Gist passive resist mods are dirt cheap. Gankers know this.
1 Like
And looking at the losses for procurers the ganks are actually quite rare. And damn few have a tank like the ones I have listed (I have found 2 so far). Point is switch a procurer if you donât want to get ganked. A skiff is even better. It is actually rare that gankers will gank procurers and skiffs just to because of the ISK value.
Edit:
To close the âloop holeâ is well within in the power of each and every player. If you are getting ganked the first place you should look to see where the problem is in the mirror. You either sh*t fit your mining barge, or you were carrying way, way too much cargo value.
Hereâs what I would argue is a better fit:
[Procurer, 100k]
Damage Control II
Mining Laser Upgrade II
Medium Shield Extender II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Thermal Dissipation Field II
Modulated Strip Miner II, Arkonor Mining Crystal I
Modulated Strip Miner II, Arkonor Mining Crystal I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Cap stable. Against kin/therm(standard ganker catalyst damage profile) 100kEHP cold, 120kEHP hot. More if you add implants. Cheap, less than 40M ISK all told.
A gank fleet could exploit the EM resist hole, but then theyâre bringing out autocannon thrashers, which cough up way lower raw DPS, arenât always available for use by gankers (meaning long time spent transporting them toa nearby station for the fleet to use) and many gankers simply donât have the requisite skills to utilise properly, making forming the relevant fleet in the first place difficult.
After all that trouble, if a gank fleet is strong enough to take down one of these, why not just gank an overloaded Orca/freighter instead?
The only reason anyone would even try to kill this ship is if youâre talking smack in local. Donât do that and youâre about as safe as safe gets without docking up.
Edit: One more fun fact for you. Worst case scenario (0.5 sec with prepulled CONCORD), this ship will require ~10 gankers to kill, using T2 gank setups. Thatâs a cost of about 50M ISK (assuming they loot their own wrecks). Yup, this ship is not only an unprofitable kill, it costs more to kill it that it does to replace. Factor in 0.6 and above sec systems and the stats just get better.
Do you have any idea âwhyâ ? I tell you :
Because they get killed eventually. So the matter is not "can I get killed " or âhow much does it costâ, for which you can give numbers but that will only be your own predications, and they can be completely wrong (people can get paid for this, people can do it for the lulz).
The matter is just âhow fast does it pay backâ, ie the isk/h/isk ratio. The guy who fitted his barge for tank lost MORE than the guy who fitted his barge for yield. The additional money gankers had to pay did not go back in his wallet. He is the one who lost the most on that KM.
All those âeasy tank lolâ fit you give are just nonsense. They donât prevent people from ganking you. They yield less. They cost more. In the end they just cost more, cause you get ganked anyhow. Just because YOU have some reasons and some modus operandi, does not mean this is the only way to think of ganking. For some people itâs just a way to spend money another alt has collected doing pve.
1 Like
This is true, and an interesting paradigm.
Imo, a functional one.
If you tank harder, you lose yield/income in the short term, but perhaps gankers choose another target.
If you yield harder, you earn better but may become a gank target sooner, than later.
Summa summarum, either option works, depending on how much attention you are getting from gankers.
Quite seriously, if I was to return to HS mining, based on my experience I would recommend one thing above all.:
Contact and work with miner gankers. Make it clear you are not afk, and offer them carrots to leave you alone and instead aggress your competitors in the ore/ice field. Provide them with data on your competitors, especially potential botters. Maybe even pay a âpermitâ if that is what it boils down to.
Point being make yourself more useful/profitable to them alive, than dead.
1 Like
THAT is not something you can affirm when you are miner.
two reasons :
- first you are not the ganker. So you canât assume you know him. You canât assume he care anyhow about the cost of the gank. Ppeople get ganked on a weekly basis for isk-negative ganks ! Why would the ganker even care about cost effectiveness ?
- second if everybody tank his proc for gank, in the end ganker would gank tanked procs. And guess what ? They already do it.
lol@permit. You know this is complete â â â â â â â â and just a scam ?
thatâs a joke, you realize as of burn jita right now 1 guy with mot of his alts less than 1 week old is popping freighters left and right? currently he is over 80 alts and can 4 freighters every 15 mins. his oldest account found is just over 20 days. so either he isnât using highly skill alts or those high skills donât take long at all. and yes he is popping frighters with tanks and empty.
This does not invalidate what he said.
He said, this needs 6 cats(âŚ), he didnt say all gankers had full skilled chars.
Stop whinning and read at people please, this post of yours is complete nonsense.
1 Like
The thing is, there is not âoneâ team of suicide gankers.
The other thing is, you are not really dead, just reshipped through explosion. So you can keep being useful after that reship.
considering âpermitâ : if you pay for one extorsion, that means you are an idiot and deserve to be extorted more (by another team - or same but with more reasons)
Lets say there are currently x miners running Ice in a belt.
You have a âpermitâ, the others dont.
The gankers will rationally aggress your competition, not you.
Especially Ice gankers, typically have a Citadel in-system.
As a miner you can setup a deal with them to supply exclusively their Citadel, thus earning them tax off you, and supplying their market point.
There are many ways to make yourself more useful/profitable alive than dead.
1 Like
nope.
I tell you this is a scam. They donât do it for money, it costs them nothing to gank you.
AND there is more than ONE ganking organization. Even if your CODE permit meant anyhting to CODE. it would mean nothing to other people. This is just a complete scam.
Its no guarantee, but they will prefer to aggress someone that hasnt paid, or is otherwise of no use to them. Especially if they are unresponsive, meaning they are probably afk and unreactive targets.
It is not allowed to use one omega and one alpha account or more than one alpha on the same PC. Your assumptions are wrong. Please report me so I can get permabanned for my cheating. Also do not make up random rules you are NOT a CCP representative. Link to the official website like I -who is not a CCP representative- do : https://support.eveonline.com/hc/en-us/articles/213020969-Alpha-and-Omega-Clone
This is incorrect.
Its not allowed to use one omega and alpha account, simultaneously, per player.
Whether its on the same PC or not, or by any other means is not relevant.
As a client of CCP, using their service, you are not allowed to run an alpha and omega simultaneously, no matter how you are doing it.
âNot available, if there is a client logged into an Alpha account, no additional EVE clients can be started past the character selection screen, independent of their state.â
If that is not sufficient for you, I might bother to look up the more specific relevant sections in TOS/EULA.
Your notion that a player can run a PC farm so as to sidestep the alpha/omega rules, does not fly.
His claim was that it is allowed.
Where is his link for that?
Are you both trying to claim that its legal for me to have 100 alpha accounts on individual clients, running simultaneously on 100 PCs in my home (or elsewhere), all of which are MY accounts?
If it is not expressly stated as forbidden, it is allowed, thatâs how laws work.
Thatâs ânot the correct answerâ, as you said above.
Are we allowed to run 100 clients, on X PCs, on alpha accounts, all of which are ours, simultaneously?
Yes or no.
That is the correct answer.
YOU claim something is forbidden, YOU have to back that claim. Not me.
I also already answered this question of yours, though I do not have to, by stating he was thinking of children.
If you read the EULA correctly youâll understand what I mean.
Thats not a correct answer to the question.