Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 .. 69 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 11 post(s) |
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
490
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 21:17:38 -
[691] - Quote
Celly S wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote: sure are postin a lot about it for not caring
about him reporting me?, I could care less.. about him twisting what was said in the first place into something else and trying to act as though he has a clue?, he twisted what I said originally, told me carriers were nerfed for their tank, then when told that wasn't it, he said their combat abilities, and again when told that wasn't it, resorted to trying to make it seem as though I said carriers were nerfed for their sma.. telling lies and putting words in my mouth I do care about. here's another one |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13858
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 21:18:57 -
[692] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:baltec1 wrote:
CCP dont tank these things according to the highest possible isk value junk you can stuff in it.
450k ehp is more than enough tank for this whale, you people already transport more expensive cargo in ships with much less tank.
I'm not talking the highest possible Isk value however. I'm assuming they actually stripped the modules. If they fail to strip the modules or transport the modules in the Bowheads own hold then they would actually be hauling 10-20 Billion in Isk to haul all of their Incursion ships around in most cases. And sure, I don't expect CCP to tank it according to that. I'm talking about the base hull value for the use that CCP is claiming they built the ship for, vs the cost of the gank required to reliably succeed at said gank. Assuming that 20 Talos are actually needed which which I'm not convinced on off the numbers I know..... then it feels like it about balances out if that 115 Mil value the killboards give is actually correct in game. I don't assume kill boards are correct as a given, I much prefer actual figures from in game. Since then it's about 2 billion to gank one of these in a 'standard' way, vs a 2-3 Billion in base hull value that is likely to drop. So someone smart who tanks it out and strips modules isn't going to be at terrible risk, though you can't see if modules are stripped at present I know. And someone who organises enough people (or isboxes 55 accounts which sadly removes most of the effort involved but hey, different debate) to do it with cheaper Catalysts has in theory done a lot more. And Catalysts have much shorter range making it harder to get them all applying perfectly at the same time. Also, like always, drop the 'you people'. It weakens your argument when you resort to such emotive tricks as making it 'us and them'. Stick with the logical arguments based on figures and what CCP have said was their intent. Works much better on actually reaching middle ground instead of alienating people.
Mods dont showup on scans so the ships can fit whatever they like. Even three rattlesnakes will fall well under the profit line to gank one of these things.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24684
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 21:19:19 -
[693] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Why shouldn't it? No. Answer the question: why should it be deterred?
Quote:The problem is that if I keep answering I'm continually on the offensive having to go down a rabbit hole to infinity That's what happens if you throw out baseless assertions like that. If you're not prepared to defend themGÇöif you feel that it's a problem that you keep being questionedGÇöstop throwing them out.
Quote:So the same post you did nothing? No. It was in the post where I pointed out your strawman.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Valterra Craven
320
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 21:22:01 -
[694] - Quote
Tippia wrote:No. Answer the question: why should it be deterred? No. Answer the question on why shouldn't it be deterred.
Tippia wrote: [quote]The problem is that if I keep answering I'm continually on the offensive having to go down a rabbit hole to infinity
That's what happens if you throw out baseless assertions like that. If you're not prepared to defend themGÇöif you feel that it's a problem that you keep being questionedGÇöstop throwing them out./quote]
No, its what happens when someone isn't actually willing to own an opinion and come up with a relevant reason on why a proposal is a bad idea. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13858
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 21:23:14 -
[695] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Tippia wrote:No. Answer the question: why should it be deterred? No. Answer the question on why shouldn't it be deterred.
Just answer the question already.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24684
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 21:24:39 -
[696] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Tippia wrote:No. Answer the question: why should it be deterred? No. So we can safely conclude that you can't think of a single reason why it should. Again, why didn't you just say so?
Quote:No, its what happens when someone isn't actually willing to own an opinion and come up with a relevant reason on why a proposal is a bad idea. GǪand that is why those bad proposals will always be met with an incessant wall of Gǣwhy?Gǥ until the originator demonstrates that they can't actually support the baseless and ill-conceived opinion they vomited out for no apparent reason. Much like what keeps happening to you.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
490
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 21:26:14 -
[697] - Quote
it turns out that individuals preying on other individuals is core to eve gameplay |
Valterra Craven
320
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 21:27:14 -
[698] - Quote
Tippia wrote:So we can safely conclude that you can't think of a single reason why it should. Again, why didn't you just say so?
Again, I can safely conclude that you can't think of a single reason why it shouldn't. It works both ways.
Tippia wrote:Quote:No, its what happens when someone isn't actually willing to own an opinion and come up with a relevant reason on why a proposal is a bad idea. GǪand that is why those bad proposals will always be met with an incessant wall of Gǣwhy?Gǥ until the originator demonstrates that they can't actually support the baseless and ill-conceived opinion they vomited out for no apparent reason. Much like what keeps happening to you.
Look up the word baseless. It doesn't mean what you think it does. |
Valterra Craven
320
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 21:29:10 -
[699] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
Just answer the question already.
Done and Done.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24684
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 21:33:50 -
[700] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Again, I can safely conclude Nope. You see, there is a very simple reason why it shouldn't that remains true from the very start: because you fail to explain why. Your conclusion is based on a onus probandi fallacyGÇönot only is it not safe, it is fundamentally lacking in any kind of logical cohesion or validity.
Quote:It works both ways. No, it doesn't. You made an assertion. Your assertion is incorrect until you provide some supporting argumentation or evidence to prove otherwise. As long as you adamantly refuse to answer the very very very very trivially simple question GÇ£whyGÇ¥, we have every reason ever needed to say that your suggestion should absolutely not happen.
You provided the answer to your own question by your refusal to answer mine. I don't have to lift a finger.
Quote:Look up the word baseless. It doesn't mean what you think it does. Yes it does, and it perfectly describes the unsupported assertions that you keep vomiting up and then adamantly refuse to support.
Nope. Why should it be deterred?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1677
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 21:35:50 -
[701] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
Mods dont showup on scans so the ships can fit whatever they like. Even three rattlesnakes will fall well under the profit line to gank one of these things.
Unless they are bling fit in which case they won't fall under even a Talos gank margin. Or unless you use Catalysts in which case even the base hulls are right on the edge (assuming normal drop rates) and any kind of fittings left on the ships are your profit. And choosing the cheapest by a significant margin Pirate BS does not a point make, other than that you are trying to manipulate the argument by cherry picking your statistics.
Though sure, items inside a container don't show up on scan. Something I imagine is as much a UI limitation as it is a technical limitation on scans. But that doesn't make those items stop existing, just makes them a bit of a guess work as to if they will be there or not. Same as blockade runners don't show their hold, but it doesn't make them valueless to gank. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13858
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 21:39:49 -
[702] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Tippia wrote:So we can safely conclude that you can't think of a single reason why it should. Again, why didn't you just say so? Again, I can safely conclude that you can't think of a single reason why it shouldn't. It works both ways.
No it doesn't.
Piracy is an advertised playstyle in EVE and has been from day one. Why would CCP get rid of not only a core playstyle of EVE but also the only risk a high sec hauler will ever face in space?
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13858
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 21:45:31 -
[703] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote: Unless they are bling fit in which case they won't fall under even a Talos gank margin. Or unless you use Catalysts in which case even the base hulls are right on the edge (assuming normal drop rates) and any kind of fittings left on the ships are your profit. And choosing the cheapest by a significant margin Pirate BS does not a point make, other than that you are trying to manipulate the argument by cherry picking your statistics.
A trio of nightmares is also below the profit margin.
Nevyn Auscent wrote: Though sure, items inside a container don't show up on scan. Something I imagine is as much a UI limitation as it is a technical limitation on scans. But that doesn't make those items stop existing, just makes them a bit of a guess work as to if they will be there or not. Same as blockade runners don't show their hold, but it doesn't make them valueless to gank.
Go ahead and try to make a profit ganking blockade runners. The only thing you will manage to do by ganking blind is run out of isk.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Dissention Prime
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 21:45:40 -
[704] - Quote
This is spectacular. I don't know why it has taken so long to happen, but I am pretty damn happy about it. |
Valterra Craven
320
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 21:46:56 -
[705] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Nope. You see, there is a very simple reason why it shouldn't that remains true from the very start: because you fail to explain why. Your conclusion is based on a onus probandi fallacyGÇönot only is it not safe, it is fundamentally lacking in any kind of logical cohesion or validity.
What a shame that I've already explained why. Whereas your argument is just that? Why? "Why" is not an argument.
Tippia wrote: No, it doesn't. You made an assertion. Your assertion is incorrect until you provide some supporting argumentation or evidence to prove otherwise. As long as you adamantly refuse to answer the very very very very trivially simple question GÇ£whyGÇ¥, we have every reason ever needed to say that your suggestion should absolutely not happen.
No, I offered an opinion as proven by the phrase "my 2 cents" and then proceeded to detail why I held that opinion. What I did not do was make a statement of fact, or posit a theory which can be proven or disproven. Therefore what I said was not incorrect. The very reason that you are asking "why" is because you have no valid bases to attack the opinion that I hold. Otherwise you would do so.
Tippia wrote: You provided the answer to your own question by your refusal to answer mine. I don't have to lift a finger.
No, I provided neither the answer to my question nor a reason for you not to lift a finger to hold a stance. |
Fruckton Haulalot
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 21:47:41 -
[706] - Quote
again you folks are way off topic.... this thread is not about your opinions on pvp... nor the validity of right or wrong pirate play... its about the bowhead....
while most of you are very good at typing very well thought out arguments and or logical arguments for both sides of the debate... lets talk more about Bowhead....
The Bowhead will bring some new aspect to the game that alot of folks will like... and some will hate... but lets realistically give reasonable thought to it instead of the worthless tangents yall are on now
|
Valterra Craven
320
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 21:48:38 -
[707] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
No it doesn't.
Piracy is an advertised playstyle in EVE and has been from day one. Why would CCP get rid of not only a core playstyle of EVE but also the only risk a high sec hauler will ever face in space?
Good thing I haven't advocated for removing piracy or risk from the game! |
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
490
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 21:48:54 -
[708] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:baltec1 wrote:
Mods dont showup on scans so the ships can fit whatever they like. Even three rattlesnakes will fall well under the profit line to gank one of these things.
Unless they are bling fit in which case they won't fall under even a Talos gank margin. strip mods, haul via 700k EHP JF, blockade runner, or public courier
it is like you are not thinking at all |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13858
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 21:51:18 -
[709] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote:
No it doesn't.
Piracy is an advertised playstyle in EVE and has been from day one. Why would CCP get rid of not only a core playstyle of EVE but also the only risk a high sec hauler will ever face in space?
Good thing I haven't advocated for removing piracy or risk from the game!
You are when you demand nerfs to ganking.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1677
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 21:52:25 -
[710] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: A trio of nightmares is also below the profit margin.
I'll also point out your profit margin is assuming they are actually pretty near max tanking it rather than fitting it for agility & warp speed. Which you will get plenty of people who will do that instead I'm sure. At which point suddenly a lot of that stuff is profitable. So.... the current EHP levels seem reasonable given the purpose CCP have claimed they intended for it. If a gank is automatically profitable vs bare hulls only (with rigs) in the SMA that match that intended purpose and no cargo at all in the bowhead, then the ship is useless for it's claimed purpose.
Obviously it will be great for null to jump bridge dozens of pre fitted HAC's or BS or whatever around as well, and equally obviously null doesn't really care about the EHP because if it ever sees combat something has gone critically wrong anyway.
Promiscuous Female wrote: strip mods, haul via 700k EHP JF, blockade runner, or public courier it is like you are not thinking at all
Almost like you can't haul several rigged BS & a few Logi in a JF at once, or even in a Freighter at once. Sure you can package them if you are continually destroying rigs, but.... yea nah. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24684
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 21:59:10 -
[711] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:What a shame that I've already explained why. No, you really haven't. Why should it be deterred?
Quote:Whereas your argument is just that? Why? "Why" is not an argument. Almost correct. My argument is that your refusal to answer a very simple question is all that is needed to show that what you're asking for should not happen. GÇ£WhyGÇ£ is indeed not an argument, and neither is GÇ£why not?GÇ¥, and yet that is all you have offered so far.
Quote:No, I offered an opinion as proven by the phrase "my 2 cents" and then proceeded to detail why I held that opinion. GǪexcept that you did neither of those. You offered an assertion, with nothing to support it. You said that the risks in being a permanent criminal are not enough to deter the activityGÇöthat is not an opinion, nor is there any two cents attached to it. It's a normative statement with no explanation why it should be deterred.
Hence the question: why should it be deterred?
Quote:No, I provided neither the answer to my question nor a reason for you not to lift a finger to hold a stance. Yes you did. By failing to answer the question of why, you provided an answer to GÇ£why not?GÇ¥ that is GÇ£because there's no reason to do itGÇ¥. Onus probandi is a nasty fellow GÇö you need to learn to not fall for it every time. The best way is to actually start answering that question you've come to loathe: the question of GÇ£why?GÇ¥
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
261
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 22:00:05 -
[712] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
Mods dont showup on scans so the ships can fit whatever they like. Even three rattlesnakes will fall well under the profit line to gank one of these things.
Incursion runners don't really use rattles. Standard runner using this would have mach + vindi + nightmare....not very cheap hulls. |
Valterra Craven
320
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 22:01:07 -
[713] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
You are when you demand nerfs to ganking.
Except that nerf != wholesale removal.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
24684
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 22:02:54 -
[714] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote:You are when you demand nerfs to ganking. Except that nerf != wholesale removal. Indeed, but what you're very explicitly asking for is a wholesale removal, for no reason that you can articulate.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skillplan 2.2.
|
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1359
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 22:07:19 -
[715] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
A trio of nightmares is also below the profit margin.
It's a bit over the mentioned 2bill line but in 3 items so you need 2 third to drop if you count a single gank... |
ArmyOfMe
PILGRIMS Advent of Fate
372
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 22:07:49 -
[716] - Quote
Give it 2m m3 of ship main bay and ill be perfectly happy with it after the hp buff.
For those of you complaining about warp speed on it, dont forget there are implants to help fix that issue.
QUOTE CCP Dolan and the EVE Online development team:-áThe battle was relatively even for some time with CFC and Russian forces holding moderate lead at first and only have a slight lead in Titan kills. Then came a turning point in the battle. Manfred Sideous, the initial Fleet Commander for PL/N3, handed over command to the CEO of Northern Coalition., Vince Draken
|
Alxephon
Official Will Smith Fan Club Black Opiate
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 22:09:18 -
[717] - Quote
Lickem Lolly wrote:Suicide ganking in highsec is ruining Eve. This is why so many of our new players quit in the first few weeks. CCP, please do more things like this to make ships un-gankable.
If you have any doubts, complete this sentence to yourself - " I like non-consensual ---."
Think of anything you like there?
Non-consensual PVP is ruining Eve. Make the jerks go to lowsec or nullsec for PVP.
Cheers gr8 b8 m8 i r8 8/8 |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
5620
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 22:09:54 -
[718] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:baltec1 wrote:
Mods dont showup on scans so the ships can fit whatever they like. Even three rattlesnakes will fall well under the profit line to gank one of these things.
Incursion runners don't really use rattles. Standard runner using this would have mach + vindi + nightmare....not very cheap hulls. Why do they need more than one bs? I don't run incursions so I'm not up on their current meta.
The Paradox
|
Martha Stewart Living
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 22:10:58 -
[719] - Quote
"Nevyn Auscent" wrote: If a gank is automatically profitable vs bare hulls only (with rigs) in the SMA that match that intended purpose and no cargo at all in the bowhead, then the ship is useless for it's claimed purpose.
If I'm parsing your writing correctly, you're saying that if it's profitable to gank a bowhead with that has only stripped Pirate Battleships with rigs in it, with no fittings, that it's useless, as you might as well just fly the ships yourself. But the problem is that's the only point at which it becomes profitable. When you stuff it full with the most expensive ships in the game. It still has the intended purpose of moving assembled ships around, and I think it would still be pretty useful for moving cruisers, battlecruisers, destroyers, etc. It's just not profitable at those levels either. |
Fruckton Haulalot
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2014.11.11 22:11:48 -
[720] - Quote
Paynus Maiassus wrote:420K EHP is an outstanding number. The things will be effectively ungankable. Very nice. I much approve. These numbers also make a lot of the recent posts on this thread inapplicable.
this was a misleading post..... 420 ehp is still very gankable...... you can get 450 ehp on orcas now.... and they still get ganked.
the Bowhead will be hauling far more vaulable cargo ... the bowhead is a much bigger ship..... and its has 0... let me say that again it has 0 combat ability, 0 command ability, 0 means to do anything other then haul fitted ships around.... so if its only purpose in eve is to haul other fitted ships around then its specity should be able to protect its cargo with more tank than an ORCA |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 .. 69 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |