Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 38 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Remiel Pollard
Shock Treatment Ministries
8806
|
Posted - 2017.04.03 03:30:00 -
[631] - Quote
Clockwork Robot wrote: Everything you said after "its like this guy thinks I care what he thinks"... almost every word... was an indictment that you do, in fact, care what they think. And that it makes you angry.
Maybe in your little mind, sure, but nothing you've said here, nor what Epeen said above as an attempt to 'trigger' me, has any relevance to the points I've made, and in turn do nothing to contradict them.
GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'.
Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥
- Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
|
Remiel Pollard
Shock Treatment Ministries
8806
|
Posted - 2017.04.03 03:33:49 -
[632] - Quote
Clockwork Robot wrote: In so many years since that became a meme, can we as MMO players really truly not come up with something a hair more original than "hurr Hello Kitty Online, herp"?
2008 called. They said they want someone to make a new phrase. Oh, and uhh... "Yes we can" or something.
Seeing as how you didn't come up with anything more original in that little platitudinous whine of yours, my guess is no, but the 'critique' is irrelevant anyway. When what you have makes the point, why do you need something new?
GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'.
Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥
- Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
|
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
2695
|
Posted - 2017.04.03 03:34:35 -
[633] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:Mr Epeen wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:Everyone in EvE starts out as a victim. Sorry, no. That's not true. The only 'victims' of EVE are those that choose to be victims. Many of us have enjoyed the game profusely since day one and I wouldn't call enjoying something the definition of being a victim. I'm also getting quite sick and tired of other people telling me I should feel like some kind of a victim. I'm sorry but I am not the weakling you want me to be, and as long as you keep trying to bring people down to your level, you aren't spending any effort trying to bring yourself up to theirs, and you'll remain forever a victim of your own self-inflicted limitations. That's a problem with you, not EVE. LOL! Why so serious? There's plenty to rant about in this game without selectively quoting punchlines to get angry about. Mr Epeen I take what I'm passionate about seriously, your criticism notwithstanding. It's like this guy thinks I care what he thinks or something. The fact is, too many people lately fling the word 'victim' about as if they can speak for anyone but themselves, and they need to be brought down a peg on that mark. It happens all the time on these forums, with the veritable 'won't somebody think of the children!' thread appearing near on twice a week at the very least. Im on
CCP Fozzie GǣWe can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-tonGǪ in null sec anomalies. Gǣ*
Kaalrus pwned..... :)
|
Remiel Pollard
Shock Treatment Ministries
8806
|
Posted - 2017.04.03 03:41:56 -
[634] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Edit: ohh he's so angry double defensive post ...
Are you under some kind of impression that asserting that I'm angry, whether I am or am not, is some kind of contradiction to the points I've made? I'm reporting these posts as trolling from now on, because they are little more than pointless jabs at me that contribute nothing.
GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'.
Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥
- Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
|
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
10688
|
Posted - 2017.04.03 03:46:12 -
[635] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:I take what I'm passionate about seriously... Much like Tippia before you, the only thing you seem passionate about is getting in the last word.
Mr Epeen
There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass!
|
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
2695
|
Posted - 2017.04.03 03:49:56 -
[636] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:
Edit: ohh he's so angry double defensive post ...
Are you under some kind of impression that asserting that I'm angry, whether I am or am not, is some kind of contradiction to the points I've made? I'm reporting these posts as trolling from now on, because they are little more than pointless jabs at me that contribute nothing. Chillax. I'm just playing with you. Its OK.
CCP Fozzie GǣWe can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-tonGǪ in null sec anomalies. Gǣ*
Kaalrus pwned..... :)
|
Remiel Pollard
Shock Treatment Ministries
8806
|
Posted - 2017.04.03 03:50:36 -
[637] - Quote
Mr Epeen wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:I take what I'm passionate about seriously... Much like Tippia before you, the only thing you seem passionate about is getting in the last word. Mr Epeen
So when I disagree with someone, I just have to not respond at all in case poor little you feels like I'm getting the last word? And I should care why?
GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'.
Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥
- Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
|
oiukhp Muvila
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
146
|
Posted - 2017.04.03 03:54:36 -
[638] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:Mr Epeen wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:I take what I'm passionate about seriously... Much like Tippia before you, the only thing you seem passionate about is getting in the last word. Mr Epeen So when I disagree with someone, I just have to not respond at all in case poor little you feels like I'm getting the last word? And I should care why?
Sometimes it is better not to respond. You should choose your battles, not let your battles choose you.
Allowing people to "push your buttons" will eventually end badly.
Frequently its better to let them be ignorant of their ignorance.
|
Remiel Pollard
Shock Treatment Ministries
8806
|
Posted - 2017.04.03 03:59:28 -
[639] - Quote
oiukhp Muvila wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:Mr Epeen wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:I take what I'm passionate about seriously... Much like Tippia before you, the only thing you seem passionate about is getting in the last word. Mr Epeen So when I disagree with someone, I just have to not respond at all in case poor little you feels like I'm getting the last word? And I should care why? Sometimes it is better not to respond. You should choose your battles, not let your battles choose you. Allowing people to "push your buttons" will eventually end badly. Frequently its better to let them be ignorant of their ignorance.
You say these things like I'm not aware, or that you think I'm in some kind of 'battle'. I've been on these forums for a few years now. In case you hadn't noticed. I know Epeen and others here quite well. Sometimes he has a point to make, and it's usually a worthwhile one. Usually, he's just a snarky little **** that posts for the sake of poking at people instead of contributing. This is an occasion of the latter, which is why I'm reporting every one of his posts that doesn't contribute to the discussion at hand. Until an ISD cleans it up, I'll continue putting him in his place. There is no battle here, he is but a fish in a barrel.
GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'.
Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥
- Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18808
|
Posted - 2017.04.03 04:11:23 -
[640] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote: This is garbage. It was not programmed this way. When freighters came out you needed at least 30 battleships now you only need 12 stealth bombers.
That would be because stealth bombers get battleship firepower and freighters fitted with cargo expanders are much weaker than before. Fittings on freighters was something the likes of you supported and the likes of me were against.
Quote: When freighters came out there were no tags, you had to grind sec back which was very time consuming.
Very few gankers bother with either tags or grinding up sec status. You have already been told this in this thread.
Quote: When freighters came out you couldn't do (at the time battleship damage) with cheap frigates.
You still can't. These cheap frigates are a lot more expensive than gank battleships were back then.
Quote: Bitches will whine that battleships insurance meant using battleships was cheaper but no, even with full insurance you still lost the value of platinum insurance. 30 plat insurances for tier 3 battleships was around the cost of 60 stealth bombers.
Wrong. Back then you could build battleships for less than the insurance payout (including the up front cost to insure). People would buy a stack of several hundred battleships only to insure and blow up on the undock. Gankers could buy and fit a gank battleship and after the insurance payout the cost was effectively less than a gank catalyst.
Quote: Then you factor in the massive jump in isk generation today vs then.
irrelevant, that's what we call inflation.
Quote: It was never programmed this way, this is all about mudflation and powercreep turning ganking into the easiest form of PvP with the smallest cost (apart from frig v frig) with the least risk and significant payoff. Its out of wack with the rest of EvE. EvE WoW, EvE Light or whatever.
Ganking has never been harder, more expensive or more punished than today. It is also at its lowest point in recorded history of this game. |
|
oiukhp Muvila
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
146
|
Posted - 2017.04.03 04:30:27 -
[641] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:....
Ganking has never been harder, more expensive or more punished than today. It is also at its lowest point in recorded history of this game.
I think ganking was a lot less common when I first starting playing back in late 2005.
The only time I remembering needing to care about it was during Wardecks, and I even remember discussions on comms about many of our players from null sec not being used to having their in-corp industrials being shot at in high sec.
And if I remember right is was members of Freelancers who were pissed about the original war dec nerf that started the neutral ganking thing wholesale.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18809
|
Posted - 2017.04.03 04:55:40 -
[642] - Quote
Quote:
I think ganking was a lot less common when I first starting playing back in late 2005.
In terms of per head of population it was more common back then, you just didn't see the number of threads being posted about it. Back then it was considered just another tool for fighting wars. BOB made heavy use of mercs that specialised in ganking high sec assets of enemies.
Quote: The only time I remembering needing to care about it was during Wardecks, and I even remember discussions on comms about many of our players from null sec not being used to having their in-corp industrials being shot at in high sec.
And if I remember right is was members of Freelancers who were pissed about the original war dec nerf that started the neutral ganking thing wholesale.
The true start of ganking was M0o, they are the reason why concord can't be tanked and gate guns exist. |
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
2695
|
Posted - 2017.04.03 05:22:48 -
[643] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote: This is garbage. It was not programmed this way. When freighters came out you needed at least 30 battleships now you only need 12 stealth bombers.
That would be because stealth bombers get battleship firepower and freighters fitted with cargo expanders are much weaker than before. Fittings on freighters was something the likes of you supported and the likes of me were against. Quote: When freighters came out there were no tags, you had to grind sec back which was very time consuming.
Very few gankers bother with either tags or grinding up sec status. You have already been told this in this thread. Quote: When freighters came out you couldn't do (at the time battleship damage) with cheap frigates.
You still can't. These cheap frigates are a lot more expensive than gank battleships were back then. Quote: Bitches will whine that battleships insurance meant using battleships was cheaper but no, even with full insurance you still lost the value of platinum insurance. 30 plat insurances for tier 3 battleships was around the cost of 60 stealth bombers.
Wrong. Back then you could build battleships for less than the insurance payout (including the up front cost to insure). People would buy a stack of several hundred battleships only to insure and blow up on the undock. Gankers could buy and fit a gank battleship and after the insurance payout the cost was effectively less than a gank catalyst. Quote: Then you factor in the massive jump in isk generation today vs then.
irrelevant, that's what we call inflation. Quote: It was never programmed this way, this is all about mudflation and powercreep turning ganking into the easiest form of PvP with the smallest cost (apart from frig v frig) with the least risk and significant payoff. Its out of wack with the rest of EvE. EvE WoW, EvE Light or whatever.
Ganking has never been harder, more expensive or more punished than today. It is also at its lowest point in recorded history of this game. Rubbish.
Tank is largely useless. Tank doubles align time meaning twice as much damage taken. Inertial stabs half it meaning its better to fit stabs. Its better to warp out faster with less tank.
Tags are used prolifically by gankers.
You could build a battleship and get back more than build cost with plat insurance but it definitely did not cover plat insurance as well. It also didn't cover the costs of 8 large guns. Please post proof I'm sure there is lots of evidence for such an obvious isk faucet.
Your last paragraph is pure science fiction :)
CCP Fozzie GǣWe can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-tonGǪ in null sec anomalies. Gǣ*
Kaalrus pwned..... :)
|
Teckos Pech
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
6296
|
Posted - 2017.04.03 05:35:15 -
[644] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:Dracvlad wrote:I focussed on the 182,580 hit pints on that fit based on 22 seconds before CONCORD which with 12 Catalyst came to 700 DPS which is overheating territory.
Anyway the key part is the 182,580 EHP, got that? Which requires 14 people working together. FOURTEEN: Twelve to gank, one to bump, one to loot, not including scouts. This is the best possible case scenario in the current balance situation, 0.5 sec space, pre-pulled CONCORD, no gate guns, no interferance from other players, no attempt to escape/call for help by the freighter, a freighter which is as anti-tanked as possible. Best case scenario. And you want it nerfed.
Of course he does because well...:reasons:. Don't ask for those reasons, you'll just trigger his passive aggressive side, and then after insulting large swaths of players he'll pretend like he hasn't insulted anyone.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
|
Lulu Lunette
Savage Moon Society
1365
|
Posted - 2017.04.03 06:06:01 -
[645] - Quote
What was the OP again lol
@lunettelulu7
|
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
2700
|
Posted - 2017.04.03 06:11:22 -
[646] - Quote
Hiasa Kite wrote:Dracvlad wrote:I focussed on the 182,580 hit pints on that fit based on 22 seconds before CONCORD which with 12 Catalyst came to 700 DPS which is overheating territory.
Anyway the key part is the 182,580 EHP, got that? Which requires 14 people working together. FOURTEEN: Twelve to gank, one to bump, one to loot, not including scouts. This is the best possible case scenario in the current balance situation, 0.5 sec space, pre-pulled CONCORD, no gate guns, no interferance from other players, no attempt to escape/call for help by the freighter, a freighter which is as anti-tanked as possible. Best case scenario. And you want it nerfed. Given people are multiboxing this really difficult enterprise its not as really difficult as you're making out. So yes it needs nerfing.
CCP Fozzie GǣWe can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-tonGǪ in null sec anomalies. Gǣ*
Kaalrus pwned..... :)
|
Soel Reit
Dambusters 617 Sq
756
|
Posted - 2017.04.03 06:11:27 -
[647] - Quote
good morning fellas Let's start the week in the right wayyyy!!! |
Mr Mieyli
Hedion University Amarr Empire
526
|
Posted - 2017.04.03 06:13:05 -
[648] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:The fact is, too many people lately fling the word 'victim' about as if they can speak for anyone but themselves, and they need to be brought down a peg on that mark. It happens all the time on these forums, with the veritable 'won't somebody think of the children!' thread appearing near on twice a week at the very least.
Here have some cheese with that whine. It must be hard being victimised by these 'think of the children!' threads.
A case for more AoE in EvE
|
Teckos Pech
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
6297
|
Posted - 2017.04.03 06:18:24 -
[649] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:Aaron wrote:I think it's time to get real. A player can take the time to learn about ganking and all the variables that affect it such as hostile fleet size, EHP....and so on.
Plain and simple, you will be targeted if you have freight value of over 1 billion. If you keep the value below 1 billion isk then you won't even have to consider all the variables of a gank situation.
Form some kind of group where you can contact freight pilots to relay this message. The ones that don't listen or bother to investigate anything will be punished because the mechanics are purposely set that way.
This is a clear description of the environment we are in and it has been programmed this way to make us think more about our actions within the game, it prompts us to think things like having an escort to rep our armour for example we can rep until the hostile fleet is concorded.
Stop acting as if there are no counters to freight ganking when there blatantly are. This is garbage. It was not programmed this way. When freighters came out you needed at least 30 battleships now you only need 12 stealth bombers. When freighters came out there were no tags, you had to grind sec back which was very time consuming. When freighters came out you couldn't do (at the time battleship damage) with cheap frigates. Bitches will whine that battleships insurance meant using battleships was cheaper but no, even with full insurance you still lost the value of platinum insurance. 30 plat insurances for tier 3 battleships was around the cost of 60 stealth bombers. Then you factor in the massive jump in isk generation today vs then. It was never programmed this way, this is all about mudflation and powercreep turning ganking into the easiest form of PvP with the smallest cost (apart from frig v frig) with the least risk and significant payoff. Its out of wack with the rest of EvE. EvE WoW, EvE Light or whatever. The gankers know this. That's why they gaslight with "ganking keeps getting nerfed" but they pretend they never got the buffs that made is more possible than in the past. They do this deliberately. It's very transparent now. Are the people behind the game so stupid as to keep falling for it? Or are they complicit?
The thing is it has pretty much been about billion ISK in terms of ganking for cargo value. I don't have an old version of EFT or something to go back to damage from a BS from 7 years ago. But I do recall running the numbers and coming away with 1 billion. Over that and you were really pushing it. Under that and it wasn't nearly as risky. Of course, now there are more variables to play with now. An anti-tanked freighter can drop that ganking cargo value down. The cargo value has to be at least 250-270 million to break even. Supposing you want at least some level of profit, say 25% then 330 million. Now, with the same type of catalysts (i.e. each one doing 640 DPS) you'll need at a bare minimum 32 catalysts or about 352 million worth of catalysts (using the 11 million ISK cost noted earlier). So now the barely gankable freighter cargo value is 704 million ISK. Using our 25% profit ratio you get 880 million ISK. And this is assuming a pre-pulled CONCORD and some reasonably high DPS on average--i.e. some pilots with reasonable decent amount of SP for flying a catalyst. Point is if you tank your freighter and keep the cargo value under 700 million ISK...you are unlikely to be ganked. Quite unlikely, especially when some boob is flying around with 7 billion in his freighter.
Oh and that 25% profit ratio is pretty thin for that freighter with 880 million ISK in it. We are talking about 5.2 million each. So yeah, if you push it to a billion you aren't increasing your risk that much. For 34 pilots that is 8.7 million ISK each. And these are the bare minimum of numbers. If you bring an extra 2-3 pilots for the extra DPS and have 2-3 scouts, the numbers make 1 billion look just fine. The same number I got when I first bought my charon.
So, how about this: If we go with the minimal safe value of a tanked freighter, freighters and freighter ganking has gone through a number of changes, but on the whole it has not been nerfed or buffed. We'll set aside the organizational/logistics aspects as that has always been there.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
|
Piugattuk
Lima beans Corp
571
|
Posted - 2017.04.03 06:20:51 -
[650] - Quote
Mr Mieyli wrote:Remiel Pollard wrote:The fact is, too many people lately fling the word 'victim' about as if they can speak for anyone but themselves, and they need to be brought down a peg on that mark. It happens all the time on these forums, with the veritable 'won't somebody think of the children!' thread appearing near on twice a week at the very least. Here have some cheese with that whine. It must be hard being victimised by these 'think of the children!' threads.
And yet, people respond to them, years upon years, I've grown tired of trying to reason with people here, I've only found an extremely small group...in fact all I can muster up is maybe 5...out of the thousands, mostly everyone is crazed so I've just given up cause trying to reason with crazy is crazy. |
|
Teckos Pech
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
6297
|
Posted - 2017.04.03 06:21:03 -
[651] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:Hiasa Kite wrote:Dracvlad wrote:I focussed on the 182,580 hit pints on that fit based on 22 seconds before CONCORD which with 12 Catalyst came to 700 DPS which is overheating territory.
Anyway the key part is the 182,580 EHP, got that? Which requires 14 people working together. FOURTEEN: Twelve to gank, one to bump, one to loot, not including scouts. This is the best possible case scenario in the current balance situation, 0.5 sec space, pre-pulled CONCORD, no gate guns, no interferance from other players, no attempt to escape/call for help by the freighter, a freighter which is as anti-tanked as possible. Best case scenario. And you want it nerfed. Given people are multiboxing this really difficult enterprise its not as really difficult as you're making out. So yes it needs nerfing. Lulu Lunette wrote:What was the OP again lol High sec gobbling.
1. How many people multi-box ganking? Go on...we are all waiting. 2. Basing a criticism that a tiny handful of people do something so a larger subset of players should have their game nerfed...is reasonable? Why not just ban multi-boxing over a certain number? 2, 3, may 4 alts logged in, after that, nope. No...lets go after the guys who have 40 actual people in their 40 man fleet. Yeah, totally reasonable.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
8288
|
Posted - 2017.04.03 06:36:39 -
[652] - Quote
Dom Arkaral wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:Aaron wrote:I think it's time to get real. A player can take the time to learn about ganking and all the variables that affect it such as hostile fleet size, EHP....and so on.
Plain and simple, you will be targeted if you have freight value of over 1 billion. If you keep the value below 1 billion isk then you won't even have to consider all the variables of a gank situation.
Form some kind of group where you can contact freight pilots to relay this message. The ones that don't listen or bother to investigate anything will be punished because the mechanics are purposely set that way.
This is a clear description of the environment we are in and it has been programmed this way to make us think more about our actions within the game, it prompts us to think things like having an escort to rep our armour for example we can rep until the hostile fleet is concorded.
Stop acting as if there are no counters to freight ganking when there blatantly are. This is garbage. It was not programmed this way. When freighters came out you needed at least 30 battleships now you only need 12 stealth bombers. When freighters came out there were no tags, you had to grind sec back which was very time consuming. When freighters came out you couldn't do (at the time battleship damage) with cheap frigates. Bitches will whine that battleships insurance meant using battleships was cheaper but no, even with full insurance you still lost the value of platinum insurance. 30 plat insurances for tier 3 battleships was around the cost of 60 stealth bombers. Then you factor in the massive jump in isk generation today vs then. It was never programmed this way, this is all about mudflation and powercreep turning ganking into the easiest form of PvP with the smallest cost (apart from frig v frig) with the least risk and significant payoff. Its out of wack with the rest of EvE. EvE WoW, EvE Light or whatever. The gankers know this. That's why they gaslight with "ganking keeps getting nerfed" but they pretend they never got the buffs that made is more possible than in the past. They do this deliberately. It's very transparent now. Are the people behind the game so stupid as to keep falling for it? Or are they complicit? I have tried to figure that out - why would an mmo company choose to hobble themselves to a play style that is seen by the wider mmo community as toxic, abusive, full of greifers? My personal experience of being followed by a player for 4 months straight swearing and calling me a pedophile and worse in local without CCP intervening and then that same person getting me warned by CCP for saying F in local caused me to stop my two boys playing. Wasn't just that either, the language and conversations in market hubs and alliance / corp chat is disgusting and sometimes illegal at least here in Aussie. I think it comes down to job insecurity at CCP / the fact that CCP has close RL relationships with many players / a number of CCP employees have worked for or do work for CCP and an entrenched culture of EvE is Harsh while being completely blind as to why EvE has failed to continue growing being that same culture. EVE is known to be very niche and ruthless and harsh That's why people love it... That's why most play it... And that's why CCP sells the game as is, and not like some dumb other mmo lmao HTFU or there's always WOW and HelloKittyOnline hahahah
yes very harsh for "criminals" to have every gate and station open to them where they can have a no-aggression warp disruption via an alt done for them while they wait for their timer to expire.
