|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5986
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 01:18:00 -
[1] - Quote
GǪso how many 1600mm plates do you usually fit your Iterons with? 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5986
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 01:46:00 -
[2] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Tippia wrote:GǪso how many 1600mm plates do you usually fit your Iterons with? and when was the last time you spent over 200 mill on an iteron? i mean can you buy them from then please! Quite irrelevant.
The point is, they're both the same kind of ship: a non-combat industrial-type ship meant for one thing and one thing only (and, just to repeat that: it's not combat). You can still squeeze 30k EHP out of a Hulk, and that's fairly respectable for what it is and what it's supposed to be doing.
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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5996
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 09:59:00 -
[3] - Quote
Sunviking wrote:Tippia wrote:GǪso how many 1600mm plates do you usually fit your Iterons with? Difference is that a Iteron is a tech1 ship that costs a few million to buy, The Hulk is a Tech2 specialised mining ship that costs 200million to buy. So yes, we expect it to be a bit more durable. GǪand cost, as always, is not a balancing factor. Again: both are non-combat industrial ships. The hulk is a whole lot more durable than its cousins if you choose to actually tank it (but no-one does, because god forbid that you reduce your yield even a tiny bit to improve on your safety).
The Hulk can fulfil its role just fine while still maintaining a proper tank.
Mara Rinn wrote:What other ship needs to lose weapons in order to be able to fill mids and lows with tank sufficient for its role? Even Caldari missile boats have sufficient CPU and PG to mount enough tank to do the job without sacrificing high slots. All of them, pretty much. Notice his wording, and then take a look at things like target painters, tracking computers, tracking enhancers, weapon upgradesGǪ
If you want to max out the tank on any ship, your GÇ£gunGÇ¥ part will suffer for it. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5996
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 10:07:00 -
[4] - Quote
ugh zug wrote:Bring the tankablity of exhumers up to 75-85% of most tech 2 Battle Cruiser hulls would still be very balanced for the cost of the ship hull and the time required to train for it. Cost is not a balancing factor.
In what way is a non-combat ship meant for base industry use with 100k+ EHP balanced? 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5996
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 10:37:00 -
[5] - Quote
Nice strawman. So you agree, then that the hulk is fine since you have to resort to fallacies like this to maintain something that might be mistaken for an argument. Goodie.
Oh, and people using the GÇ£safe against null ratsGÇ¥ fits in highsec, rather than a fit that would protect them against highsec dangers, is one of the primary reasons hulk ganking caught on, so not only can it be done GÇö it's the genesis. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5996
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 11:20:00 -
[6] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Yeah when a PvP ship sucks people dump it and go for a similar worth and role another ship.
When a mining ship sucks people dump it and go for .... oh wait, that's it.
[GǪ]
You can buy a fully insurable covetor, have somewhat less yield. Cost approximates zero, yield is o(Hulk), tank is o(Hulk), that is covetor WILL die but at zero cost. GǪso in other words, there is no real need to buff the Hulk since there is a viable alternative, and yet the Hulk is the ship everyone uses. In fact, it's one of the most used ships in the game, so it can't be nearly as bad as people make it out to be.
Pak Narhoo wrote:The Hulk was designed with the gameplay of 2006 in mind. We're 5+ years further now. The Hulk in these days needs a buff to be able, even tough oh so slightly, to cope (just a little bit), with the challenges of today. What challenges are those and what buffs would that be? It rather sounds like people are stuck in the gameplay of 2006 and refuse to adapt it to the realities of 2012 (viz. by fitting a tank). 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5996
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 11:29:00 -
[7] - Quote
Jojo Jackson wrote:Using a T1 Destroyer which cost about 15m with guns and w-ups to eazy mode gank a 300m (WITHOUT mods) T2 ship ..
not enough risk for the reward! It's 100% risk and what is the reward?
Quote:It is YOU (wannabe PvPler) who over abuse this "risk v reward"! Not the miners. Good job missing the point: the problem is that the miners refuse to accept the increased risk that comes with the increased reward GÇö want more yield (reward)? Then you get higher risk (less tank). Want more yield again (reward)? Then you get higher risk (more expensive ship).
Quote:Now they MUST fix this balance problem again (nerf Destroyer+Hybrid+Projectil OR .. better for both sides buff mining+industrial ships). What balance problem? Fitting a tank still makes you impervious to these ships, even after the buff. Yes, if there are a whole bunch of them you die, but guess what GÇö welcome to the numbers game where 1+n > 1 (for positive n). 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5998
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 12:00:00 -
[8] - Quote
Aqriue wrote:Oh, awesome how some chumps don't think the hulk needs a buff. GǪlargely because no-one can come up with a useful argument why it needs one that can't be answered with Gǣfit a tankGǥ.
Quote:Lets get CCP to bring down the Freighter and Jump Freighter to the same effective tank as the Hulk (JF gets 20K htpoints like the hlk, Freighter gets roughtly 9k like industrials). Align time stays the same. Bang, we got balance. How is it balanced?
Quote:one would have to think that both sides should risk something of near equal value No. Balance doesn't work that way. Cost is not a balancing factor.
Droxlyn wrote:Should a Hulk be able to fit this (about 35,024 EHP)?: You can already get a Hulk to 35k EHP, and as has been pointed out numerous times by now, if the difference is really that small between the Covetor and the Hulk, and it makes such financial sense to use the Covetor instead, how come the Hulk is one of the most used ships in the game? The usage pattern does not support the supposition that it needs any kind of fix. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5998
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 12:18:00 -
[9] - Quote
Eternum Praetorian wrote:Show me a respectable Hulk tank with tech II strip miners and a roid scanner. 2+ù Invuln II, SSE II, DC II, PDU II, 2+ù CDFE GåÆ 27k.
GǪbut as mentioned, the scanner should be on the Orca anyway, which lets you squeeze another Invuln there and get up to 35k+. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5999
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 13:15:00 -
[10] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:For the record, the whole, "Hulk is not X many times better than the Covetor" is called reduced returns, its why you could spend 3 Bil on a faction fitted Machariel and it will still die to three gank Geddons, or 1 Bil on a tengu, and it will die to a 100 Mil after fitting 1600 Plated cane. ^^ This.
The entirety of EVE is built around diminishing returns for exponential costs. This is why price is not a balancing factor: because costing more tells us absolutely nothing about how much GÇ£betterGÇ£ something is, even when we do a straight apples-to-apples comparison with its less capable counterparts.
An Invuln II gives you a 30% resist bonus for, what? A couple of millions? A CN Invuln gives you a 37.5% resist bonus GÇö 25% more than the T2 version GÇö for several hundred millions. We're talking almost a factor of 100+ù the price for -+ better performance. So price as a measure of how much performance something GÇ£should haveGÇ¥ is right out the window, and it keeps going into the field, across the tracks, down the docks and half-way across the ocean if we want to do something as silly as comparing two completely different items (say, a T2 mining ship and a T1 combat ship). 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6000
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 14:32:00 -
[11] - Quote
bornaa wrote:Today, 150 TIMES cheaper ship can kill hulk! Yes? So? That's a good thing.
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:In other words, when you have 1 choice for 1 task (even if required in great numbers) that's the choice you get. GǪwhich means the Hulk isn't a problem since you obviously have more than one choice. You and many others keep pointing this out in this very thread. You have demonstrated that there are other choices, which aren't being used because the Hulk provides enough benefit to be worth it. Consequently, there is absolutely no reason to buff it.
Quote:Guess why they buffed destroyers? Because they were woefully inadequate since inception compared to what you'd get out of frigates and cruisers. It also provided gankers with a much-needed buff to counteract the many security buffs highsec have received over the years. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6000
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 15:03:00 -
[12] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:I've yet to see a sensible (ie: game balance-based) argument against enabling Hulks to fit Large Shield Extenders. The thing is, that cuts both ways: there's very little in the way of sensible arguments for enabling them to fit one either. Like you say, it won't make much difference. Yay, it now has 50k EHP instead of 35k, and will still die horribly to a proper gankGǪ
GǪand people still won't tank it and will still die to improper ganks. So why bother?
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:I am having extreme fun helping your stuff cost twice as much as in the past. I could buy 100 Hulks with the ISK your kin has lost to me in the last months. My stuff costs the same it has always done and GÇ¥my kinGÇ¥ hasn't lost you any ISK at all, so I have no idea what you're on about.
Quote:Got the buff? Cool now stop the 1000 threads about how evil is to have minerals cost twice as much. Same here: what on earth are you on about? Who are you talking to? If you're going to quote me, at least address me when doing so.
The point remains: the Hulk remains one of the most popular ships in the game in spite of there being a number of alternatives that could potentially even be better or more sensible, according to your reasoning. It's not underused, and it's not being used solely because it's there are no alternatives. So what grounds is there to buff it?
Ana Vyr wrote:Yeah, but if you get your tank up that high, what it's supposed to be doing is the problem...your yield will be utter crap, kinda negating the point of the ship. GǪjust like with every other ship in the game. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6000
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 15:18:00 -
[13] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:I quote you because you are the only one who can bump a thread forever. So you admit that what you said was completely nonsensical and irrelevant and had nothing to do with what was being discussed.
Goodie. Yet another failure at explaining why the Hulk needs to be adjusted.
Quote:Because it's the smartest way to not make minerals go completely nuts after the recent and future game changes. The Hulk doesn't need to be adjusted in any way for that. Just let the market do what the market does, and it'll arrive where it should be. That is the smartest solution, because minerals going nuts for a while isn't really a problem. Adjusting something quite unrelated is a pretty stupid solution because you're not actually addressing any kind of problem by doing so.
Quote:But then they'll get kicked out with a slam in their teeth once they lost 2-3 ships to the first 2 weeks old guy in a destroyer. If they can't survive that single weak destroyer, then they should be kicked in the teeth for their abject failure to fit their ship properly. The Hulk can already survive that destroyer with ease, so what reason is there to buff it?
Kengutsi Akira wrote:This argument works for any ship in the game, why ever boost anything then No, it only works for ships where people can't produce any kind of reason why it needs to be buffed, and the reason they keep repeating simply comes down to them not wanting to use the pre-existing solutions to their perceived problemsGǪ like the Hulk. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6000
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 15:41:00 -
[14] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Ana Vyr wrote:Yeah, but if you get your tank up that high, what it's supposed to be doing is the problem...your yield will be utter crap, kinda negating the point of the ship. It's meant for one thing and one thing only as you say, but if you FIT it for that one thing, you can't survive anything. The ship gets a 7.5% bonus per level to resists. Even when fitted for max tank the hulk is a better miner than a covetor while being much harder to kill. This is the problem with you people, you simply cannot grasp that you have a choice of defence or better yield. The only reason destroyers can kill hulks is because people chose to have no tank at all. GǪin fact, let's take a completely different expensive T2 ship and Gǣfit it for its one thingGǥ the way people tend to fit their Hulks and see what happens:
Damnation Armored Warfare Link - Damage Control II Armored Warfare Link - Passive Defense II Armored Warfare Link - Rapid Repair II Skirmish Warfare Link - Evasive Maneuvers II Skirmish Warfare Link - Interdiction Maneuvers II Skirmish Warfare Link - Rapid Deployment II Information Warfare Link - Sensor Integrity II 4+ù Command Processor I 6+ù Co-Processor II 2+ù Medium Trimark Armor Pump I
GǪoh dear. At just under 50k EHP, It can also be ganked by a small gang of destroyers. It's obvious that the Damnation needs to have its tanking abilities drastically buffed because it's such a weak ship.
Terrorfrodo wrote:To repeat my question, what does a professional ganker need to kill a hulk that a) has no tank b) has some tank (DC) c) has max tank (DC, Bulkheads, SEs) and how dependent is it of system security status?
I'm sure there is even a table with the math somewhere?
a) Single frigate or destroyer. b) Single tier-3 / battleship; multiple destroyers. c) Multiple tier-3s / battleships.
