Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
194
|
Posted - 2014.01.05 13:30:00 -
[271] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:You can say what you want about us being blobbers, but Grath's repeated insistence about needing capitals to kill capitals ultimately comes down to one thing: he wants to turn EVE into "whoever has the most titans wins".
That's a more interesting outcome than "whoever has the most rifters wins." |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8115
|
Posted - 2014.01.05 13:44:00 -
[272] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:You can say what you want about us being blobbers, but Grath's repeated insistence about needing capitals to kill capitals ultimately comes down to one thing: he wants to turn EVE into "whoever has the most titans wins". That's a more interesting outcome than "whoever has the most rifters wins." You and some other pubbie I don't remember fabricated this Rifter scenario earlier in this thread. I realize you're trolling but it's a pretty pathetic attempt at that. My EVE Videos |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
194
|
Posted - 2014.01.05 13:48:00 -
[273] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Pinky Hops wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:You can say what you want about us being blobbers, but Grath's repeated insistence about needing capitals to kill capitals ultimately comes down to one thing: he wants to turn EVE into "whoever has the most titans wins". That's a more interesting outcome than "whoever has the most rifters wins." You and some other pubbie I don't remember fabricated this Rifter scenario earlier in this thread. I realize you're trolling but it's a pretty pathetic attempt at that.
That's what you want, no?
The most ships wins. So might as well make that ship a rifter.
Skillpoints should be meaningless. The amount of time it takes to get into a ship should be meaningless. The cost of a ship should be meaningless.
Every aspect of ship design should be meaningless, and the only thing that matters is who has more people.
This seems to be what you are arguing for. |
PinkPanter
The Scope Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2014.01.05 13:51:00 -
[274] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Pinky Hops wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:You can say what you want about us being blobbers, but Grath's repeated insistence about needing capitals to kill capitals ultimately comes down to one thing: he wants to turn EVE into "whoever has the most titans wins". That's a more interesting outcome than "whoever has the most rifters wins." You and some other pubbie I don't remember fabricated this Rifter scenario earlier in this thread. I realize you're trolling but it's a pretty pathetic attempt at that. That's what you want, no? The most ships wins. So might as well make that ship a rifter. Skillpoints should be meaningless. The amount of time it takes to get into a ship should be meaningless. The cost of a ship should be meaningless. Every aspect of ship design should be meaningless, and the only thing that matters is who has more people. This seems to be what you are arguing for.
He's not arguing for it. This was the goon super secret tactic to win eve and now they are crying cause it's failing bad.
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8115
|
Posted - 2014.01.05 13:54:00 -
[275] - Quote
If you're going to sockpuppet you should at least try not to be obvious about it. My EVE Videos |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
194
|
Posted - 2014.01.05 13:56:00 -
[276] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:If you're going to sockpuppet you should at least try not to be obvious about it.
You already stated that the amount of skillpoints required to be in a ship should have little bearing.
You stated the ISK cost of a ship should have little bearing.
Where does this end?
It ends with rifters being better or as good as any other ship.
Maybe we should all start out being able to fly Titans, and slowly skill backwards until we are able to sit in a Rifter, the king of all ships.
Because after all... Despite the fact that carriers require much more skillpoints to fly effectively than subcapitals, and much more ISK investment, and more care with logistics...
Despite all this, carriers should actually be weaker than subcaps. Right? |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8115
|
Posted - 2014.01.05 14:04:00 -
[277] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:You already stated that the amount of skillpoints required to be in a ship should have little bearing.
You stated the ISK cost of a ship should have little bearing. Never said either of these.
Pinky Hops wrote:Because after all... Despite the fact that carriers require much more skillpoints to fly effectively than subcapitals, and much more ISK investment, and more care with logistics...
Despite all this, carriers should actually be weaker than subcaps. Right? I never said carriers should be weaker than subcaps. Is an Abaddon weaker than a Rifter? Surely not. But 10 Abaddons alone against 20 Rifters could potentially find themselves in pretty serious trouble. My EVE Videos |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
194
|
Posted - 2014.01.05 14:10:00 -
[278] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Pinky Hops wrote:You already stated that the amount of skillpoints required to be in a ship should have little bearing.
