared to 11k EHP with just an invulnerability field and more +mining yield mods.
So the tanked hulk will survive one volley from the Tornado fit in the OP, but will still die if
-it gets to fire two volleys
-if there's two Tornados

Personally I think Hulks should have a stronger maximum tank, at the cost of more mining yield. Though I suppose you could argue just flying a cheap Covetor is the best gank defence of all.

While I don't disagree that barges should have higher tank ceilings (at the expense of mining capacity, of course) ...

you (and other wannabees) are ignoring one thing: mining barge is SPECIALIZED ship. Just in case you don't know what it means: take a look to SB, new T3 BCs, new supercarriers.

In short words: by increasing tank and decreasing cargohold you are killing role of mining barge at all. it mines ore, and ore takes space. Using jettison cans is bad idea because of can flippers. Using Orcas need fleet ops. It's ok but suicide gankers don't need fleet ops. They can work solo while miners don't. And this is not a good balance.

Fitting tank to hulk It's like fitting tank to SBs. Or fitting tank to new T3 BCs. Yes, you can do it but you will not wait good return from such fitting.

And here we have problem: ship specialized to do long-term static tasks has no protection at all from alpha blow. Fitting tank to this ship moves it outside its purposed role.

you (and other wannabees) are ignoring one thing: mining barge is SPECIALIZED ship. Just in case you don't know what it means: take a look to SB, new T3 BCs, new supercarriers.

In short words: by increasing tank and decreasing cargohold you are killing role of mining barge at all. it mines ore, and ore takes space. Using jettison cans is bad idea because of can flippers. Using Orcas need fleet ops. It's ok but suicide gankers don't need fleet ops. They can work solo while miners don't. And this is not a good balance.

Fitting tank to hulk It's like fitting tank to SBs. Or fitting tank to new T3 BCs. Yes, you can do it but you will not wait good return from such fitting.

And here we have problem: ship specialized to do long-term static tasks has no protection at all from alpha blow. Fitting tank to this ship moves it outside its purposed role.

I was going to address that issue in my reply, but seeing as how you lost all of your credibility in the first few words of your first sentence, I'm not going to bother. Why waste my time anyway? Talking to someone as ignorant as you means words will go into one ear, and out the other.

Edit: directed at post #168

Because there is no need for it GÇö you already have 36k+ m-¦ cargo hold, 50k m-¦ ore hold, 40k m-¦ corp hangar, and a 400k m-¦ ship hangar. That's plenty. Screw around with cargo containers, and you can boost that a fair bit. Moreover, of all those cargo holds, the only one that drops stuff if you get blown up is the normal cargo hold, which means that the more you stuff into it, the more valuable you become as a target GÇö it should be the last place you put things. Expanding on that hold to put even more stuff into it only does one thing: it makes you an even more valuable target.


GǪok, that's not true. It actually does two things: it also weakens your armour and/or hull and/or competes with shield rigs, and thus absolutely guts your EHP. So not only does it increase your loot-worthiness (ehmGǪ yes), it also makes you much easier to kill, which drastically increases your value as a target. You've turned from being beefy as hell and with no valuable drops into weak as hell with tons of goodies spilling out.

A tanked Orca can have almost 300k EHP and carry nearly 530k m-¦ of stuff.
A cargo-expanded Orca will easily drop down to 80k EHP and will carry maybe 570k m-¦ of stuff.
That minuscule increase in carrying capacity is not worth the massive reduction in EHP.

sure thing... if you dont mind waiting few bilions years.

"We want to gave MOAR PVP! LET US ATTACK DEFENSELESS PEOPLE WITH NO REPERCUSSIONS! :D Screw fighting people in low & null in fights that aren't totally one-sided! Don't make me work!"

lol

You guys are a joke

Umm...

I've had an orca in and out of wormhole space since w-space came out and have never come close to losing it.

Basically, cargo expander will not get our orca killed. Mistakes will.

This is not to say that buffering isn't a bad idea, but a blanket statement of "Don't fit Cargo Expanders" is pretty dumb. There are numerous times where I just need more space and carry both Cargo and Buffer lows for this purpose to alternate when appropriate.

Now the one thing I never do however, is rig my orca. Because I tend to repackage it and move it around with a freighter quite a bit.

People engaging in one sided fights are a joke or people who are so silly they provide one sided fights are a joke?

Well what you missed is the simple trade-off ... its just mathematically not worth it.. .

Losing nearly 3/4 of tank to gain 1/20 of cargo

While I don't disagree that barges should have higher tank ceilings (at the expense of mining capacity, of course), I'd like to remind you that the prices of ships and modules are set by the players. The Hulk, in itself, shouldn't be boosted because it costs 200 million ISK. Just because an item is expensive, doesn't mean that it should be boosted.

A Machariel costs about four times as much as a Hulk. Would I be justified in requesting that the Machariel's damage output be boosted to such a point that it can destroy four Hulks at the same time? Using that same logic, and knowing that a Hulk costs about four times as much as a Tornado, I can ask: is it justifiable in requesting that the Hulk be boosted to such a point that it can tank four Tornadoes at the same time?

New gank ship + Anom buff = Rivers of hisec tears

So using your lows for cargo sacks your tank, but increases cargo by 33%, not the tiny fraction Tippia suggests.
Factor in Rigs and you double your cargo capacity, at the expense of using those rig slots for EHP or other purposes.
I'll leave it up to the reader to decide if it is a wise choice.

Well, a couple things:

First, just half-assing it on EFT I can get over 31K on a Hulk, while still sporting 3x T2 Strips.
I'm sure I could get a bit more if I made an effort and used implants.

Second, gankers generally don't shoot Hulks blindly. Mackinaws, probably. Hulks, no. Even badly tanked hulks can easily have around 10K EHP. If your Hulk has been popped, it was likely scanned at some point.

Basic no-tank hulk fit is about 9000-9800 EHP (level V skills).

DC2 w/ shield extender rigs, 2 T2 invulns in the mids and T2 strips gets to about 22k EHP.

DC2, Reinforced Bulkhead, (2) small Azeo shield extenders (2) invuln2 and (2) shield extender rigs = 27.5k

(I am curious about the 31k fit - faction?)

Make the tier 3 bc's only flyable in low and nullsec. No reason for them to be in highsec anyways. Look at stealth bombers, they have bombs illegal in highsec for a reason. If one tornado can destroy 2 hulks before concords shows up, it is too powerfull to be in griefers hands. (Like a .22 cal mini pistol in a 5 year olds hands)

Its a purpose built ship that should only be used by responsible adults in null/low who will actually use it for its intended purpose.

Just like bombs.

That will make everybody happy... well everyone that matters...

I TOTALLY agree. In fact, I think all T3 ships, like caps, should not be allowed into high-sec. That still leaves gankers their hi-sec gank ships, and lets those in low/null have shiny new toys for pew pew there.

I think the Bulkhead is your snag.
I went with DCII, PDS II, 2x Invuln II, 2x Small Extenders, Extender Rigs II
Overheat the Invuls, and there is 30K, 32K with T2 Rigs.
Thats with LVL V skills and no implants.
If I played around a bit more I'm sure I could squeeze out more, that was just a quick and dirty first attempt at tanking a Hulk.
Usually I'm figuring out how to crack them, more than the other thing.

and exhumers should be limited to low/null as well

Oooh, thats lovely.

Well what you missed is the simple trade-off ... its just mathematically not worth it.. .

Losing nearly 3/4 of tank to gain 1/20 of cargo

What does math have anything to do with this?

Sometimes you just need more goddamn space.

Maybe I need to carry more fuel, Maybe I need to carry two more capital ship parts, maybe I just wanna grab that last little bit of ore sitting in my bay.


Sometimes.

You.

Just.

Need.

More.

Space.

If you want to make a cost benefit analysis of my Orca, well take into the fact the TENS of BILLIONS its helped us make in w-space and the fact that it hasnt died. This particular ship has made back more than its worth so many times it'd be impossible to count.

Even if I lost it, and 10 more orcas, I'd still be so far into the black it'd be ridiculous. There's your math.

If you are carrying high-value (ie billions in ISK) cargo, Tippia has it right - keep those EHP counts as high as possible, and keep the really shiny stuff in the corporate hangar.

(Incidentally, they need to fix this too - why the hell are Corporate (and other) hangars unscannable and do not drop loots?)
This needs to be fixed. A cargo scan should show EVERYthing, and all cargobays should have a chance to drop.

AFK Orca Haulers shouldn't have an easy-mode to free ISKies. They need to take a risk like everyone else. Scads of potential EHP is enough. Nerf unrealistic stealth Orca cargobays!!!

It's a long standing issue deep within the codebase - carriers have the same setup with external cargo plus internal corp hangar plus ship bay. (You don't hear complaints about that because carriers aren't allowed in hi-sec.) So until they rewrite the corp UI code sometime in the next few years, I doubt that it will change.

just got back from sams club, bought some pumpkin pie, potatoes (for making ~mashed~ potatoes), some loose leaf earl grey, a nice turkey, and a bunch of other stuff

thanksgivin is going to be awesome

It has the same falloff bonus as a Machariel. Fit 1400s, sensor boosters, gyros and TEs and hit stuff with falloff at 200km with short-range ammo, hell yeah

so.... is it gonna cost a billion isk like the machariel?

No since it can get destroyed by destroyer.
But that point is pretty moot in high sec.

so.... is it gonna cost a billion isk like the machariel?

so.... is it gonna cost a billion isk like the machariel?

But Orcas and Tornados go together like my belt buckle and your forehead.

If these numbers are accurate, then CCP will be nerfing the boat.
I imagine there are large corps/alliances (read as Goons), that would use these boats as game-changing economic modifiers.
When I say game changing, I mean creating a new economic paradigm all-together.
In a matter of weeks, they could alter the vast majority of commerce in the game, simply by establishing suicide gank squads around Jita's entrance/exit gates, and destroying every Orca/freighter that moves through.

Imagine a situation where only Goon-friendly freighters come and go from Jita.
CCP will not allow that situation to occur, since it will devastate the game, and who knows how many subscriptions they would lose.

The Blue Ice embargo may have been a dry run for something far more destructive.

As i said many times

Crucible : the new gank heaven.

simple fix

let concord insta pop any pod considered as an enemy. "outlaw" xD that would be fun.

And once again CCP watches their plans backfire as a ship designed to take on CAPITAL ships will be massively used against: industrials.

This is why we can't have nice things. You whine like spoiled children for new toys, and yet insist that the only fruit you want is the one on the low branch. Go forth into null, and use these ships to carve away slices of the large alliances. Ah, no, that would be work. Ganking miners in high sec is more fun. THEN you complain when there's no one left to gank. Exactly why the hell do you play EVE again?

Everyone knows suicide gankers and gate campers are basement dwelling sociopaths seething with sexual frustration and social rejection.

So just to get this straight, the hulk you plan on ganking is going to drop more than 80 mil in mods?

Wait, is it time to send out my bait Hulks?
I've missed the fail of watching wannabee gankers pop before Concord even shows....

So just to get this straight, the hulk you plan on ganking is going to drop more than 80 mil in mods?

Who said anything about profiting from drops?

I ask again, how is an industrial ship not a valid target if you're looking to hit someone? There are considerations other than ISK. War isn't cheap.

Moved from General Discussion.

How can you get 3+ macks per tornado loss?

Most botted/afk macs don't initiate warp when a tornado arrives in belt. Tornados will probably fire 3 volleys in 0.5 before concord arrives. The volley damage is larger than the typical crap fit mack - which is about 9k ehp. The cyclic dps is normal, but due to the volley its frontloaded, and massive when measured over a small finite number of volleys.

If its botted/afk you can use your scout to check the fit to choose the victims without scaring the horses, so you can choose to pretty much ensure you get 3 kills if there are plenty in an ice belt.

---

Due to the low EHP, a gank tornado is itself very gankable, but its unlikely you'll achieve that at the moment of belt conflict even if you have a brutix or tornado sitting there yourself. All you can really do is randomly patrol and randomly gank tornados, which might make you some very angry new acquaintances.

Such is the security of high security :)

True, but I'm just trying to illustrate that it IS profitable.

No wonder why tornado sells more than the other 3 tier3 bc-s alltogeather :P
CCP should look into arties , those are definately broken.

oh my corp wants me to buy tornado too , im so insulted :(

No wonder why tornado sells more than the other 3 tier3 bc-s alltogeather :P
CCP should look into arties , those are definately broken.

oh my corp wants me to buy tornado too , im so insulted :(

Before that BC was out those who tested it on SISI were already asking for a big nerf bat and that wasn't just for fun, it's because this ship is just another toy to ruin every players game style by just a few disturbed people, and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it, next months will show this.

Now tell us all about how good it is for the game being able to disrupt everything you want wenever you want just because your an RMT leader having all your day free to take care of your dozen (dozens?) alts account paid by bots income.

Once again, thx CCP for giving me for my moneys now since I've traine Minmatar

Also OP thx for the numbers, It's always fun to think about alpha those gankers inty alts. Cheaper expense for greater income Well at least untill concord get such a buff gank will be totaly impossible in high sec

Edit: I'll be probably around salvaging the wrecks or at least those I can, thx for that free income with no effort

it's because this ship is just another toy to ruin every players game style by just a few disturbed people, and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it, next months will show this.

If you get ganked you are doin it wrong, try again.
The tornado is an excellent ganking machine, however all ganks on subcapitals (not counting orca) are very easily avoided if you fly the right ships, and you fly them good, to haul your precious goods.

cov ops cloaky hauler for one is virtually impossible to gank in highsec unless its on undock.