For higher-end highsec, shift up one GÇ£requirement levelGÇ¥ and/or just add more of the same ships for that level. When in doubt, throw 5+ù 10k-alpha ships on the bugger, and that will nuke just about any exhumer at any sec level. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6004
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 16:07:00 -
[15] - Quote
Avila Cracko wrote:No, wast majority of wuss gankers that only have balls to PVP against defend-less target are "useless sycophantic half wits without the brains to realise" that they got in last 6 months many boosts (dessy boost, hybrid boost and tier 3 BC) and miners none and that they are now even bigger wussies then before.
Balance was broken before too, but now we can't talk about balance at all. Why is the balance now any worse than it was before? It used to be that years of security buffs made it silly safe in highsec; now the gankers have been given some tools to counter-balance those ridiculous safety levels. If anything, it is balanced now, when it was hilariously off-balance before.
bornaa wrote:Find me what other BC size ship T2 version costs that much over T1 version. You see, Hulk costs 10 times more then Covetor. Again: so what? Decreasing improvement for exponential cost. It's how all of EVE works. By the way, 10+ù more is a very very small markup in that segmentGǪ
-+ Bestower: 1GÇô2-+M GÇö Impel: 190-220M -+ Sigil: 1GÇô3M GÇö Prorator: 100M -+ Badger: 0.7M GÇö Crane: 100M -+ Badger II: 1.5M GÇö Bustard: 130M -+ Iteron: 0.8M GÇö Viator: 100M -+ Iteron III: 1M GÇö Occator: 135M -+ Mammoth: 2M GÇö Mastodon: 200M -+ Wreathe: 1M GÇö Prowler: 100M
GǪso that's maybe 100+ù on average.
-+ Prophecy: 32M GÇö Absolution: 210M / Damnation: 300M -+ Ferox: 35M GÇö Nighthawk: 250M / Vulture: 215M -+ Brutix: 40M GÇö Astarte: 190M / Eos: 200M -+ Cyclone: 29M GÇö Claymore: 280M / Sleipnir: 245M
GǪso quite close to that 10+ù markup. So even within your very limited selection, your argument doesn't particularly hold water (and if we look outside the BC-sized segment, we quickly notice how very small a 10+ù cost for a T2 upgrade is).
Severian Carnifex wrote:You see, it is fitted to completely use its bonuses and completely is spelialized for its purpose and it have 50k EHP. Hulk is aluminium foil when its specialized in mining. I suppose you missed the point that by the miners' logic, the Damnation needs to have its tanking buffed. The Damnation. If you cannot figure out why this is gut-bustingly laughably insane, you need to have a look at the ship in questionGǪ
Oh, and as mentioned above:
Damnation 300M vs. Prophecy 32M GÇö close enough to 10+ù to count. Hulk: 310M vs. Covetor 33M GÇö almost exactly the same multiplierGǪ and it's not 50% more than the Damnation / Prophecy either.
GǪbut of course, cost is not a balancing factor, so it wouldn't matter if you were actually even remotely close to being correct. These are the current Jita prices, by the way. You should probably use actual data if you're going to try that kind of argument (not that it really matters since it's an irrelevant argument anyway, what with cost not being a balancing factor and all thatGǪ). 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6005
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 16:15:00 -
[16] - Quote
bornaa wrote:Don't tell me that you are the one who is only buying from Jita even there half of things cost much more then its worth. Jita is the pretty much the standard point of comparison since it's where the market moves the fastest towards the current equilibrium, and since it's objectively true for, and available to, everyone.
If you want to use some other non-standard data for comparison, provide sources and links. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6005
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 16:27:00 -
[17] - Quote
bornaa wrote:http://eve-central.com Proxy error. So I'll go by the numbers that are easily available GÇö Jita, which is what all the numbers are trending towards anyway.
Quote:See damnation price in like Rens or Amarr - and you cant say they don't follow the trend. and all other prices are there. GǪand if you pick a specific spot, it's not a good idea to mix-and-match because then you're picking between places that are being affected by speculation and those that aren't. Going for GÇ£cheapest in highsecGÇ¥ is good if you're looking to find a deal GÇö it's not a good way of comparing things. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6006
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 16:58:00 -
[18] - Quote
bornaa wrote:Copy paste, don't click it. GǪand the site only gave me proxy errors.
Quote:And i am picking the best spot for both things I compare so its good statistics data. No, it's awful statistics data because you're picking and choosing between prices that are affected by different factors, and this makes them very bad for comparisons. If you want to compare prices, make sure all of them are subject to the same influences.
Quote:You cant compare things, of lets say ores in RL, from one market, one ore is mined 1km from that market and other 20.000km. GǪand that's exactly what you're doing if you're picking the lowest price GÇö you're not actually looking at what stuff is worth on a common market. Jita is that common market, because even if prices are inflated, they are universally inflated and that's what matters.
Anyway, the fact remains: the 10+ù markup for a T2 barge is actually quite low, even within the already very low markup BC-sized segment. Moreover, since cost isn't a balancing factor, it is also quite irrelevant.
Jas Dor wrote:So because you have no data to refute my argument you will resort to ridicule because it shows, in detail, an uncomfortable truth. This ship cannot tank. GǪexcept that the Hulk can tank just fine if you choose to do so. It can survive a single Tornado attack with ease. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6007
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 17:06:00 -
[19] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:On the left, fully insurable, zero cost disposable ship. Won't even care to tank it, it's free and disposable anyway.
On the right, more training intensive, 10x times more expensive ship, tanked enough to withstand the average ganker. It'll still die, expecially come [insert here any of Hulkageddon, ice interdiction, Bat Country, racketing] for near of the above ship yield.
Anyone see something wrong? No, eh? No. What's wrong with it. All I see is the very good design decision that a small inexpensive ship can kill a larger, more expensive one. This is as it should be.
By the way, has anyone mentioned that cost isn't a balancing factor? You seem to assume that it isGǪ
Alara IonStorm wrote:I seem to be able to fit all the guns and 2 Gyro's. In other words, you've sacrificed gank for tank. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6007
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 17:38:00 -
[20] - Quote
Severian Carnifex wrote:Yea, by that amount (40%) increase tank of mining ships and we are happy. We are back on what was 6 months ago. That would make the buff pointless, so why on earth would they do something that stupid?
Adunh Slavy wrote:Oh it's the players that are at fault Since it's the player who chooses to make himself easier to kill, and then complain about how easy he is to kill, yes. It is 100% the idiot's fault.
Mystrak wrote:No. The orca is under the capital ships section. GǪand it requires no capital skills; no capital arrays; and CCP lists it in their ship charts as a GÇ£largeGÇ¥ ship, together with the battleships (and, incidentally, the freighters). So no, the Orca isn't really a capship GÇö the Rorqual is. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6008
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 17:46:00 -
[21] - Quote
Severian Carnifex wrote:oh... so ganking is intended to be only viable gameplay for Destroyers in EVE??? Can DEV please confirm this please??? No, but why on earth would they implement a change that counteracts a buff they just made like that?
Put another way: why on earth should they buff the Hulk just because destroyers were buffed? If it's because destroyers are often used to kill hulks, then the logic you're implying applies: they buffed the destroyers so they can kill hulks more easily, so why should they undo that buff? If it's for some other reason, then the increased ability of destroyers is irrelevant, so why bring them up?
Jojo Jackson wrote:Wrong.
The buff happened to make this weapons and ships compareble to other COMBAT ships.
NOT to make your anti sozial ganker life easier! Actually, one inevitably generates the other. Regardless, if they buffed the destroyers to improve their combat ability, then there is no reason to buff the Hulk just because they buffed the destroyers, because they have nothing to do with each other.
You can't have it both ways, and no matter which way you choose, there is no reason to buff Hulks. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6008
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 17:52:00 -
[22] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:So why does the ganker get a security status penalty, he should be blameless, right? What on earth are you on about? Why should he be blameless?
He gets the sec status penalty because he chooses to.
The Hulk player is at fault for being easy to kill because he chooses to be easy to kill. What's confusing you about this very simple relationship?
Quote:Are you really going to pretend it all comes down to one thing? Am I supposed to just fall for this line of reasoning? How is it not the player's fault if he chooses not to tank his ship? 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6009
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 17:56:00 -
[23] - Quote
Jojo Jackson wrote:If it would be listed as BS (which it isn't INGAME) .. WHY doesn't it has the same amount of slots, CPU, PG as any other BS size ship? For the same reason the Hulk doesn't have the same amount of slots, CPU, PG as any other BC-sized ship.
I can't be bothered to scrub through 80 hours of fanfest video, but it's in one of the presentations about ship iterations GÇö they show the full chart for ORE and industrial ships (which they didn't include in the blog), and the Orca apparently doesn't qualify as capital, just like what the skill reqs and (lack of) usage limitations would suggest. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6009
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 18:01:00 -
[24] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:You said it was the victims fault 100% Learn to read. Yes, it's 100% the victim's fault if he chooses to make himself easy to kill. What's confusing you about this?
Why on earth would that suddenly make the attacker blameless for attacking and not earn him a sec penalty?
Quote:Which goes back to the point, why fly the hulk at all? Fly the covetor instead. GǪwhich goes back to the point: why does the Hulk need a buff, since it's obviously so much better than the Covetor that everyone is flying it, rather than what you claim to be an equally good ship?
Jojo Jackson wrote:To make it eazy target for gankers? No. To define its role. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6009
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 18:07:00 -
[25] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:Learn not be so overly dramatic with your 100% absolutes. What's dramatic about it?
Is it, or is it not, the victim who has chosen to make his ship easy to kill? If it's not the victim, please explain how someone managed to change his fit into something he didn't want to use, and how that someone managed to force the victim to undock when he didn't want to.
Jojo Jackson wrote:Wrong.
CCP FORCES them to be a victim with cimped slot layouts and fitting stats GǪexcept that you can still choose to fit a tank or choose not to, and that decision is 100% yours. No-one else can make it for you. If you choose to not fit a tank, then it is 100% your fault for choosing to make your ship easy to kill.
In addition, you can choose to pick another ship. People choose not to, for some odd reasonGǪ but again, that choice is 100% up to you, and you cannot blame anyone else but yourself for your choice. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6009
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 18:12:00 -
[26] - Quote
Pak Narhoo wrote:Nice going comparing apples with tech moons. Good thing that I didn't then. I compared a GÇ£fit for its roleGÇ¥ fit with the kind of GÇ£fit for its roleGÇ¥ fit that people want to put on their Hulks, after which they complain that their Hulks need to be buffed because of how weak they become with that role-specific fit.
If you fit the Damnation for its role, it's a weak ship and obviously needs to have its tank buffedGǪ or maybe you could just fit a tank to it and see what happens, much like how you could approach fitting a hulk. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6009
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 18:21:00 -
[27] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:There is no such thing as a gank proof ship. There is no point in putting on as much tank as the cost of an insured covetor. The hulk is redundant. GǪexcept that numbers prove you wrong. The Hulk is far more popular than the Covetor because of the advantages it provides, and it is far from redundant. In fact, if anything, it's the Covetor that is redundant due to how poorly it performs for what it requires (which is why they're adjusting it to make it a bit more appealing in Inferno).
Its popularity also demonstrates that it's not really in any greater need of a buff GÇö if it were, it wouldn't be nearly as popular, especially if it's so close to a Covetor as you claim. But again, there's a reason they're adjusting the Covetor, not the Hulk, in the next expansionGǪ
Quote:The drama is you running around calling people idiots and blaming them for 100% of things It's not dramatic to say that your choice is your choice GÇö it's actually the most trivial of truisms. If you choose to make your ship easy to kill, then you choose make your ship easy to kill. The result is easy to see: the ship is now easy to kill; you chose this to happen; it is 100% your fault. This decision is entirely within your control. No matter how much you'd like to shift the blame elsewhere, no-one but you are responsible for the choices you make.
No-one is claiming that it can be made gank-proof. We're claiming that if you make it easier to gank than it needs to be, then that's entirely of your own choosing, and you bad decision is not an adequate reason to change the ship. It is and adequate reason for you to reconsider your decision and make a less bad one the next timeGǪ Your failure is not a game design problem.
Jojo Jackson wrote:There is just one reason you pick Hulks+Industrials : YOU are to bad for real PvP Have you thought about learning how to PvP? It's not all that hardGǪ 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6009
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 18:25:00 -
[28] - Quote
Jojo Jackson wrote:If you abuse a ship out of it's intened use ... YOU fail. Congratulations GÇö you just saw our entire point. Don't abuse a ship by focusing on just one aspect and neglecting the rest, and suddenly, it will perform much better than you thought it did in areas you didn't think of at firstGǪ
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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6009
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 18:42:00 -
[29] - Quote
Jojo Jackson wrote:Why should I if I don't like it? Because then you will no longer have to pick those hulks and industrials.
Quote:And who tells you I wouldn't know how to? Fair enough. It just comes as a conclusion from you apparently wanting to pick hulks and industrials, and your claim that you pick those because you're GÇ£too bad for real PvPGÇ¥.
Adunh Slavy wrote:@ Tip The amount of complaints about its lack of survivability proves something as well. Yes: that people don't know how to tank their ships, because once you start asking them about what's behind the complaints, that's always what comes out in the end. They want their ships to be more sturdy because they refuse to make them more sturdy themselves. They refuse to accept responsibility for their own decisions.
I don't see why their lack of intelligence, character, and forethought should in any way be rewarded. They can learn by their mistakes like everyone else, and if they don't, it's only right that they suffer the consequences of their poor decisions.
Quote:And there are better ways to make a ship gank proof than fitting a tank, but I'll let you ponder that one, see if it'll drag you out of your black and white box of safe arguments. So you're back to that straw man, eh? You're the one banging on about being GÇ£gank proofGÇ¥, not me. I know how to make my hulk gank proof, and it has nothing to do with how I fit it. However, just like with the suggestion to actually fit a tank, people refuse to adopt those kinds of strategies as well becauseGǪ wellGǪ just because, usually. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6009
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 18:57:00 -
[30] - Quote
Jojo Jackson wrote:That's not your point.
Your point: Don't buff our prefared eazy mode targets as we would lose more money while we do our anti sozial ganking.
No? No. My point is: there is no reason to buff the Hulk just because people make bad decisions in how they choose to fit them. The solution to that GÇ£problemGÇ¥ is for people to stop making those bad decisions.
Quote:Then enlight us with a true argument why BC size ships don't have the same starting values (slots, cpu, pg, other stats). Most of them do, you know, so why would I argue against facts? You're also over-interpreting the meaning of slots and the meaning of size. Sure, a battlecruiser may have 7-8 highs for 6-7 weaponsGǪ because it needs 6-7 weapons to get its full gank on. A Hulk only needs 3 highs to get its full yield. If it's the number of slots that's bothering you then sure, double the number of highs on all barges and exhumers and cut the yield and fitting reqs of all strip miners in half. Problem solved.
Why don't all BC size ships have the same starting values? Because they are completely different ships.
Quote:But why do they lose another 4 slots (mid+low)? And why do they lose massive amounts of CPU and PG? And why do they lose massive amounts of base defense? Hulk 7.374 base EHp v Claymore 20.657 base EHP .. BOTH ARE TECH 2 BC hulls and (should) be at the same price tack! Because they don't need any more to fulfil their role. Same goes for the base hitpoints. A Hulk doesn't have the stats of a T2 battlecruiser because a Hulk isn't a T2 battlecruiser GÇö it's a T2 mining barge. It's a completely different class of ship. They have nothing to do with each other. Nothing that applies to one is of any relevance to the other. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6009
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 18:59:00 -
[31] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:That must be a very comfortable little box. Maybe open the top and look outside from time to time. I accept your surrender.
Quote:LOL, the straw is yours and it looks just like you. I have not be "banging on" as you claim about 'gank proof' in your narrow little definition of fitting a tank. GǪexcept that I never made any claim about how gtanks would make you gank proof GÇö that's something you've dreamed up because you ran out of arguments and needed to invent something I never said so you could attack it.
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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6009
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 19:04:00 -
[32] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:but seriously what the **** are you doing putting a mwd on a hulk GǪit would solve their complaints about align time, if nothing else. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6010
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 19:18:00 -
[33] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:LOL, just because you ignore the arguments you do not like, doesn't mean they cease to exist. What arguments? Let's seeGǪ
I wrote: GÇ£Yes: that people don't know how to tank their ships, because once you start asking them about what's behind the complaints, that's always what comes out in the end. They want their ships to be more sturdy because they refuse to make them more sturdy themselves. They refuse to accept responsibility for their own decisions.
I don't see why their lack of intelligence, character, and forethought should in any way be rewarded. They can learn by their mistakes like everyone else, and if they don't, it's only right that they suffer the consequences of their poor decisions.GÇ¥
GǪto which you answered: GǣThat must be a very comfortable little box. Maybe open the top and look outside from time to time.Gǥ
Nope. No argument. Just some desperate chest-beating and what was probably intended as an ad hominem fallacy.
Quote:I didn't create the thread, neither did you. Reality sucks, doesn't it. Yet another straw man. I didn't say you did; I said you brought up the idea of GÇ£gank proofGÇ¥ fits GÇö not me GÇö and you did it solely to point out that they didn't exist, implying that I should stop suggesting them (which I never didGǪ). So your fallacy count is rapidly increasing here.
Whitehound wrote:A lot of good points here for why the Hulk should get improved. I, too, can fly one but I never bothered with buying just a single one when I can fly a much cheaper Covetor with a tank just as useless, but nearly the same mining yield as a Hulk. GǪexcept that numbers shows this not to be true, since the Covetor is a deeply unpopular ship (so unpopular, in fact, that they're going to adjust it to improve its standing) whereas the Hulk is one of the most popular ships in the game.
Quote:These ORE ships were designed without ganking and Hulkageddon in mind. True. They were designed for far more adverse conditions, and then people cripple them with their bad decisions so they can't even survive very safe environments. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6010
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 19:38:00 -
[34] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:ROFL, says the Eve forums drama queen. Nope. Says your argument-less little quip, as quoted.
Quote:Why not go generalize and call some more people idiots. Why would I do that? I just call people idiots when they complain that their own decision to weaken their ship weakened their ships. It's not really a generalisation GÇö it's an inference made from the fact that they're complaining about their own decisions and wishing others to GÇ£fixGÇ£ those errors.
Quote:Haha. Everyone that reads your posts know how easily and conveniently you shift between literal meanings and the spirit of a conversation to suit you. You keep up with your playground rules, and I'll keep winding you up like a cheap watch. GǪand yet, you were the one who created the GÇ£gank-proofGÇ¥ straw man when GÇö presumably GÇö you couldn't come up with any reasonable answer to why tanking your ship would help.
So, let's just get to the point that you don't want to get to: why on earth should Hulks be buffed?
Jojo Jackson wrote:Facts:
Hulk == Tech II Battlecruiser hull like Command Ships Hulk is unable to even fit nearly the same defense a Command Ship can fit Yes? So? Why should the Hulk be able to do that, when it's not a T2 BC? 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6010
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 19:43:00 -
[35] - Quote
Sycho Pathic wrote:Yep. The advantages a Hulk has over a Covetor or too minor to be justified by the 500% premium. Total wastes of ISK until they give it a little something extra to justify the expense. Assuming for a second that you're not just trollingGǪ
GǪit would be a lot easier to buy into that reasoning if it weren't for the fact that the Hulk is so immensely more popular than the Covetor, and that the numbers do not support the claim that the advantage the former has is very minor. If the advantage really was that small, wouldn't the Covetor be the far more popular of the two, and wouldn't it be the Hulk that got a much-needed usability boost in Inferno rather than the other way around? 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6010
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 20:00:00 -
[36] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:I think people are simply smarter than this. They do not care if their Hulk gets ganked or if CCP gives them a better tank. I, and this is just me and not everyone, do not have fun with buying a Hulk. I then post here and voice my opinion. Must players do not do this either. Does this make us automatically wrong? No. Of course not, but as pointed out above, the whole line of reasoning that there is no reason to pick the Hulk over the Covetor kind of falls apart when you look at the numbers. The Hulk has pretty consistently been in the top spots for most used ships in the game. The Covetor is commonly one of the least used ships. If there was no reason to pick the Hulk, that relationship would be reversed.
Instead, they're now going to adjust the Covetor for pretty much the exact reason some people say they should adjust the Hulk: because it's not a useful choice. The Covetor's relative uselessness shows up pretty clearly in the numbers, and as a result, they're trying to reduce the investment required to get that lower level of effectiveness.
If it is indeed true that the difference between the Covetor and the Hulk is that small, then no, people are not smarter than this GÇö they are in fact very very dumb, as shown by the immense popularity of the Hulk. Alternatively, people are indeed smart, in which case the difference between the Covetor and the Hulk are more than sufficient to generate this vast chasm in popularity between the two (again: to the point where CCP is going to adjust the Covetor so it becomes more worth-while).
Quote:I do not understand your second point. Ganking does not make an environment safe or very safe. My second point is that the Hulk is designed to withstand space that is far more hostile than highsec. People then take this design and cripple it with poor fits to the point where, not only can't it survive the harsh space it was designed for, but it can't even survive in highsec. The ship is inherently capable of much more than people are letting it be.
Ganks are not unique to highsec, and in fact, in highsec, you can drastically reduce the risk of being killed by one through the simple act of fitting a proper tank. Ganks most certainly don't make highsec any less safe than other parts of spaceGǪ 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6010
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 20:12:00 -
[37] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Tippia wrote:Of course not, but as pointed out above, the whole line of reasoning that there is no reason to pick the Hulk over the Covetor kind of falls apart when you look at the numbers. ... Try not to look at the numbers then. Yes. Let's make changes to the game based on complete fabrications rather than the facts.
Also, wohaGǪ did a whole bunch of posts just get nuked? People's quotes are all over the place and the posts they quote no longer exist.
Jojo Jackson wrote:Proper Tank == 2 LSE + 2 INVUS + missing slots compared to other Tech 2 BC hulls. GǪexcept that the Exhumers are not T2 BCs, so you can stop with that nonsense comparison.
They can already fit a proper tank. People just choose not to, and then complain that their untanked ships are weak.
Quote:I compare Tech 2 BC hulls with Tech 2 BC hulls. No. You're comparing T2 BC hulls with T2 mining barge hulls. Mining barges Gëá BCs. Exhumers Gëá command ships. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6010
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 20:18:00 -
[38] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:The investment in SP and materials for a hulk is considerable compared to its T1 variant. It's capabilities do not reflect that investment as much as other classes of ships that have T1 and T2 variants. It falls short. GǪexcept that the numbers show that the exhumers are not out of line with what other T2 upgrades provide; that the popularity of the ships show that the capabilities are more than enough for the T2 variant to completely overshadow the T1 version; and that the SP investment to get to exhumers is quite small compared to other hull types.
In other words: what shortfall? Almost everything offered so far shows the exact opposite: that the Hulk is an unusually good upgrade over the Covetor.
Quote:Divisions of labor and specialization should be encouraged in Eve, not discouraged by and overcome by a few 3 day old biomass giggle gankbears in cheap destroyers. Sure it should. The fact that a new character in a destroyer can kill this expensive and low-to-mid req (in terms of skills) ship is a sign of good design.
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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6010
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 20:22:00 -
[39] - Quote
bornaa wrote:[So common market for you is only larger market that gives that price to damnation... right... that's 100% without any errors. No. Common market for me is the most commonly used point of comparison, since it's one of the driving forces of the economy overall, where trading itself GÇö not proximity GÇö determines where prices are going (and where prices in the rest of the universe will go).
Jita is a place where you can find anything and everything under one roof; where everything is subject to the same influence; and where the volume is large enough to make sure trends quickly propagate through all kinds of goods. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6010
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 20:26:00 -
[40] - Quote
bornaa wrote:Ill just say XD and that you dont know what open market is. Good for you. Doesn't change the fact that you're using incomparable points of comparison if you just pick the lowest price, and that Jita is the point of comparison for goods in EVE.
Quote:Go get your numbers and post them with satisfactory detail and all your confirmable references. Did that already. Also, go read any of the ship popularity lists in the old QENs, in Diagoras' tweets, in the Economy presentations, and/or in the economy snapshots.
Quote:Your opinion does not make it good design. Agreed. The fundamental design principle of EVE GÇö that bigger isn't better and that marginal improvement comes at exponential cost GÇö is what makes it good design. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6010
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 20:30:00 -
[41] - Quote
Kengutsi Akira wrote:Gotta agree with T
But you should be required to keep those biomassed gank alts for a set time imo. Yeah its a exploit to biomass them but the ccp ppl are forever saying they dont have the ppl to watch every biomass so theres a big loophole More to the point, there is pretty much no reason to recycle a gank alt GÇö it already has the skill and the sec status isn't much of a hindrance (once again due to people choosing it not to be). 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6011
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 20:40:00 -
[42] - Quote
bornaa wrote:When I compare prices, I compare prices from manufacturer or importer for both products so that I dont have a problem with not knowing how much middlemans were there and how big their margin were. You mean those things that will affect all things equally in a large-volume hub such as Jita?
The problem is that your GÇ£lowest priceGÇ¥ points of comparison do not let you filter out the factors you just mentioned GÇö they just pick where people are being the most na+»ve about how much they ask for their goods without any kind of knowledge of why they're asking for those prices. You are comparing disparate points with unknown, unknowable, and most likely vastly different market forces are creating that low price. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6011
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 20:50:00 -
[43] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:Darth Gustav wrote:Why doesn't anybody do anything about it then?
The problem is mentality, not rules. Sadly, the gankbears are just as protected by Concord as the miners. Here's to high hopes for crimewatch 2.0. Incorrect. Gankers are not as protected as the miners are, since the act of ganking means that CONCORD will bow out should you choose to seek revenge. As DG points out, the problem is mentality not rules GÇö people choose to let the gankers be protected, when they could equally choose not to.
In fact, if the (unconfirmed) rumours that Crimewatch 2.0 will remove kill rights are true, they will actually be more protected after the patch than before.
If that doesn't happen, then CW2.0 will have no effect at all.
Sycho Pathic wrote:I'm kind of hoping the "Shoot someone and you're fair game" mechanic happens. That mechanic already exists. It's called GCC. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6011
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 20:55:00 -
[44] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:My argument wasn't about the popularity of the ship. Tip attempting to recast the argument. Sorry. I'm not going to debate Y when my point is X. Your argument is that the T2 upgrade to barges isn't worth the effort; my argument is that the numbers don't support this claim GÇö if it were true, exhumers should be far less popular than they are, and the price for the upgrade shouldn't be anywhere as beneficial as it is.
I'm not trying to recast the argument GÇö I'm countering your assertion with data. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6011
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 21:19:00 -
[45] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:There are additional factors to that, such as the hulk having skill requirements that made the covetor passed over in short order. GǪwhich kind of contradicts that the difference is so small as to make the Hulk not worth-while as an upgrade.
Quote:Besides, popularity was never the point. You choose to wander off to make an argument about popularity and ignore what you do not want to address. No, the argument was about relative effectiveness, and your claim that the Hulk wasn't really worth it is being contradicted by the numbers. The numbers themselves are not in question (although you tried to do that too) GÇö they are a counter-argument to your claim.
Quote:That does not always lead to "good design". You choose to ignore the basic economic arguments for a ship balancing debate. You mean cost GÇö that thing that isn't a factor in balance?
Whitehound wrote:Be fair. ISK prices are a balancing factor. CCP has made changes to the balance by adjusting the bill of materials as well as to the source of materials a few times. They cannot adjust the price itself. How could they? No. Cost is not a balancing factor as was shown very early in the thread. Cost is a result of supply and demand; it does not dictate performance GÇö if anything, it's the other way around because of how much in demand a high-performing ship is. However, due to that design principle of marginal improvement at ever increasing costs, the value you get for a higher price is somewhere between nil and completely unpredictable.
Put another way: just because a Hulk costs a lot doesn't mean it has to be made to perform better GÇö instead, the reason it costs a lot is because it already does perform better. If you don't think it's worth the cost, don't use it, and soon the price will match what you think its performance is. Problem solved. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6012
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 21:59:00 -
[46] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:In the end is it irrelevant to the people who say that a ship of 300m ISKs is too expensive. It is an opinion one needs to respect. Then they can choose not to buy that ship and get something that fits their price/performance requirements betterGǪ which will eventually make that ship price come down to where they start to afford it again.
Alternatively, they'll notice that jumping ships will not let them earn as much as the new baseline for the economy, and realise that those 300M is actually not expensive any more compared to what you earn when flying it.
Either way, the price is not an argument for buffing or nerfing a ship, especially not when the price is subject to player control to such a large extent.
Quote:Read the devblogs. CCP has stated a few times that changes were made to address the prices of items. GǪbut, again, not to affect their balance, since cost is not a factor for balance. What they've done in all those cases is the exact opposite. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6012
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 22:05:00 -
[47] - Quote
Barbara Nichole wrote:Really? How many strip miners can you fit on your Iteron? The amount of strip miners you can fit to it does not change the fact that we're talking about industry ships and that the cost is quite irrelevant as far as determining what you can and cannot fit onto that ship.
Quote:Better insurance options for the hulk would be welcome but not necessary, a small boost to survival would be nice; why not improve it some? Because there's no real reason to do so. Any boost in survivability it might need could be achieved by people starting to tank their ships instead of eroding away all their hitpoints with various mods that weaken the ship.
Karim alRashid wrote:Sorry, the post is entirely correct. Acquiring gear is not a goal, but means. GǪunless you're a collector, in which case fits and performance become completely secondary-átertiary -GêP:ary. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6012
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 22:11:00 -
[48] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:This reads to me like you want to tell the players to go play some other game, because this is your game. I am sorry, but if you cannot respect players reasoning for why they make their decisions then you are pretty much out of the discussion. They can make any decision they like, but they should accept that it is their decision and stop complaining about the game because just they don't like the decisions they made.
And anyway, the point remains the same: just because they dislike the price point on a specific item doesn't mean that item needs to be buffed, nerfed, or otherwise balanced. It means they should stop buying the item in question until it comes down in price to where they think it's worth it.
Quote:Yes, to change the cost of items. And no it is exactly what they have done. No. They changed the price to match the performance; they didn't change the performance to match the price or to balance the ship, because price is not a factor in determining performance and dictating balance.
You keep confusing cause and effect, factor and result.
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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6012
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 22:19:00 -
[49] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:I am only repeating what CCP said. You need to talk to them when you think their reasoning was wrong. Ok, you need to provide an actual example and reference now.
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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6012
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 22:34:00 -
[50] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:No, if you do not read the devblogs on a regular basis then it is your loss and not mine. No, it's your loss because it means you cannot support your claims, and we can summarily dismiss them as nonsense.
So no, cost is not a factor in balance.
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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6012
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 22:44:00 -
[51] - Quote
Ten Bulls wrote:Who are you speaking on behalf of, or is it all about you ? Everyone. Onus probandi is nasty that wayGǪ
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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6012
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 23:02:00 -
[52] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:She or he is in disbelieve over almost everything. I will certainly not dig through tons of devblogs, patch notes and other stuff just to make them believe. Then you shouldn't make grandiose claims about what CCP has said.
Quote:I wonder why people suddenly fail to remember the changes to the moon mats for example. Because those changes had nothing to do with balance and everything to do with market efficiency GÇö specifically to remove unwanted bottlenecks in the entire T2 production line, which were then, inevitably, replaced by new bottlenecks.
So no, cost is not a factor in balance.
Quote:And now Tippia pretends to have forgotten about it. No, I remember it just fine. So fine, in fact, that unlike you, I remember that it had nothing to do with balancing ships or items. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6013
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 23:13:00 -
[53] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:This is purely your opinion.
Getting a shiny ship for me may be a means but also a goal. I will never go PvP in a State Raven but you can stay sure I'd get one if I wanted. Sure, but at that point, things like performance, usefulness, and balance become rather trivial matters, do they not? You're after the item itself, not its use. If you're in that mode, then price/performance ratios become rather irrelevant and the price, alone, becomes the thing that has to be GÇ£conqueredGÇ¥, so a high price GÇö no matter how awful a thing you get for it GÇö is the draw.
Quote:I can clearly understand why someone who is 6 months in the game would see an Hulk as his goal. The distinction that he's trying to make, I believe, is this: is the Hulk the goal, or is it the top-of-the-line mining the Hulk enables? Granted, the player might not consciously make the distinction, but isn't it more likely that it's actually the latter that is the goal, and the Hulk is just a means toward that goal?
Whitehound wrote:Yes, those changes were made to reduce the costs of T2 ships. GǪwhich means it had nothing to do with balance, since the ships themselves did not change in any way. So still no, cost is not a factor in balance. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6013
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 23:21:00 -
[54] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:If the argument isn't one you like, you ignore it anyway. This has been pointed out by a number of people over the past. I'm sure you'll ignore that too. You mean like how you ignored my question about what argument you were referring to?
Whitehound wrote:It was one of many changes CCP did to address price balances. Two different things. They just adjusted the resource requirements, not the balance.
Quote:It is enough to proof that the price of an item is subject to game changes. QED. No, not QED, because that wasn't what was in question. What was in question was whether cost was a factor in balance. Hint: it isn't. They didn't adjust the moon goo to change the ship balance GÇö they adjusted it to remove bottlenecks and make the market more efficient. The ship balance remained exactly the same as before because the ships themselves were left untouched. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6016
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 23:41:00 -
[55] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:The other guy and expecially you, are pretending to legislate how everybody else should play. I'm not dictating anything GÇö I'm asking you a couple of questions.
If gear is really the goal, then doesn't performance and balance and all that stuff take a back seat? If gear is really the goal, doesn't price become a challenge, rather than something that needs to be justified? If gear is really the goal, doesn't the activity that may or may not accompany it become more of an after-thought?
Quote:I make or buy what I make or buy because I like to. The price tag is no issue since something has not to be expensive to be coveted. If I want to make money to afford it I have just to play the market or something financially profitable. This seems to answer the second question with a GÇ£yesGÇ¥.
Quote:Some of the financially profitable things could be a ship, and a ship that does good at its role. It's a plus. For many, the top ship for what they like IS their goal, because this is the spaceships game. Yes, even a stupid mining ship can be the goal, because not everybody are out to kill each other. I know enough hard core miners who go in ecstasy talking about having bought the mining COSMOS implant or having put some stupidly expensive mod on their Hulk. And this is where that distinction matters: what you're talking about here is gear as means to an end, not an end in and of itself. The miner wants to be the top miner, so he needs the top ship/top implant/top droneGǪ not because it's the top ship [etc], but because it lets him be the top miner GÇö it a means towards that end. it may be a purely academic distinction, but it sits right at the hart of the matter of what the actual goal is: the gear or the activity.
Adunh Slavy wrote:You mean the question about why I think your arguments have the depth of a dry dinner plate? So you can't actually refer to any specific argument, I take it?
Whitehound wrote:Yes, you did question it. Actually you denied it, but this is not the point. CCP did respond to the players demand to do something about the prices and they did. No, I never questioned it. I questioned your assertion that CCP said that price was a balancing factor GÇö an assertion you have not been able to back up. This is something vastly different from prices being subject to game changes, which was never in question until you brought it up as GÇ£proofGÇ¥ for them affecting balance (never mind that you didn't in any way link those changes to any actual balance changes). You're begging the question. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6018
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 00:11:00 -
[56] - Quote
Ibn Taymiyyah wrote:Find me a ship, of any type, that costs 200/300mil, that's fitted for max yield at it's role (if it's combat, it's a basic glass cannon), fitted with as much tank as it can after max yield.
Now name me a single one that can be killed by 2 destroyers that cost less than 10mil with fittings in under 10 seconds! :) For starters, that premise disqualifies the Hulk, since it cannot be killed by those two destroyers.
The Impel (with the prices I last saw in Jita at least) very nearly qualifies, with about the same margin as the Hulk. The Mastodon gets away with it because, being a shield tanker, it can fit both tank and primary purpose at once. The other DSCs don't qualify because they're too cheap. You can make a few T3 ships to fulfil those requirements as well, and the silly Damnation posted earlier almost qualifies too (a similarly silly Eos comes even closer, and you can't even properly max out a Claymore).
Adunh Slavy wrote:ROFL - you have more than proven you are not worth wasting time upon. When you decide to debate honestly, I'll do something other than poke you with this pointed stick. So you can't actually refer to any specific argument, I take it?
Whitehound wrote:I did not need to back it up since you do remember it. Yes you do, because your claim remains unsupported: that CCP said price was a factor in balance and that they've used pricing modifications to adjust balance.
Quote:And yes you denied someone else here in the thread to use the price of a ship as an argument for a change, but this is exactly what lead CCP to make the change. GǪwhich once more isn't what you were claiming. You should really read what you've written and try to stick to one line.
No, I did not deny that they have adjusted prices. I've simply said that you cannot support your claim that they've used price as a factor in their balancing efforts. All you've offered is an example of them indirectly adjusting prices GÇö not that they've tried to adjust ship balancing in any way by doing so. And no, what lead CCP to make the change had nothing to do with balance and everything to do with market inefficiencies GÇö more specifically bottlenecks in the T2 manufacturing process.
So no, price is not a factor in balance.
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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6018
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 00:21:00 -
[57] - Quote
Jojo Jackson wrote:You want to gank a 400m hull? Spent 400m just for hulls ... then we can talk! Eh, no. Balance doesn't really work that way. Balance is when you can't just buy your way to safety by spending more money on the hull GÇö balance is when, no matter how much you spend, you run the risk of being killed by even something quite small. In fact, the bigger you are GÇö and the more expensive your hull GÇö the more vulnerable you should be to those smaller ships.
Paper-scissors-rock. You picked the expensive rock, so he goes for the cheap paper.
Quote:Take slot numbers from Command ship, remove weapons, add mining laser. EHP, defens, aligne time stay the same. You still think that barges are battlecruisers, don't you?
Aranakas wrote:At least then the gankers would have to be organized. As it is, it takes just a lone ganker, which needs to change. This is already the case if youGǪ you knowGǪ tank your Hulk.
By the way, just as that Hulk is creeping up towards 300M, those GÇ£cheapGÇ¥ destroyers used to kill it start to creep up to 2M a pop, just for the hull, as opposed to the 7-800 they used to cost. So don't for a second think that the loss ratios have changed just because the Hulk is a bit more expensive than before.
Whitehound wrote:Thank you. So you agree, then, that price is not a factor in balance. Good. You're quite weird for tanking me for saying you were as wrong as you have always been. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6018
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 00:28:00 -
[58] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:Too damn funny, just keep repeating the same thing over and over. Doing exactly what many point out. Thanks for the evidence. So you can't actually refer to any specific argument, I take it?
You have continually failed to produce anything even remotely resembling any kind of argument. I'll keep asking you to do so until you do or until you admit that you don't have one. Your choice. So far, we can safely conclude that you have nothing. You are just trying to stall to cover this embarrassing fact.
No, it's not funny that you fail to such a degree. I'm trying to help you here, but you refuse to take it. What a shame. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6018
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 00:31:00 -
[59] - Quote
Ibn Taymiyyah wrote:Mate, the hulk is going for 300mil. both the impel and the mastodon are 100mil cheaper. Anyway, a hulk does not die to 2 dessies when maxed out for something not tank? When maxed out for yield and then tanked, it will have just over 15k EHP. Those two dessies will have a hard time chewing through that in 10s. The rule of the game was a ship in the 200/300M region, which the Impel and Mastodon fit into. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6019
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 00:45:00 -
[60] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:LOL Tippia, the thread is here GǪand yet you find it completely impossible to link, copy-paste, refer to, or otherwise provide any specific argument. Why is that?
It should be soooooo easy for you, since, obviously, you know where it is and since it's apparently readily available to us all. And yet you can't. Very strange. It's almost as if it's actually really, really difficult and as if it doesn't actually exist after allGǪ hmmm.
Quote:Keep up with your refrain about how I won't provide you with the argument you ignored. Since you keep being unable to provide it, in spite of how ridiculously simple it should be to do so, I think I will.
So you can't actually refer to any specific argument, I take it? 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6019
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 00:55:00 -
[61] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:Nope, I can find it quite easily. Unlikely, since you are so utterly unable to refer to it. SooooGǪ
GǪyou can't actually refer to any specific argument, I take it? Every time I repeat it, it becomes more and more obvious that you have nothing, until you do what I want and provide it. Or until you do what I want and admit that you're just making it up. Either way, you're doing what I want. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6020
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 01:09:00 -
[62] - Quote
Jojo Jackson wrote:Destroyer changed Tier 3 BC intrudocued weapon systems buffed
Tech 2 mining ships stay the same since they are introduced. Balance not changed? You are blind Tippia We're talking about Dominion, when moon goo requirements changed GÇö affecting the prices of T2 ships and modules GÇö but where no changes were made to any T1 or T2 ships (okGǪ the cap/supercap revamp went though, but that's slightly beyond the scope of the ships we're disussing).
Whitehound is asserting that, by changing those T2 prices, CCP wanted to GÇö and indeed did GÇö adjust the balance between ships and modules, even though nothing about those ships and modules was modified and even though they were balanced against each other in exactly the same way as before Dominion.
So none of the changes you mentioned apply to the patch we're discussing.
Whitehound wrote:How many players fly a certain ship or a ship class is important for the balance. Again, cause Gëá effect. No, the number of players that fly a certain ship or class does not determine the balance between those ships and classes. It's the other way around: the balance affects how many fly the ships.
Price is a different factor that affects how many fly the ships. Price is independent from balance GÇö just because both affect the same dependent variable doesn't mean they depend on each other.
So no, price is not a factor in balance.
Adunh Slavy wrote:[complete lack of argument] So you still can't actually refer to any specific argument, I take it? 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6021
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 01:36:00 -
[63] - Quote
Jojo Jackson wrote:Do you expect miners to be allways at 75% speed? cool story bro, then you are out of range before the stripe cycle ends. No, you won't be.
You'll be moving at 65m/s. You keep your lasers on target over a ~30km trajectory (a bit less, unless we're talking about a very small asteroid or a very magical Hulk). At that speed, you can stay on target for ~450 seconds GÇö 7-+ minutes. That's enough for 2-+ cycles, or about 11k m-¦ worth of ore. With command support, you get even more out of those 30km, and you might even get more than 30km to get more out ofGǪ that's a lot of GÇ£more.GÇ¥
Quote:Numbers prove balance. Actually, most would argue that numbers prove imbalance. But that's besides the point: numbers do not determine balance GÇö they are not a factor in how two ships are balanced against each other. Instead, it's the opposite: the balance between two ships will influence which of the two you'll see in larger numbers.
Same goes for price: price is not a factor in determining how two ships are balanced against each other. Instead, it's the opposite: the balance between two ships will influence what the ships' respective prices will be. You cannot adjust the balance of a ship by adjusting its price, because people will happily pay that price to get the advantage (or, conversely, they will ignore a lousy ship no matter how cheap).
Quote:Hulk is an exception as (allready mentioned) there is just ONE high end mining ship. Not 4 (T3) or 12 (BS) different. Funnily enough, this thread, and many of the threads it has spawned, contains claims to the opposite: that there are actually two high-end mining ships and that the Hulk isn't really the more worth-while of the twoGǪ
Adunh Slavy wrote:Tippia can't admit this basic idea that ship cost in materials and SP is a form of balance Congratulations on missing the point completely. You are wrong, as always. The argument is that you cannot balance a ship with price because it doesn't actually stop anyone from getting the ship GÇö see above. Price is not a factor in balance because it doesn't actually balance out anything. No matter how high you price something to GÇ£balanceGÇ¥ its superior stats, people will obtain the resources required and start using it, and now you have something that is inherently unbalanced wreaking havoc in the game.
By the way, you still haven't been able to provide any specific argument that I have ignored. It's safe to say, at this point, that this is because you have none. Case closed.
Whitehound wrote:Yes, the numbers of players flying a ship or a ship class is very important for determining the balance. Ships do get changed when they are flown too often. GǪand it's still not the numbers that determine the balance. The numbers are an effect of the balance, and CCP (or more commonly the players) look at those numbers to infer that something is or isn't balanced about the ships. The imbalance is with the ships themselves. No matter how the numbers look, the balance is determined by the ships and their stats. No matter how the numbers change, unless the stats change, the balance isn't altered. Likewise, price does not determine balance GÇö if anything, balance determines price. High price is then also an effect of balance, not the other way around: balance is a factor in price; price is not a factor in balance. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6021
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 01:45:00 -
[64] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:You're the one missing the point because it is convenient for you to miss the point (read ignore) and blame others for your bull headedness. GǪand you're still unable to point out what's being missed.
You have been asked to prove your nonsense. You have been unable to do so. So proof or shush, puppet. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6021
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 01:47:00 -
[65] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:ROFL - you are so blind. Prove it.
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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6021
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 01:53:00 -
[66] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:That the argument came around again and you slobered all over it with your standard refrains proves it, little fish. Prove it. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6022
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 01:55:00 -
[67] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote: You are now a tool, congrats on such a fine accomplishment. Prove it.
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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6022
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 02:00:00 -
[68] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:[still can't provide any argument] SoGǪ that argument you should be able to refer to, where is it? Why can't you actually provide it and prove something for a change?
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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6024
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 02:18:00 -
[69] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:Go look around page 17-19 That wasn't so hard, now was it?
Ok, let's seeGǪ
Page 17: I live in a box; you don't acknowledge bringing up the GÇ£gank proofGÇ¥ straw man GÇö no actual argument. Page 18: nothing. Page 19: capabilities do not reflect costs and survivability only make up for the shortfall (responded to GÇö numbers don't support the notion of a shortfall); weakness to new players devalues ship (responded to GÇö intentional design decision); crimewatch 2.0 might change things (responded to GÇö nah).
So what argument am I ignoring? 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6025
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 02:36:00 -
[70] - Quote
Kengutsi Akira wrote:see.... you guys really arent arguing over the topic anymore, just sniping back an forth I'm trying to, but he can't provide the on-topic argument he supposedly made, which makes it very hard to respond to itGǪ vOv
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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6025
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 03:04:00 -
[71] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:I did, you missed it Prove it.
Kengutsi Akira wrote:doesnt anything under 50k still die to a dessie? Cause I saw something earlier Tippia put up about a 50k something else earlier and said it could still die to them No, that was the silly-CS, which would die to a bunch of dessies. My general rule of thumb is 700 DPS from a gank dessie; so you need about 7k EHP for every 10s of CONCORD not being there (20k+ or so in 0.5). Tier-3 BCs and BSes will most likely use alpha, making sec level less of a factor GÇö 30k EHP or so should make you fairly safe from a single ship.
Yes. Why not? That should let you survive maybe one more destroyer on average than you otherwise would. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6033
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 12:55:00 -
[72] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:For you it is not about the numbers of players. It is not only obvious from what you write but also how you write. You have no love for the people on this forum and so you have no choice but to deny it. For CCP, who are the ones doing the changes, is EVE Online only a game and Internet space ships are just Internet space ships to them. The players mean the world to CCP and it will always be important to them what the players think of their game. To them do the numbers of players matter. Very passionate. Also ridiculously off-topic and very wrong in pretty much every way imaginable.
It still doesn't make numbers a factor in balance. You don't set the stats on a ship based on how many will be used in an engagement because you cannot know or control that GÇö it's infinitely variable, and the usage number is determined by the balance, so you'd enter an uncontrollable feedback loop. It's very simple GÇö see if you can follow:
If numbers were a factor in balance, the reasoning would go like this:
GÇ£We know that only one ship of this type will be used for every 100 players in a fleet. We will therefore make it very powerful so that it balances out that small number. Commonness 1/n GåÆ power factor n.GÇ¥
Obviously, this is a completely backwards way of balancing ships, and no-one in their right mind does that for the simple reason that it doesn't work: what will happen is that, instead of 1/100 players using that 100:1 power ratio ship, all one hundred players will use it because the GÇ£numbers balanceGÇ¥ has decided that it needs to be overpowered to counterbalance its low usage. Congratulations GÇö instant imbalanced ships in instantly imbalanced numbers.
Same goes for cost. If cost was a factor in balance, the reasoning would be:
GÇ£We have set the price for +£berRokh to 50bn ISK. This means we have to make it very powerful to balance out that high cost, so let's set the power factor to 9001GÇ¥GǪ and we all know where that reasoning leads and the balancing headache it causes (simply because you can't use cost to counterbalance power that way GÇö it just doesn't work).
Instead, you do the opposite: GÇ£HmmGǪ the +£berRokh isn't being used even though we think it's totally sweet. Maybe if we adjust the price, people will think it's a bit more worth-while. Oh wow! Look, it worked, yay!GÇ¥
Jojo Jackson wrote:At the end the Hulk is made for 00 or lowsec with intel and a local as pre warning.
What is needed is a high end highsec mining ship which can handle the today playstlye of suizid ganking which was no topic when the Hulk was released! Sure, it did happened back in 200x. But it wasn't that common as it is today.
The Hulk is outdated. GǪor maybe it's just being misused. It's not so much outdated as just horribly mistreated (e.g. it's commonly not fitted with a proper tank). It's like people going from HACs to HICs for their L4s because GÇ£hey, it's a T2 cruiser that tanks even more, so it should be even betterGÇ¥ GÇö never mind that its purpose is something drastically different for a completely different and for a different region of space entirely.
In factGǪ I'll see if I can find that old F&I post where this was discussedGǪ 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6033
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 13:25:00 -
[73] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:It is how CCP are. No. It may have been how they were back when they invented Titans, but they have since learned that numbers (and cost) isn't a factor in balance for the reasons I described.
Would you like to actually address the point or just invent more nonsense claims about CCP?
Quote:It is not going to change them. So that's why they have never used this flawed reasoning ever since? Wait, that doesn't make sense GÇö that would mean they have changed, after all, so that would make you wrong. Imagine that.
Anyway, found it:
-+ Massively nerf the Hulk's tank, to the point where highsec rats actually become dangerous. -+ Introduce a fourth-tier barge and exhumer (requiring skill level V, now that the Covetor will only require IV) that is restricted to null/low-sec. -+ Give the new barge and exhumer a whopping big tank to suit their harsh environment. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6036
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 14:14:00 -
[74] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:I see you having hopes and opinions and that you are now turning ugly towards CCP No, I have high opinions of their balancing effort because I know they don't foolishly believe that numbers or cost are factors in balance.
Quote:yet I still do not see you having a point. Try reading. Argue the points made there, which explain why cost and numbers are not factors in balance. Any attempt avoidance on your part will mean that you cannot because you know full well that I'm right and you're just trolling.
The facts remains: no, cost is not a factor in balance; no, numbers is not a factor in balance; no, CCP are not using either in their balancing effort; and no, you cannot provide any proof that they do.
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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6037
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 14:33:00 -
[75] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:I do not need to read what you write Thank you. That means you agree with what I said and you're just trolling. That's all we needed to know.
So yes, as Whitehound have just confirmed: cost and numbers are indeed not factors in balance for the reasons I previously explained, and CCP are intelligent enough to know this.
Thank you for your support, even if it was hard to squeeze out of you. I know you hate to agree with me, but I also know that you have to, because, after all, even you can't argue against hard facts.
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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6038
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 15:02:00 -
[76] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:I agree with you. We know. You said so very clearly, and I thank you for your support.
Well, still assuming, of course, that you're not just trolling.
But as Ranger 1 shows in his brief historical overview, CCP has long since learned that numbers and cost are not balancing factors GÇö quite the opposite: they're things that are affected by the balance. You cannot change the cause by fiddling with the consequence, so they haven't tried doing that for years. Instead, they simply adjust the balance, and then see how this changes the numbers and costs. It may occasionally turn out that the numbers and costs are being limited (eg. the moon goo bottlenecks) or moving in undesirable directions (eg. the unpopularity of the Covetor), so they adjust those to let the numbers and costs better reach their GÇ£trueGÇ¥ values. Those changes don't affect the balance, though.
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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6041
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 15:43:00 -
[77] - Quote
Testerxnot Sheepherder wrote:Tippia should just gtfo of this thread and go back to ganking defenseless hulks ingame. GǪand you should learn what GÇ£go back toGÇ¥ means. You can't go back to doing something you've never done GÇö the word you're looking for is GÇ£startGÇ¥. Also, I see no reason why I should start ganking Hulks GÇö I don't have any of the BPOs to make it really profitable.
Whitehound wrote:Cost remains a factor in balance. GǪexcept that it's not used to balance ships, because it cannot be used that way for the reasons explained (the reasons you agree with and cannot argue). That's why CCP aren't using cost that way (which is why you haven't been able to show them doing it).
You're confusing balance and numbers. Cost is a factor in the latter, not the former. Balance is also a factor in the latter, both directly and indirectly through the mechanic of cost. Either way, the effect goes one way (even though it splits up), and not the other, so cost does not factor into the balance of the ship. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6041
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 16:03:00 -
[78] - Quote
Testerxnot Sheepherder wrote:Just gonna quote and leave this here, as proof to Tippias' superiority over all miners 'n' carebears. That's some nice over-reaching you're doing there, but thank you for the flattery.
Unlike you, however, I don't believe that all miners and carebears are all that deluded about what affects balance and what does not. Some might be, and some of those have probably understood why it's not by now, courtesy of the discussion and Ranger 1's examples.
You've never been able to prove that I have ignored any arguments or equivocated over anything, you knowGǪ Maybe it's about time you do so or stop lying to everyone GÇö it's not a very nice thing to do, you know.
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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6041
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 16:08:00 -
[79] - Quote
Like I said. Lots of posts, zero proof of anything except your complete lack of proof. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6041
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 16:13:00 -
[80] - Quote
Proving me more and more right, and yourself more and more wrong, every time you post. One would think you'd be a bit disturbed by this development.
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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6041
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 16:25:00 -
[81] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:Not intended to be evidence. Enjoy. Of course not, largely because you have no evidence as you have long since proven.
Plyn wrote:"They are also far more resilient, better able to handle the dangers of deep space."
That says defense equipped in expectation of combat to me. It says GÇ£better prepared to withstand attacksGÇ¥ to me, which is what it isGǪ if you turn that preparedness into readiness by equipping a tank. It doesn't really say that it's a combat vessel, just that it's a hardened ship. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6041
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 16:31:00 -
[82] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:Claims do not make facts. GǪand the fact is that in spite of repeated requests, you have remain unable to provide any proof that I have ignored arguments. You keep making the claim, but you can't turn it into fact by providing even the slightest shred of evidence. One would think that you would have jumped at the opportunity to prove me wrong by now, but for some reason, you just can't.
So yes, you've once again proven me right and yourself wrong. Once again, this is quite contrary to what one might expect. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6042
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 16:50:00 -
[83] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:The only person who cares is you. Prove it.
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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6046
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 17:00:00 -
[84] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:You just did, thanks for playing Nope. You still have to prove that no-one else in this thread (or indeed the forums (or indeed the world)) doesn't care. Get cracking GÇö that's a whole lot of signatures to collect.
As always, of course, you will not be able to provide any proof, but that's ok, I'll waitGǪ
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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6046
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 17:08:00 -
[85] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:In EVE is every ship exposed to combat if you want to or not. To have ships that are particularly weak at it is what makes this a joke. GǪand as it happens, the Hulk is surprisingly strong at it.
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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6046
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 17:15:00 -
[86] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:Boo hoo. Cry as much as you like, the facts remain the same: you have no proof.
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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6047
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 17:20:00 -
[87] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:I have this entire thread as proof. GǪand yet you can't provide it. Strange, thatGǪ again, you'd think that someone who's so keen on proving me wrong would jump on the opportunity to really hammer the point home and just shower me with links and citations to show my numerous mistakes.
And yet you can't. It's ok, don't cry. We understand that you have to keep the dream alive, even if it never becomes reality.
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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6047
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 17:35:00 -
[88] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:Keep talking I have to start before I can GÇ£keepGÇ£ doing it. So far, it has all been in writing. You still have no proof, apparently. That makes it, what, four different things you cannot prove so far?
Whitehound wrote:Lanasak wrote:No, it does not - you are supposed to avoid combat with such ships at all costs. Then which attribute of the mining ships supports your claim? Is it their tank, is it their speed, their manoeuvrability or their ability to dock at a station? The fact that it's not a combat ship, but a mining vessel GÇö a ship intended to suck ore from rocks, not shoot other ships. It's an oil rig, not a war ship. It has been given stats to improve its ability to withstand combat, should it come that far, but it is not meant to be in combat.
Marl Xun wrote:So when do Hulks get some love to counter this? As soon as it needs one, i.e. not in a while. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6048
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 17:47:00 -
[89] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:I have no proof Well, then you should probably get cracking on finding some.
Whitehound wrote:Not all mining ships can mine 3000m3/min. Only two can where one of them costs 300m ISKs. It is not ridiculously powerful for mining. It's powerful enough to warrant the price tag, apparently. Performance dictates price, remember, not the other way around.
As for being ridiculously powerful GÇö it's the most powerful miner in the game. Making it more powerful than that would indeed be ridiculous.
edit: Ranger 1 GÇö shh! Don't expose my secrets like that! 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6051
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 18:10:00 -
[90] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:But seriously, we are not talking about buffs here. We are talking about the reasons for why it needs ships to be as weak as they are while EVE is a PvP game. Because that weakness (which isn't nearly as huge as some want to claim GÇö the thing can outtank a fair number of actual combat ships) is what you'd expect from a resource extraction vehicle, or indeed any kind of vehicle that's not in a combat role. You'll see the same design in any number of games, where you have to put up a good combat patrol with actual combat ships to protect that vulnerable resource extraction expedition.
The kind of PvP it engages in is not one of blasting away hitpoints from the other guy GÇö it's about getting ze stuff before he does, and the Hulk excels at it. It doesn't need to be any stronger to do so. Leaving it physically weak also means that it is susceptible to being beaten by other forms of competition: if you can't out-mine the other guy, blow him up! (and conversely, if you can't out-shoot him, out-build him!) If the Hulk was strong in both areas, this dynamic would be weakened.
Adunh Slavy wrote:I ignore anything I don't like We know. Can you provide any kind of proof that I ignored your arguments? Now would be a good time to do soGǪ
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:It's more like a sword and board tank in a medievall MMO. They stand there silly and unmovable, the others look at them, ignore them and move on. Meh, at least I'm still discussing the topic of the thread, where he seems to be entirely consumed by covering up his lack of arguments at this point. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6051
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 19:16:00 -
[91] - Quote
malcovas Henderson wrote:It still remains a fact. In a fleet the Hulk cannot fullfil it's intended use, as it is required to tank for survivabilty. In a fleet, the Hulk can fulfil its intended use even better than it can on its own and while maintaining a better tank than when flying solo. The fleet means it doesn't need to fit anything other than tank and mining equipment, and both can be supplemented by fleet bonuses. In this context, its tank should be approaching 40k EHP and its yield should be far above what it can otherwise reach.
In other words, your fact is a complete fabrication.
Quote:Name any other ship that gimps it's role withing a fleet, by tanking to the max for survivabilty. All of them. Any ship that tanks for max suvivability gimps its primary role, regardless of whether it's in a fleet or not.
Quote:The cost of the Hulk does affect the ganking amount. How does it do that?
Whitehound wrote:No, I do not expect it. You do not expect a resource-harvesting, non-combat ship to be weaker than the combat ships? Really? You need to adjust your expectations because they are not realistic. They contradict pretty much every game on the market. Hell, in many games, resource harvesters aren't even engaged in combat GÇö they are just outright destroyed or conquered without a fight.
Moreover, that is the reason why the Hulk is weaker than combat ships, and that is what you were asking about: because its weakness (which, again, isn't actually all that severe) is part of defining its role. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6051
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 19:30:00 -
[92] - Quote
malcovas Henderson wrote:Name any other ship thats gimped deliberately while fleeted, to gain maximum survivabilty. To perform it's role None of them, including the Hulk. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6051
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 20:24:00 -
[93] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Stick a MWD and point into the mids of any sheild tanker and you impact its tank, any tracking and damage mods into the lows hits the tank of armour ships then puttin on the guns. Then there are the webs, target painters ect ect. It all can build up so you can easily sacrifice a lot of tank for what you need to do.
Even the insta cane only gets around 27k EHP buffer. The tank on a hulk is good. GǪe.g. the GǣVamosGǥ fit Deimos: 20k EHP without suitcase; 28k with it, and with a honking big EM hole to exploit.
Ok, so it's the Diemost GÇö the ultimate cheap shot in not being able to tank GÇö but stillGǪ 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6051
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 20:54:00 -
[94] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Those 25k-32k figures for a Hulk that people have mentioned can only be had at all level 5 and by using every available slot inclduing rigs for its tank. No, you can get to them with much less, and the GÇ£all VGÇ¥ skills needed are all very basic and easy to get GÇö by the time you have a Hulk, you should have them trained anyway.
Quote:With the Hulk being the most popular ship, which is a questionable position for any ship in terms of game diversity, could easily get buffed to 50k eHP and it would not change a thing about its role. GǪso it doesn't serve any real purpose to do so.
Quote:The Hulk's tank is not good, its price is not good and its popularity is not good. It's tank is respectable GÇö better than some combat ships even GÇö and what could be expected from a harvesting ship. Its price reflects its popularity and its effectiveness, and is currenly being subjected to upward pressure from speculation. Its popularity is through the roof GÇö it's beyond good. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6051
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 21:32:00 -
[95] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:In a hyper-capitalist environment, such as Eve, invention and market demands would allow a tank heavy non-combat ship to emerge. GǪif there was a need for them. The fact that people don't even tank their ships and instead go full tilt on the yield and cargo capacity shows that the demand isn't really there.
Sure, we're somewhat restricted to what ships CCP gives us, but we're quite free in how we choose to adapt them to the environment. So far, that adaptation has gone away from the heavy tanks. Once we move through that player-made GÇ£adaptation bufferGÇ¥ back towards tanks, and when it starts to strain what we can do with those ships (to the point where people begin to abandon them in favour of tankier ships), then maybe it would be time to have a look at the Hulk. We're pretty much as far away from that point as possible right now though. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6052
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 22:19:00 -
[96] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Let us not talk about other ships. Mining ships including the Hulk cannot tank well. GǪexcept that it tanks just as well as many combat ships and even some T2 cruisers.
Quote:And as I said do you need to use every available slot for your tank just to protect your +300m ISK investment within high-sec. GǪwhich still isn't true, even if you keep repeating it.
Quote:Is it too unthinkable for you to let players enter low-sec with mining ships that have been designed with proper survivability in mind? You mean ships like the Hulk? People use it to mine in lowsec and even nullsec with some frequency.
Adunh Slavy wrote:So blame the victim entirely, right? The people who choose to fit their ships improperly are entirely at fault for fitting their ships improperly, yes.
Quote:We can blame the civilian ship building industry. No we can't, because they have no say in the victim's decision to fit his ship improperly. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6052
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 22:33:00 -
[97] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Well, isn't it what also constantly happen when women get violated IRL? It's not like mindsets change so much. Did you just compare **** to a game, you twisted little ****?!
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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6052
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 22:37:00 -
[98] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:Except the fact that it is an industrial civilian ship, as you pointed out. GǪthat the victim picked and fitted poorly. At every step of the way, it was the victim's choice.
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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6052
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 22:43:00 -
[99] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:Oh is there a point to putting on a two papers thin tank on a civilian industrial ship in what amounts to a near constant combat zone? It protects you against the thing people are complaining about, so yes. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6052
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 22:50:00 -
[100] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Since days your post indeed blame a category of players of whatever and in every way. Yes: the category of players who fit their ship poorly and then complain about the game design when their decision not to fit a tank means their ships are weak.
Quote:I have this fresh news for you: new players are told by ISDs (not by orcs) to start with mining. It's also a profession widely chosen by non spaceships PvP addicts. So? Are they being told that it's the game's fault that they choose not to fit a tank? 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6053
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 23:04:00 -
[101] - Quote
Belshazzar Babylon wrote:How would buffing the Hulk to allow it to fit a LSE, or giving more PG make it OP? Are people suddenly going to start taking them into fleet fights? They would still be gankable, just not by a couple of destroyers. GǪand the question being asked in return is: so what if it can be ganked by a couple of destroyers? What's the problem? 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6053
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 23:21:00 -
[102] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:So, why I am allowed to slack and be puny SP for a 'cane and get same or more income but I am meant to have 1-2 years of training for all those full tank skills + T2 mods skills before hitting the first roid? Because the drone regions ruined mining.
Quote:But I have to get it out of my skin, you present a black and white scenario that luckily CCP does not share, else this game would be as bland as a Flash F2P game. GǪand what scenario is that?
Quote:Fitting a tank is a waste. I said it in the other thread and I'll say in this one. So not losing your ship to even the most lame gank attempt is a waste? Requiring the gankers to mount a proper attack (which is just too much work, so they won't do it and find an easier target) is a waste? Fitting a tank saves the ship in the scenarios being complained about here. That's pretty much all there is to it.
The entire line of complaint comes from people choosing to make their ships weak, when they could equally choose not to, and they want to blame the game; the gankers; the world; anyone for the choice they made themselves.
Quote:Those who mine for REAL don't even do those stupid things like pretending to stay aligned and so on. Any ganker knows to scram and to bump any way. GǪexcept, of course, that staying aligned means neither of those two will work GÇö you can't bump or scram a ship that isn't there.
Quote:If they pop? No problem, it's factored in. So there's no real reason to buff the Hulk then, as expected. It also means that the GÇ£contractGÇ¥ you imagined is irrelevant GÇö even if it existed, it never mattered. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6053
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 23:44:00 -
[103] - Quote
Belshazzar Babylon wrote:Well the destroyers recently got a pretty decent buff. What would it hurt to update a hulk? There's no particular reason to update it. Updating it for no reason just gives rise to power creep.
So the question remains: so what if it can be ganked by a couple of destroyers? What's the problem?
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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6054
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 00:04:00 -
[104] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:No, give a couple of months, enough people will have flocked to mining to make it crap again. It's the nature of the economy. By that time I'll be well out of it along with those who knew when to enter early in the competition and reap the benefits. And yet, miners being the sole source of minerals will unquestionably let miners earn more money.
Quote:Your opinions you are copy pasting since tens of pages. Just because you spam it more, does not force anyone to agree with them. GǪwhich doesn't answer the question: what scenario are you talking about?
Quote:You evidently never had to deal with a competing corp or with appropriate gankers. You are not going to save ships meant to not be saved, period. What works is to quickly work to the roots and eradicate that corp or perma-pod the gankers. It's done, it's fun, there are specialized mercs for that. So, again, ganking isn't really a problem, and buffing the Hulk is quite unnecessary.
As for the AFK:abilityGǪ one really has to question at this point whether or not it has actually changed in any way. Are more people really being ganked now? Is being AFK really any more risky? Does that tank really not work while you're AFK? Is a bigger tank really needed, especially considering that the one the Hulk can already mount also already stops the gank ships everyone seems to be complaining about?
Quote:I don't care that much, but there's no real reason not to give it 1 shield extender. It's a civilian ship but there's no civilian space in EvE. You always undock in a situation of war. The reason not to give it a shield extender is that very little in the way of a reasonable argument has been presented why it needs it. It can already tank any kind of casual gank. Your stance is that tanking it doesn't make much sense anyway. So why does it need that extender? What problem does it solve?
Quote:Also, sure, the contract is irrelevant for you, the endless threads that you will see in the next months will show you that it was relevant for many others. It's not irrelevant to me GÇö it doesn't exist to me, so it can't be irrelevant. What I'm saying is that, going by what you just said, it's completely irrelevant to you since you're a proper industrialist and have included all the cost of doing business in your business plan. At that point the imagined GÇ£low income vs. AFKabilityGÇ¥ contract no longer applies GÇö you're treating the matter completely differently, and are dealing with losses as normal write-offs. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6054
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 00:09:00 -
[105] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:[I exposed your contradiction and you have to resort to whining, too bad. Where was his contradiction?
Avila Cracko wrote:Many people wrote valid arguments but its not ok for them. Valid arguments are perfectly ok GÇö it's when people can't stand that you argue against those argument that it's no longer ok. When they get all frumpy because you ask them to back their claims and provide some actual arguments, it gets downright silly.
Quote:i think Tippia said that we all must buy stuff only in Jita because thats only valid market in EVE. Nope. I said that if you want to make a comparison, you need to ensure that the points you compare are actually comparable GÇö Jita offers a spot where such points are available.
Eternum Praetorian wrote:The answer to your question is... drum [roll]... do enough people care enough about it to create a big enough of a stink, to make CCP care about it? If the answer is yes then it becomes a problem. If not, then there is no problem. Reason being? CCP is a reactive real life corporation and does not give a damn about people's arm-chair-forum-warrior game balancing. They care about profits and a happy, sedentary (and let's not forget cowed) player base. That goes for miners, PVP'ers, forum warriors and "spy masters" alike. Anyone willing to happily hand over their credit card information. It does not matter what their personal reasons for doing so are, so long as they do it.
Reality of EVE in a nutshell. Fair enough. To that I'll answer with the imagined CSM/CCP exchange posted earlier: as long as the Hulk is the (or among the) most popular ship in the game, it will be quite tricky to convince CCP that it needs any kind of buff. Ships that end up in that spot rather tend to be slated for nerfsGǪ vOv 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6054
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 00:54:00 -
[106] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:Collectively yes but it's just natural that when everybody jump on a bandwagon, the bandwagon heavily tanks. If you lived more in game and less on the forums you'd see people SPAMMING WTB miner account like I have never seen, even on chats that have nothing to do with mining (today even on SCC Lounge). Time 2-3-4 months and (as due by natural economy laws) the overabundance of miners will drive *their net income* down (notice: not necessarily mineral prices). GǪand in spite of having been in the game for most of the evening, I haven't seen it. Of course, maybe that has more to do with me not using any of the in-game chat channels, because I have no need for them. So you can pipe down with that attitude, ok?
Anyway, the entire point here was that your claim was silly to begin with: the training times you mentioned were not true and the reasons miners earn less is because they have been receiving undue competition from other sources.
Quote:I hope you are joking. No, I'm asking you: what scenario is that? If you're going to take the Adunh route, I will treat you the same as Adhun and keep repeating the question, either until you answer it or until it becomes abundantly clear that you were just trolling and failed to score a cheap point. As always, I hope it'll be the first one.
Quote:Nothing is necessary, many things are done even if not necessary. MMOs are partly player pressure driven, if enough people will demand it, it'll probably happen. The thing is, though, that past experiences tell a rather different story. Even if many people demand something, they need to provide a reason for it, and GÇ£just becauseGÇ¥ don't seem to cut it, so far. In this case, in particular, that usage number will be a honking great roadblock to proving that anything needs to be done. You're quite right GÇö if enough get killed, then maybe they will start thinking about it, but so far, nothing seems to suggest that anything of the sort is happening.
Quote:Log in, press F10, check ice systems. I am sure you know all including how many kills were done till Dec 2011 and then in 2012. In case you don't, the average of the systems I know best, went up from about 2-4 pops a day to 14-24 before my friends.... ehm... fixed them. Of course the latter has a cost that only serious mining operations can afford. Fair enough. I have no idea what systems have ica (and I can't be arsed to look it up) because I don't mine it and I don't gank. Either way, what you say just tells me that nothing really needs to be fixed GÇö we already have the solution in our hands and it may even be improved upon in Inferno.
Quote:I happily admit my opinions are just that and don't present them as the Bible laws carved in stone. Therefore while I don't need buffs for Hulks (I'd like Macks were less pathetic though), others seems to. The majority usually wins. If you'll see 100 threads like this in the next months (just let enough people jump into mining and get their slap) it's quite possible a buff will happen. GǪalternatively GÇö and far better for everyone GÇö they jump in, get slapped, and jump out, leaving you with a bigger piece of the pie.
Anyway, this is essentially the same as the point made above about player pressure: so far, pressure without any reasoning behind it doesn't seem to have yielded much of a result, and pressure contrary to fact has yielded even less. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6054
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 00:57:00 -
[107] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:Hence the hulk is a stupid ship in its current state. Of course now, like Baltec, you will make the claim that making a crappy tank just a little less crappy is somehow better. No, Baltec is more likely to make the same claim he has made throughout the thread: that it's your decision to make it a crappy tank. You can also decide not to make it crappy.
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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6054
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 01:12:00 -
[108] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:and when my talos kills your tanked out hulk before cc arrives what then? Then the miner is out one Hulk and the attacker is out one Talos. So what? 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6054
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 01:24:00 -
[109] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:your point is that if you fit for isk per hour then you deserve to die but you also claim the ship has a good tank that it can defend its self against ganks " that it's your decision to make it a crappy tank. You can also decide not to make it crappy."
your argument is fit either for tank or for income... GǪno, my argument is that complaining that it can't tank if you fit no tank is stupid and it's not something that requires a change to the game to fix. In fact, changing the game doesn't fix it at all, so that's the wrong way to go regardless. As it happens, you can fit for both tank and income 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6054
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 01:42:00 -
[110] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:gank talos with heat on does 6507 alpha ever 4.1 seconds... so lets say you have two talos thats 1314 alpha every 4.1 seconds that means 14/4.1= 3 - 4 shots before cc arrives... 1314*3= 3942 or 40k damage... so even in the best case you will die to just two of these... Yes? So?
Quote:in today's game you can not effectively tank a hulk against gank... Sure you can, as long as the gank isn't well-organised, in which case the question becomes: no, why should you be able to?
Quote:i mean 3 of these things can kill an orca before cc arrives in a 0.6 system! Funny that. My Orca has ~300k EHP, so that would require them to put out about 3000 DPS. I feel strangely safe from three of them for some reasonGǪ 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6054
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 03:26:00 -
[111] - Quote
Montevius Williams wrote:Too be fair, the iteron was never meant to be used in hostile environments. The hulk is designed for mining in hostile envrionments, as stated in the description. You really cant compare them. Yes you can. Both are non-combat ships for the industrial sector. What the flavour text says isn't particularly important (it says the Ferox is a very scary killing machine). 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6056
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 13:00:00 -
[112] - Quote
Tanya Powers wrote:And yes Hulk should be able to fit at least 80k EHP without pimp or sacrifice cargo/mining upgrades, align faster than a shield Brutix but it doesn't. No, it really shouldn't. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6056
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 13:14:00 -
[113] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:1) The various fittings presented mostly come with the default "all skill to V", tell me how quick they come, eh? As mentioned, the required tanking skills to get those EHP amount to less than 10 ranks. That's a matter of a couple of weeks to max out.
Quote:2) I talk apples (how miners will compete in the future), you about oranges (past (bots) and almost gone (drone regions) mineral faucets). I don't care about the past. GǪand I'm answering your question, which is about the past.
Quote:Don't compare me to you. Look, it's very simple: don't drag out your fucktarded straw man fallacies or I will call you on them and prove to the world that you are a ******** like I just have. If you're going to assign any kind of statement or world view to me, be prepared to back it up or shut the fuck up. You assigned an random, completely nondescript, pulled-from-your-ass GÇ£scenarioGÇ¥ to me, and unless you demonstrate that it has anything to do with me and what I've written, it is actually not my scenario GÇö it's yours, and if you think it's a stupid scenario, then maybe you should try to squeeze a few more brain cells in there and stop coming up with such stupid scenarios, ok? I don't compare you to me, because I don't want to insult myself by donning the cloak of abject retardation.
So: what scenario are you talking about? Can you answer this very very very simple question? Or would you rather admit that you just made it up to score a cheap troll point? Those are your only two options.
Quote:You don't see reasons because you don't want to see them. While I certainly sleep quite well at the night with the tank I got, I brought a simple example of Buff destroyers for PvP => collateral effect vs other ships that were finely balanced against the destroyers former damage. GǪand the thing is that I don't buy it as collateral damage GÇö I see it as intentional damage, and that the balance hasn't really shifted all that much. You couldn't kill a properly tanked Hulk without a group of destroyers before the change; you can't kill a properly tanked Hulk without a group of destroyers after the change.
Quote:When a certain even happens in game that affects enough people to create some threads, it's because something is brewing up. Then we can conclude that nothing is GÇ£brewing upGÇ¥ because these threads have existed for all eternity, and the changes haven't actually changed anything on that front.
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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6056
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 13:18:00 -
[114] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Yes, it should. No, because then you have an industrial resource ship that outtanks and outflies pretty much everything else of a similar size, even the ships that are specialised in outflying and outtanking other ships in combat, and it can do this without any kind of sacrifice.
Anyone who makes that kind of boneheaded demand has exactly zero concept of balance. Try getting one before making foolish demands because if you don't, then you only ever manage to prove that your complaint is ridiculous and nothing will happen. So no, it should be able to do exactly none of what was listed, and that's before we even go into the fact that there is exactly zero reason why it should.
Quote:It does not change much, but only stops a few gankers. It already can. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6057
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 13:31:00 -
[115] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Tippia wrote:No, because then you have an industrial resource ship that outtanks and outflies pretty much everything else of a similar size ... Wrong. Maybe you should read the quote that started it all before you knee-jerk-post your answer.
You just said that Tanya didn't write what Tanya wrote, because that's exactly what such a ship would do GÇö in fact, that's exactly what (s)he asked for: GÇ£Hulk should be able to fit at least 80k EHP without pimp or sacrifice cargo/mining upgrades, align faster than a shield BrutixGÇ¥. No, it is not GÇ£wrongGÇ¥ that a ship that, with 80k EHP and faster align than a shield Brutix will outtank and outfly pretty much anything else of a similar size. Try again. Try reading this time. Also, try thinking before you post.
Quote:A tank alone does not decide over victory or defeat. Straw man. That was never the issue. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6057
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 13:42:00 -
[116] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:I will not take advise from you You should. It would improve your thinking massively.
Quote:I will not take advise from you after you posted another false assumption of what should and should not be. SoGǪ does that mean you're not taking advice from yourself either, since you did exactly the same thing? I think we've found the source of your cognitive issues. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6063
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 14:23:00 -
[117] - Quote
Tanya Powers wrote:Hey guys stop that 80K ehp argument, I've just thrown a number like that so that would mark something to you guys understand that an Exhumer shouldn't be that easy to kill and need some more effort like you need to gank an orca or a freighter. GǪand as always, the question is: why?
Quote:The real problem is how easy is to avoid pvp or consequences and how biased risk/vs reward pvp is in high sec. Inferno is coming. It should make highsec a bit more dangerous. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6064
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 17:13:00 -
[118] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:This does not account for the different prices / bills of materials of these ships or their different speeds or roles. GǪand that is your problem right there. You're comparing the Hulk to a ship class whose entire purpose is to take one hell of a beating. It's really surprising that they can tank a bit thenGǪ
Quote:No, the eHP is not fine. One should only need to use the mid-slots and not every available option to get a decent tank out of it. Good news: you don't have to either. So that's that GÇ£problemGÇ¥ solved, then. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6064
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 18:07:00 -
[119] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:The Hulk is a transport ship just like the T2 transporters. No. It's an exhumer GÇö a T2 mining barge. It's role is to suck up rocks, not to transport stuff straight through camps by sheer force of its tank.
Quote:The T2 transporters' designation is supported by more than just a tank and a cargo bay. They get active tanking bonuses as well as +2 warp scramble strength.
The Hulk can fit strip miners and gets bonuses to mining yield for its role. GǪso you can't really compare the two because they are nothing alike. One is purposefully designed to take one hell of a beating; the other isn't. So yes, you illustrate quite nicely why your comparison doesn't work. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6065
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 19:50:00 -
[120] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:so tippia if you just said you cant compare the two why did you compare the two in your initial statement? oxymoronic much!?!? GǪyou mean aside from the fact that I didn't?
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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6069
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 21:14:00 -
[121] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:No one said the mining ships have no tank. No-one except you, on multiple occasionsGǪ
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Solo Catalyst can put out 1500+ dps. Not really, no.
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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6069
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 21:23:00 -
[122] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Yes, it can.
Cormack's magstabs, rof and small hybrid dmg implants. Of course you have to be in Wolf-Rayet C6. So no, since we're talking about ganks here.
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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6070
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 21:33:00 -
[123] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Too expensive? Well, still over 1000 dps with cheap T2 magstabs. No, not that either, and no, it's not just a matter of expense, but of location. The conditions required don't exist in the context being discussed. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6070
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 21:47:00 -
[124] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Just go through wormhole. GǪwhere there is no CONCORD, making it a not-suicide gank, meaning the DPS becomes quite irrelevant since you don't have a very short window in which to kill the guy before you auto-explode.
So no. Try about 700 for the context being discussed here, with a Hulk can tank quite nicely for the time required to survive. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6071
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 21:58:00 -
[125] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:True, if it's only one Cat. But that's not always the case. Usually they run in small groups (2-4 Cats/Trashers) and sometimes in 30 man Catalyst fleets. GǪat which point we have a situation where several ships beats one ship, which seems wonderfully suitable.
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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6075
|
Posted - 2012.04.13 23:26:00 -
[126] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:No, you do not get it. Mission runners do not whine, because they use the offence as their defence. No, they don't, because that offence has no chance of making any difference. In fact, using that offence is a very bad idea, since it invalidates the opportunity of revenge you'd get.
Quote:CCP is slowly letting go off it as you can see with ships like the Noctis and the Primea. Oh, you mean those ships that are even easier to kill than the Hulk? No, they don't particularly signify any kind of change in how they design industrial ships.
Quote:The only need for a change I see currently is the one regarding the power grid and to get mining ships out of their pathetic state That can already be done by fitting them with a tank. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6075
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 00:14:00 -
[127] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:No, you look. When you quote a question then this is a card you got dealt. Answer it and do not rant about. He did answer it: the design is not where the victimisation happens. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6075
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 00:39:00 -
[128] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:If you think it did then why can you not shut up? Because you obviously misread his post and need to be pointed in the right direction.
Quote:However, any pilot should be able to be complacent or else the pilot is a victim. Why should pilots be able to be complacent without it making them victims? After all, that's how self-created victimsGǪ wellGǪ create themselves.
Oh, and he didn't GÇ£fail to disagreeGÇ¥ with 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6075
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 00:56:00 -
[129] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:No, because you cannot ever shut up and I have to put you on ignore again. Why would I shut up when there's still so much that needs to be explained to you?
Quote:Do not flatter yourself. You are only dumb but not a victim. Why can't you answer the question? Why shouldn't complacency create victims?
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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6075
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 01:03:00 -
[130] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:No one said that you shall not become a victim. The point was that if you cannot become complacent then you already are a victim. Good thing that you can always become complacent, then. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6090
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 14:44:00 -
[131] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:Sometimes I think these are people who have the opposite opinion hoping that if they post enough blatantly wrong information as cannon fodder the discussion will get drowned out with insults.
Like the 10 guys who started separate GD threads on the issue calling for ridiculously unreasonable buffs.
If he can come up with a 17k Volley Maelstrom using reasonable hardware I take it all back and he revolutionized Alpha Fleets. By the sound of it, it seems like he's making the assumption that he has a 100% chance of getting that 1% wrecking-blow 3+ù damage multiplierGǪ 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6092
|
Posted - 2012.04.14 18:22:00 -
[132] - Quote
July Oumis wrote:... I guess that will satisfy every one No sentries? Weaksauce. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
|
|
|