You stated the ISK cost of a ship should have little bearing. Never said either of these.
Taken from:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=305006&p=19
James Amril-Kesh wrote:I too used to think cost was a balancing factor.
CBA to dig through more of your noxious posts, but you said something similar about training time.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news but cost is a balancing factor, and CCP has stated this over and over throughout the years. Training time is, too. |
PinkPanter
The Scope Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2014.01.05 14:30:00 -
[279] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Pinky Hops wrote:You already stated that the amount of skillpoints required to be in a ship should have little bearing.
You stated the ISK cost of a ship should have little bearing. Never said either of these. Taken from: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=305006&p=19James Amril-Kesh wrote:I too used to think cost was a balancing factor. CBA to dig through more of your noxious posts, but you said something similar about training time. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but cost is a balancing factor, and CCP has stated this over and over throughout the years. Training time is, too.
While cost as a balancing factor makes sense in a individual basis when you put it next to a big eve corporation with years on passive income or other stuff then it becomes insignificant. Bad investments and can't field what I need now yes but not a balancing issues per se. They have all the ISK they need. They just lack ballz and a good tactician. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
9957
|
Posted - 2014.01.05 14:31:00 -
[280] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:I hate to be the bearer of bad news but cost is a balancing factor, and CCP has stated this over and over throughout the years. Training time is, too.
performance and cost do not have a linear relationship, so it's really not Twitter: @EVEAndski
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest.-á |
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
9957
|
Posted - 2014.01.05 14:32:00 -
[281] - Quote
unless a drake with officer BCUs is supposed to oneshot carriers? Twitter: @EVEAndski
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest.-á |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
194
|
Posted - 2014.01.05 14:34:00 -
[282] - Quote
Andski wrote:Pinky Hops wrote:I hate to be the bearer of bad news but cost is a balancing factor, and CCP has stated this over and over throughout the years. Training time is, too. performance and cost do not have a linear relationship, so it's really not
Nobody ever said it was a linear relationship.
But it's still a positive trend, especially when just going through the tiers of ships.
If you don't think cost is a factor in balance, you are beyond delusional. Wrong game for you, probably.
It's not like people are using officer modules in these nullsec PvP blob-fights, so the low-return tail where you hit the severe diminishing returns of spending too much on a ship is decidedly avoided for both sides.
Maybe you have never been in a fleet fight before, but standard fleet fits involve T2 modules quite often, because they are very cost effective. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
9957
|
Posted - 2014.01.05 14:37:00 -
[283] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:Andski wrote:Pinky Hops wrote:I hate to be the bearer of bad news but cost is a balancing factor, and CCP has stated this over and over throughout the years. Training time is, too. performance and cost do not have a linear relationship, so it's really not Nobody ever said it was a linear relationship. But it's still a positive trend, especially when just going through the tiers of ships. If you don't think cost is a factor in balance, you are beyond delusional. Wrong game for you, probably.
gains in performance across tiers are marginal and the increase in cost is by an order of magnitude, and while some attributes increase across tiers others decrease (such as mobility)
CCP have repeatedly dropped the hammer in instances where the game was just becoming a game of bringing the most of the biggest thing available: see the removal of AoE DDs, rebalancing of supercarriers and titans and the titan tracking nerf
drone assist isn't a function limited to carriers or expensive ships in any way Twitter: @EVEAndski
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest.-á |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
194
|
Posted - 2014.01.05 14:38:00 -
[284] - Quote
Andski wrote:Pinky Hops wrote:Andski wrote:Pinky Hops wrote:I hate to be the bearer of bad news but cost is a balancing factor, and CCP has stated this over and over throughout the years. Training time is, too. performance and cost do not have a linear relationship, so it's really not Nobody ever said it was a linear relationship. But it's still a positive trend, especially when just going through the tiers of ships. If you don't think cost is a factor in balance, you are beyond delusional. Wrong game for you, probably. gains in performance across tiers are marginal and the increase in cost is by an order of magnitude and drone assist isn't a function limited to carriers or expensive ships in any way
So are you saying higher tiered ships are worse, and less powerful, than lower tiers?
A frigate is more powerful than a supercarrier?
A t1 module is more powerful than an officer module?
I'm having difficulty seeing your point.
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
"Cost is a factor of balance." |
Inquisitor Kitchner
Galaxy Punks Executive Outcomes
1025
|
Posted - 2014.01.05 14:39:00 -
[285] - Quote
You're being an idiot.
No-one said that 600 Rifters should beat 300 Megathrons.
Imagine that it was 600 Rifters vs 300 Megathrons though, and the Megas aren't fitted specifically to deal with frigates, how many Megathrons do you think will die? Because I think it's a fair amount, because 300 Megathrons on their own without logistics or support ships can do basically nothing to 600 frigates. Even if the 300 Megathrons was acutally a 300 man "megathron fleet" (i.e. it had logistics and things) I'm pretty sure a good number of ships would die.
This doesn't happen in the current scenario with carriers though, when we haven't dropped capitals the slowcat fleet takes little to no damage.
Note how I didn't say I think the rifters would or should win, just that actual damage is inflicted to the enemy fleet.
All of that is irrelevant though, as you managed to ignore the prevailing point of my post:
Imagine an EVE where the "top" class ship in the game was a Battleship, not a capital ship. The CFC has already proven it can field more BS then any other entity in EVE, so if capital ships didn't exist, do you think it would be OK for the CFC to be unbeatable no matter what?
Because this is essentially what you and people like you argue in favour of, you just move the goalpost. Whoever owns the more titans wins is "interesting" but whoever owns the most battleships is "boring". Whoever can field the biggest supercapital blob is "elite PvP" but whoever fields the most battleships is "blobbing".
What if in time the CFC is the one fielding the biggest supercapital fleet in the game, do you think it's right we can engage anyone with almost 0 losses in every fight? I suspect not.
"Cost" should not be a balancing factor, using the right ship with the right fitting should be the main aim of the game. Sure some ships are bigger/more powerful, but a fleet of battleships with no logistics or support WILL be killed by a fleet of frigates, whereas it's clearly not the case for the slowcats or supers, not least because they can perform all these functions in one go. "If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared." - Niccolo Machiavelli |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
9957
|
Posted - 2014.01.05 14:40:00 -
[286] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:So are you saying higher tiered ships are worse, and less powerful, than lower tiers?
A frigate is more powerful than a supercarrier?
A t1 module is more powerful than an officer module?
I'm having difficulty seeing your point.
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
"Cost is a factor of balance."
that isn't anything close to what I said and you look like an imbecile by putting words in other people's mouths Twitter: @EVEAndski
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest.-á |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
197
|
Posted - 2014.01.05 14:47:00 -
[287] - Quote
Inquisitor Kitchner wrote:Imagine an EVE where the "top" class ship in the game was a Battleship, not a capital ship. The CFC has already proven it can field more BS then any other entity in EVE, so if capital ships didn't exist, do you think it would be OK for the CFC to be unbeatable no matter what?
Because this is essentially what you and people like you argue in favour of, you just move the goalpost. Whoever owns the more titans wins is "interesting" but whoever owns the most battleships is "boring". Whoever can field the biggest supercapital blob is "elite PvP" but whoever fields the most battleships is "blobbing".
What if in time the CFC is the one fielding the biggest supercapital fleet in the game, do you think it's right we can engage anyone with almost 0 losses in every fight? I suspect not.
Fallacious argument.
There is a large difference in cost between battleships and carriers/supercarriers/titans.
If battleships were unbeatable, that would obviously be a problem because battleships are cheap and easily replaceable.
A titan/supercap is NOT easily replacable.
The situation is that one side, over the course of years, has accumulated a large supercap fleet. The other side either has not accumulated one, or is unwilling to commit them.
If both sides were willing to commit, and both sides suffered hefty losses, it wouldn't be sustainable to keep massing new fleets. One side would run out steam when trying to replenish such expensive ships.
It surprised literally nobody when CFC lost the fight where N3 comitted 60 Titans and CFC didn't even have the balls to field a single supercap.
This isn't a matter of "whoever has the most supercaps wins" we're talking about a situation where one side is willing to stick trillions of ISK on the battlefield, and the other is not.
Sure, an individual titan here and there gets replaced. Sure, occasionally one side loses a few supers. Sometimes even 20 or so. But there are never enough conflicts to reduce the numbers. Because one side is fielding them, and the other isn't. |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
197
|
Posted - 2014.01.05 14:48:00 -
[288] - Quote
Inquisitor Kitchner wrote:"Cost" should not be a balancing factor
Lol. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
9957
|
Posted - 2014.01.05 14:49:00 -
[289] - Quote
it's a good thing titans and supercarriers don't use regular drones so they're totally irrelevant in a discussion about drone assist Twitter: @EVEAndski
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest.-á |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
197
|
Posted - 2014.01.05 14:51:00 -
[290] - Quote
Andski wrote:it's a good thing titans and supercarriers don't use regular drones so they're totally irrelevant in a discussion about drone assist
So I just heard somebody post that because cost and performance are not a linear positive relationship, that cost is not a factor of balance.
Fascinating. |
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
9957
|
Posted - 2014.01.05 14:52:00 -
[291] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:Andski wrote:it's a good thing titans and supercarriers don't use regular drones so they're totally irrelevant in a discussion about drone assist So I just heard somebody post that because cost and performance are not a linear positive relationship, that cost is not a factor of balance. Fascinating.
you realize that cost is an afterthought, right Twitter: @EVEAndski
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest.-á |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
199
|
Posted - 2014.01.05 14:56:00 -
[292] - Quote
Andski wrote:Pinky Hops wrote:Andski wrote:it's a good thing titans and supercarriers don't use regular drones so they're totally irrelevant in a discussion about drone assist So I just heard somebody post that because cost and performance are not a linear positive relationship, that cost is not a factor of balance. Fascinating. you realize that cost is an afterthought, right
Yeah, it's not like EVE is a giant economically driven sandbox or anything like that.
It's not like taking into account cost effectiveness plays a central role in planning a fleet.
Cost is totally an afterthought. It's not like it's a central concept to the entire EVE universe and has a massive effect on usage and balance.
No, not at all. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
9958
|
Posted - 2014.01.05 14:59:00 -
[293] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:Yeah, it's not like EVE is a giant economically driven sandbox or anything like that.
It's not like taking into account cost effectiveness plays a central role in planning a fleet.
Cost is totally an afterthought. It's not like it's a central concept to the entire EVE universe and has a massive effect on usage and balance.
No, not at all.
the market value of things is determined entirely by the player market, a consequence of the game being an economically driven sandbox, as you say
the only controls CCP have over the cost of any particular item are rarity (in the case of raw materials, officer loot, etc) and mineral cost (in the case of anything that is built with blueprints)
so yes cost is an afterthought Twitter: @EVEAndski
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest.-á |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
199
|
Posted - 2014.01.05 15:01:00 -
[294] - Quote
Andski wrote:Pinky Hops wrote:Yeah, it's not like EVE is a giant economically driven sandbox or anything like that.
It's not like taking into account cost effectiveness plays a central role in planning a fleet.
Cost is totally an afterthought. It's not like it's a central concept to the entire EVE universe and has a massive effect on usage and balance.
No, not at all. the market value of things is determined entirely by the player market, a consequence of the game being an economically driven sandbox, as you say the only controls CCP have over the cost of any particular item are rarity (in the case of raw materials, officer loot, etc) and mineral cost (in the case of anything that is built with blueprints) so yes cost is an afterthought
Yes, because the base mineral cost of ships and items, and their rarity, is chosen randomly. And CCP is totally clueless as to the price of minerals, and the usual markup for manufacturing.
They just pick numbers out of a hat.
I'm starting to amass some pretty priceless goon quotes in this thread. Some of the stupidest crap I have read in a long, long time. |
Alphea Abbra
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
527
|
Posted - 2014.01.05 15:05:00 -
[295] - Quote
Andski wrote:Pinky Hops wrote:So are you saying higher tiered ships are worse, and less powerful, than lower tiers?
A frigate is more powerful than a supercarrier?
A t1 module is more powerful than an officer module?
I'm having difficulty seeing your point.
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
"Cost is a factor of balance." that isn't anything close to what I said and you look like an imbecile by putting words in other people's mouths No, it needs to add "per unit of monetary value spent" and then it's your argument. And I like how this is the first time words have been put in the mouth of CFC (If it happened at all). It's almost like you don't like your own medicine.
For reference, check out a good amount of baltec1 or James Amril-Kesh posts, or any post by Alavaria Fera (Although there you could also get a mix of Reddit/EVE/general internet memes). |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
9958
|
Posted - 2014.01.05 15:07:00 -
[296] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:Yes, because the base mineral cost of ships and items, and their rarity, is chosen randomly. And CCP is totally clueless as to the price of minerals, and the usual markup for manufacturing. They just pick numbers out of a hat. I'm starting to amass some pretty priceless goon quotes in this thread. Some of the stupidest crap I have read in a long, long time.
CCP has generally left the mineral costs of blueprints untouched with very few exceptions, one being adjustments to certain hull blueprints after almost an entire decade with the tiericide initiative
and they did that not because of some spreadsheet they have that determines the ideal cost of a ship based on a performance metric, but because people would start flying those ships again and they didn't want losses to remain meaningless with those hulls
hope this helps
the mineral market is volatile and CCP rarely changes mineral costs in blueprints, so what does this tell you? nothing really because you're a stubborn sockpuppet and you'll just try to change the subject Twitter: @EVEAndski
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest.-á |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
9737
|
Posted - 2014.01.05 15:12:00 -
[297] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:
still no one has explained why you should only need sub capitals to fight a sov war?
as i recall the standard for cfc is out blob with sub caps and as soon as the other side gives up they break out the super caps and take out all the sov stuff...
goons say caps should need sub caps for a fleet fight so why does this not work backwards and mean that sub caps needs caps to fight a sov war?
the thing is the cfc does not want to use caps because they are not confident enough to use them and then complain about game mechanics.
the best part is the cfc decided to participate in this war they chose to become members of it... if they wanted they could go home and defend thier space and use boots to do it... but yet they choose to go on the offensive and then complain that the other side is using capitals to defend stuff that takes capitals to kill... FML
Aside from the fact that CCP have stated that capitals should never be invincible to subcaps we have the record of them nerfing capitals at least five times to stop capitals from being invulnerable to subcaps. N3 can bring just as many subcaps as we can so why, if we kill their subcaps, should we not be able to take down their now unescorted capitals?
You are literally arguing for a stalemate situation where two superpowers dominate null and are unable to gain victory over eachother while everyone else (the vast bulk of EVEs population) find it impossible to do anything to us. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
9958
|
Posted - 2014.01.05 15:13:00 -
[298] - Quote
oh another instance of CCP directly adjusting blueprint inputs was when they removed drone bays from titans
they removed a few units of capital drone bays from titan blueprints and the sum of the ISK value of the minerals needed to build said titans changed by some minute value that nobody except perhaps a couple of supercapital builders can point out off hand - and it was pretty quickly cancelled out by the drone loot changes Twitter: @EVEAndski
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest.-á |
Josef Djugashvilis
Acme Mining Corporation
1919
|
Posted - 2014.01.05 15:15:00 -
[299] - Quote
The more the goons cry, the better this thread gets. This is not a signature. |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
199
|
Posted - 2014.01.05 15:15:00 -
[300] - Quote
Andski wrote:Pinky Hops wrote:Yes, because the base mineral cost of ships and items, and their rarity, is chosen randomly. And CCP is totally clueless as to the price of minerals, and the usual markup for manufacturing. They just pick numbers out of a hat. I'm starting to amass some pretty priceless goon quotes in this thread. Some of the stupidest crap I have read in a long, long time. CCP has generally left the mineral costs of blueprints untouched with very few exceptions, one being adjustments to certain hull blueprints after almost an entire decade with the tiericide initiative and they did that not because of some spreadsheet they have that determines the ideal cost of a ship based on a performance metric, but because people would start flying those ships again and they didn't want losses to remain meaningless with those hulls hope this helps the mineral market is volatile and CCP rarely changes mineral costs in blueprints, so what does this tell you? nothing really because you're a stubborn sockpuppet and you'll just try to change the subject
You're right.
CCP does not carefully select the mineral prices (or LP costs - whatever) for ships and does not align this at all with the balance of said ships.
Wait, that wouldn't make any sense, and does not match up with the reality of the game. So we can safely say that isn't true. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |