In high sec, it needs no tank mods at all. In 0.0 it can tank the belts with a token effort.

At the end of the day EVE Online was met to be a group activity not a solo effort.

and join or form a corporation

And what is so unreasonable about the fit I posted?

It mines slightly better while being ungankable to all but the most dedicated.

silence ignorant peasant

+10 to 15 mil on top on the hulk.

Because it won't die?

this is why miners are so hilarious to kill

since you don't understand ship fitting you start fitting inapproporiate deadspace mods

during the first great hulk jihad it was hilarious how many pubbies we convinced to fit a-type shield reps to resist ganks

its funny you call other people sheep while you're complaining your grazing is insufficently safe from predators

highsec miners are, without exception, dimwitted idiots who deserve the destruction meeted out to them

You would need a least 20 of them, most likely more. There is a reason why my hulk is 3 years old.

"i graze on delicious green grass only occasionally now that i realized the predators are out to get me, and instead spend my time hiding, this surely proves i am not callow prey who deserves to be slaughtered and devoured"

Just punching holes in whatever argument you are trying here. Hulks tank fine its players that are the weak link here.

Since it's the player who chooses to make himself easier to kill, and then complain about how easy he is to kill, yes. It is 100% the idiot's fault.

So its not the pilots fault for not tanking their ship?

What on earth are you on about? Why should he be blameless?

He gets the sec status penalty because he chooses to.

The Hulk player is at fault for being easy to kill because he chooses to be easy to kill. What's confusing you about this very simple relationship?

How is it not the player's fault if he chooses not to tank his ship?

I expect you to use the grey matter. If you do not tank your ship and then get blown up by a destroyer it is entirely your fault. The ganker simply took advantage of your stupidity/greed.

nobody expects you to do much of anything with a line of reasoning besides stare blankly at it and wonder if you can eat it

[quote=Adunh Slavy]You said it was the victims fault 100%

Because Covetorgeddon doesn't have the same ring to it, I guess.

What's dramatic about it?

Is it, or is it not, the victim who has chosen to make his ship easy to kill?
If it's not the victim, please explain how someone managed to change his fit into something he didn't want to use, and how that someone managed to force the victim to undock when he didn't want to.

ZOMFGCLOAKYNULLIFIEDDOUBLEINSURANCEPAYOUTCONCORPROOFPREGANKANTIGANKEDOREBOATS?

Yes: that people don't know how to tank their ships, because once you start asking them about what's behind the complaints, that's always what comes out in the end. They want their ships to be more sturdy because they refuse to make them more sturdy themselves. They refuse to accept responsibility for their own decisions.

I don't see why their lack of intelligence, character, and forethought should in any way be rewarded. They can learn by their mistakes like everyone else, and if they don't, it's only right that they suffer the consequences of their poor decisions.

So you're back to that straw man, eh? You're the one banging on about being Gǣgank proofGǥ, not me. I know how to make my hulk gank proof, and it has nothing to do with how I fit it. However, just like with the suggestion to actually fit a tank, people refuse to adopt those kinds of strategies as well becauseGǪ wellGǪ just because, usually.

I accept your surrender.

LOL, the straw is yours and it looks just like you. I have not be "banging on" as you claim about 'gank proof' in your narrow little definition of fitting a tank.

I don't expect any real discussions with you 2.

No ego needed GÇö just noticing that you didn't provide any kind of counter-argument, just like with your new post. So surrender still accepted.

You were the one who brought it up for the sole purpose of taking it down. It's a classic straw man fallacy. Sorry, there's no two ways about it. vOv.

The amount of complaints about its lack of survivability proves how many lazy ass miners there are who expect their hulk to survive whilst they are afk.

You keep saying that a hulk is not worth the isk and that they are easy to gank, then why have I not lost 1 hulk, over 4 accounts in over 2 years of playing Eve and I'm as high sec carebear as one can get.

I keep saying it over and over again, if you fit your hulk with a nice balance between yield and tank, don't go afk, do your intel, talk to your fellow miners in the same system and look out for each other, the chances of you getting gank are very slim.

Nope. No argument. Just some desperate chest-beating and what was probably intended as an ad hominem fallacy.

Yet another straw man. I didn't say you did; I said you brought up the idea of GÇ£gank proofGÇ¥ fits GÇö not me GÇö and you did it solely to point out that they didn't exist, implying that I should stop suggesting them (which I never didGǪ). So your fallacy count is rapidly increasing here.

So, let's just get to the point that you don't want to get to: why on earth should Hulks be buffed?

except that the numbers show that the exhumers are not out of line with what other T2 upgrades provide; that the popularity of the ships show that the capabilities are more than enough for the T2 variant to completely overshadow the T1 version; and that the SP investment to get to exhumers is quite small compared to other hull types.

Sure it should. The fact that a new character in a destroyer can kill this expensive and low-to-mid req (in terms of skills) ship is a sign of good design.

Did that already. Also, go read any of the ship popularity lists in the old QENs, in Diagoras' tweets, in the Economy presentations, and/or in the economy snapshots.

Agreed. The fundamental design principle of EVE GÇö that bigger isn't better and that marginal improvement comes at exponential cost GÇö is what makes it good design.

Why doesn't anybody do anything about it then?

The problem is mentality, not rules.

So mining drops your security status by the mineral intake or what?

My friend, you are starting to lose your credibility.

The numbers of Hulk flown vs other ships is easily verifiable at the sources listed.
The game design principles that CCP sticks with are the same as they have always been.

Respectfully, it's time to step back.

What's equivocal about CCP's numbers on which ships are used the most (among them the Hulk) and which are used the least (among them the Covetor, to the point where they're adjusting its price/performance ratio)?

What argument was being ignored? The fact is that bigger-isn't-better and marginal-improvement-for-huge-cost are fundamental design principles of EVE, and that a ship that adheres to these principles is thus well designed. It's not my opinion GÇö it's how they've chosen to approach balance.

She or he is in disbelieve over almost everything. I will certainly not dig through tons of devblogs, patch notes and other stuff just to make them believe.

Incorrect, of course, but keep piling up those fallacies GÇö they will really help your (complete lack of) argument.

You mean like how you ignored my question about what argument you were referring to?

So you can't actually refer to any specific argument, I take it?

So you can't actually refer to any specific argument, I take it?

So you can't actually refer to any specific argument, I take it?

and yet you find it completely impossible to link, copy-paste, refer to, or otherwise provide any specific argument. Why is that?

It should be soooooo easy for you, since, obviously, you know where it is and since it's apparently readily available to us all. And yet you can't. Very strange.

you can't actually refer to any specific argument, I take it?

How many players fly a certain ship or a ship class is important for the balance.

Why are we even discussing this? This should be basic stuff for you.

So you still can't actually refer to any specific argument, I take it?

Congratulations on missing the point completely. You are wrong, as always. The argument is that you cannot balance a ship with price because it doesn't actually stop anyone from getting the ship GÇö see above. Price is not a factor in balance because it doesn't actually balance out anything. No matter how high you price something to GÇ£balanceGÇ¥ its superior stats, people will obtain the resources required and start using it, and now you have something that is inherently unbalanced wreaking havoc in the game.

GǪand you're still unable to point out what's being missed.

You have been asked to prove your nonsense. You have been unable to do so. So proof or shush, puppet.

Prove it.

Prove it.

Prove it.

SoGǪ that argument you should be able to refer to, where is it? Why can't you actually provide it and prove something for a change?

So what argument am I ignoring?

I'm trying to, but he can't provide the on-topic argument he supposedly made, which makes it very hard to respond to itGǪ vOv

No, it does not mean that I agree with you. It means that I will not read any more of your ugly comments.

You've never been able to prove that I have ignored any arguments or equivocated over anything, you knowGǪ Maybe it's about time you do so or stop lying to everyone GÇö it's not a very nice thing to do, you know.

Like I said. Lots of posts, zero proof of anything except your complete lack of proof.

Proving me more and more right, and yourself more and more wrong, every time you post. One would think you'd be a bit disturbed by this development.

Ah yes, the old ROFL evidenciary presentation.

Big on content, that.

Of course not, largely because you have no evidence as you have long since proven.

Drama Queen

Prove it.

look at you, such a tryhard

As always, of course, you will not be able to provide any proof, but that's ok, I'll waitGǪ

More ego puffing

Ego whines

I can ignore anything I don't like, and if you prove it, I will still ignore it and then ask for proof.

It was not built for ship to ship combat, that makes it a civilian industrial ship.

Just as well I wasnt using any real world anaolgies then. If you want a simply massive tank go buy a battleship or better yet get your hands on one of the rare carriers/dreads in highsec and go mine with them.

If it does industrial work and doesn't have a military combat use then its a civilian industrial ship. Its not hard...

Im saying this is a game and in this game the ship is fully able to do its job and that the only problem is the people who fly the ship.

Who else is to blaim for their ship not being able to tank a destroyer?

So you choose - you compromise mining in favour of tank, switch to a more combat capable hull,get a buddy to fly escort for you or die in a fire because you are trying to mine in a purposefully built mining vessel without defences in low-sec.

Well, isn't it what also constantly happen when women get violated IRL? It's not like mindsets change so much.

There is nobody else to blame.

and this stops you from tanking it how?

so a destroyer now has the firepower of 4 to 5 arty tornadoes? Are you really this stupid?

I have answered your question 3 times now on this page. It is only right that I call you out on being stupid for saying stupid things.

Are you here to have a sensible discussion?

It is as Baltec said. If you choose to fly a ship into a combat zone without a basic tank, without an escort or choose to pick a ship for a combat environment that is not designed for it nobody can help you. It is your own stupidity that sees you tied to that stake.

We seem to be moving in circles. You can choose:

For one, I am not a ganker. You are welcome to look for any killmails related to me. (This is my main character) Hint - you won't find any. I am primarily an Industrialist, operating around low sec areas with a love of hauling cargo (Crane based), the odd mining trip and the odd bit of exploration for fun and seeing the universe. So, no, not a part of the gankbear community.

However, I can see that you are looking for a ship that can fill all roles or will be overpowered for what it is doing. You're essentially saying "I want full safety from gankers without having to sacrifice mining yield".

However, I can see that you are looking for a ship that can fill all roles or will be overpowered for what it is doing. You're essentially saying "I want full safety from gankers without having to sacrifice mining yield".

Or you can keep on deflecting and jumping around the fringes.