Harsh for your food. Not you. Stop pretending (unless that's the only thing keeping up your self esteem and keeping you from hating yourself)
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18809
|
Posted - 2017.04.03 06:39:21 -
[653] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote: Rubbish.
Tank is largely useless. Tank doubles align time meaning twice as much damage taken. Inertial stabs half it meaning its better to fit stabs. Its better to warp out faster with less tank.
I have a jump freighter here with over a million EHP omni tank. By all means keep on saying that tank is useless.
Quote: Tags are used prolifically by gankers.
The fact that most are forever -10 says that statement is a lie.
Quote: You could build a battleship and get back more than build cost with plat insurance but it definitely did not cover plat insurance as well. It also didn't cover the costs of 8 large guns. Please post proof I'm sure there is lots of evidence for such an obvious isk faucet.
The very fact that CCP had to alter the insurance to wipe this out is enough evidence. Also the fact the CCP nerfed ganking so that they could no longer get insurance too.
Quote:Your last paragraph is pure science fiction :) Edit: Freighters released with Exodus in 2005. There was a small period of time in 2009 where you could make a small profit from producing your own battleships and self destructing them. Some producers did it on a grand scale self destructing battleships they built. It could not be done by none producers and only thousands of battleships would make it worthwhile. They were not fitted. From CCP referring to the issue Quote: The last QEN contained a graph show- ing the number of ships that were self-destructed, which spiked in exactly this period. This period is a time when the market price of certain ships fell below the net insurance payout for losing those ships, making it profitable to insure them and self-destruct them.
[/quote]
You literally posted a quote that backs me up. For someone that always claims to be a 2003 player you seem to have zero knowledge of what happened back then. |
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
2707
|
Posted - 2017.04.03 06:47:59 -
[654] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote: Rubbish.
Tank is largely useless. Tank doubles align time meaning twice as much damage taken. Inertial stabs half it meaning its better to fit stabs. Its better to warp out faster with less tank.
I have a jump freighter here with over a million EHP omni tank. By all means keep on saying that tank is useless. Quote: Tags are used prolifically by gankers.
The fact that most are forever -10 says that statement is a lie. Quote: You could build a battleship and get back more than build cost with plat insurance but it definitely did not cover plat insurance as well. It also didn't cover the costs of 8 large guns. Please post proof I'm sure there is lots of evidence for such an obvious isk faucet.
The very fact that CCP had to alter the insurance to wipe this out is enough evidence. Also the fact the CCP nerfed ganking so that they could no longer get insurance too. Quote:Your last paragraph is pure science fiction :) Edit: Freighters released with Exodus in 2005. There was a small period of time in 2009 where you could make a small profit from producing your own battleships and self destructing them. Some producers did it on a grand scale self destructing battleships they built. It could not be done by none producers and only thousands of battleships would make it worthwhile. They were not fitted. From CCP referring to the issue Quote: The last QEN contained a graph show- ing the number of ships that were self-destructed, which spiked in exactly this period. This period is a time when the market price of certain ships fell below the net insurance payout for losing those ships, making it profitable to insure them and self-destruct them.
You literally posted a quote that backs me up. For someone that always claims to be a 2003 player you seem to have zero knowledge of what happened back then. [/quote] I posted a quote which makes you look like a cherry picker. For a 6 month period in 2009 you could make a small profit if you took the time to purchase haul mins then manufacture battleships and self destruct them as a result of a miscalculation / bug which was fixed. It had nothing to do with suicide ganking since fitting the ship out would result in a loss. 1 six month period out of 12 years of freighters in high. Not relevant at all to this discussion.
CCP Fozzie GǣWe can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-tonGǪ in null sec anomalies. Gǣ*
Kaalrus pwned..... :)
|
Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
10692
|
Posted - 2017.04.03 06:51:19 -
[655] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:I posted a quote which makes you look like a cherry picker. I don't know about being a cherry picker, but he must be in physical therapy from dragging the goal posts around so much.
Mr Epeen
There are 86,400 seconds in a day. You just saved one of them by typing 'u' instead of 'you'.-á Congratulations, dumbass!
|
Dracvlad
Tactically Challenged Tactical Supremacy
3003
|
Posted - 2017.04.03 06:54:37 -
[656] - Quote
Mr Epeen wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:I posted a quote which makes you look like a cherry picker. I don't know about being a cherry picker, but he must be in physical therapy from dragging the goal posts around so much. Mr Epeen
That made me chuckle a lot because it is so true.
When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18810
|
Posted - 2017.04.03 07:18:32 -
[657] - Quote
It wasn't a bug and it went on for several years. Back then the insurance rate was fixed so movements in the mineral market were not taken into account. At that time in EVE there was a huge supply spike in minerals hitting the market which pushed manufacturing prices down. This meant ship prices became incredibly cheap and coupled with massive over supply it resulted in ships being sold for below cost.
I have dug up the numbers so for example
A geddon would sell between 40 and 45 mil. Build cost was 39 mil and you could pick one up for 38 mil in areas. Cost to insure was 19.975 million. Payout was 65.250 million.
So you stood to make a healthy profit on the bare hull.
Cost of the guns and damage mods was also much lower than today so worst case you would wind up effectively losing a few mil per gank. So nowhere near the cost of bombers or tornados that get used today. |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18810
|
Posted - 2017.04.03 07:19:42 -
[658] - Quote
Mr Epeen wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:I posted a quote which makes you look like a cherry picker. I don't know about being a cherry picker, but he must be in physical therapy from dragging the goal posts around so much. Mr Epeen
I simply respond. The goalpost moving is entirely done by the people I am responding to. |
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
2712
|
Posted - 2017.04.03 07:34:44 -
[659] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:It wasn't a bug and it went on for several years. Back then the insurance rate was fixed so movements in the mineral market were not taken into account. At that time in EVE there was a huge supply spike in minerals hitting the market which pushed manufacturing prices down. This meant ship prices became incredibly cheap and coupled with massive over supply it resulted in ships being sold for below cost.
I have dug up the numbers so for example
A geddon would sell between 40 and 45 mil. Build cost was 39 mil and you could pick one up for 38 mil in areas. Cost to insure was 19.975 million. Payout was 65.250 million. Plus you had salvage profits to add in towards the end.
So you stood to make a healthy profit on the bare hull.
Cost of the guns and damage mods was also much lower than today so worst case you would wind up effectively losing a few mil per gank. So nowhere near the cost of bombers or tornados that get used today. It was for a 6 month period in 2009. Look up the report that quote is from. Clearly states 6 months Nov 2009 June 2010.. Your figures are incorrect as well.
CCP Fozzie GǣWe can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-tonGǪ in null sec anomalies. Gǣ*
Kaalrus pwned..... :)
|
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
18810
|
Posted - 2017.04.03 07:46:21 -
[660] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:baltec1 wrote:It wasn't a bug and it went on for several years. Back then the insurance rate was fixed so movements in the mineral market were not taken into account. At that time in EVE there was a huge supply spike in minerals hitting the market which pushed manufacturing prices down. This meant ship prices became incredibly cheap and coupled with massive over supply it resulted in ships being sold for below cost.
I have dug up the numbers so for example
A geddon would sell between 40 and 45 mil. Build cost was 39 mil and you could pick one up for 38 mil in areas. Cost to insure was 19.975 million. Payout was 65.250 million. Plus you had salvage profits to add in towards the end.
So you stood to make a healthy profit on the bare hull.
Cost of the guns and damage mods was also much lower than today so worst case you would wind up effectively losing a few mil per gank. So nowhere near the cost of bombers or tornados that get used today. It was for a 6 month period in 2009. Look up the report that quote is from. Clearly states 6 months Nov 2009 June 2010.. Your figures are incorrect as well.
It had been going on since at least 2006. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 38 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |