Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 39 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Whitehound
32
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 09:48:00 -
[631] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:To not get blown up. A destroyer will kill said covetor while the hulk will keep on chugging rocks which makes the hulk a fair bit more isk efficient. You almost make it sound fun. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
543
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 10:11:00 -
[632] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Miss Whippy wrote:
You CAN do this, but then your mining yield is reduces to near that of a Covetor, so why would you use a hulk at all?
To not get blown up. A destroyer will kill said covetor while the hulk will keep on chugging rocks which makes the hulk a fair bit more isk efficient.
You still risk losing the Hulk while it's permanently gimped.
You still get an insurance zero cost on losing the covetor while it's maxed.
Result: always zero cost for covetor, still risk to get the hulk dead to somebody more motivated to pop it. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
baltec1
1079
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 10:31:00 -
[633] - Quote
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
You still risk losing the Hulk while it's permanently gimped.
You still get an insurance zero cost on losing the covetor while it's maxed.
Result: always zero cost for covetor, still risk to get the hulk dead to somebody more motivated to pop it.
Losing a t2 fitted covetor is never free.
In order to kill a hulk like how I would fit them would require 4 t2 arty Tornadoes. That only happens in hulkageddon or in an ice interdiction. So while destroyers pop your covetors for profit I will be in a hulk safe from all but the most extream ganks making more money than you. |
Shadowsword
The Scope Gallente Federation
123
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 10:51:00 -
[634] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:In order to kill a hulk like how I would fit them would require 4 t2 arty Tornadoes.
Shouldn't the gankers have time for at least two arty salvoes before concord show up in a 0.5 or 0.6? |
baltec1
1079
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 11:06:00 -
[635] - Quote
Shadowsword wrote:baltec1 wrote:In order to kill a hulk like how I would fit them would require 4 t2 arty Tornadoes. Shouldn't the gankers have time for at least two arty salvoes before concord show up in a 0.5 or 0.6?
The joys of 0.7 space. |
Whitehound
32
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 11:08:00 -
[636] - Quote
Shadowsword wrote:baltec1 wrote:In order to kill a hulk like how I would fit them would require 4 t2 arty Tornadoes. Shouldn't the gankers have time for at least two arty salvoes before concord show up in a 0.5 or 0.6? Not only that, but you would use EMP L to pop his Hulk. Baltec1 will fit his Hulk with 3 Inv. Fields II and an SSE II. He will go mining like this for a few days until he realizes how boring mining is. So he will drop an Inv. Field and put a survey scanner back into his Hulk so that he can at least see which asteroids to pick. He then will continue mining for another few days until he gets sick of constantly docking up and because his cargohold just does not do it. He then puts cargo expanders into his low-slots so that he can stay in the belt a little longer.
Can one blame him for doing it? No. But one can slap him every single time he tries to get a bit more fun out of his mining ship.
I can laugh about it, but I cannot call it fair. |
baltec1
1079
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 11:14:00 -
[637] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Shadowsword wrote:baltec1 wrote:In order to kill a hulk like how I would fit them would require 4 t2 arty Tornadoes. Shouldn't the gankers have time for at least two arty salvoes before concord show up in a 0.5 or 0.6? Not only that, but you would use EMP L to pop his Hulk. Baltec1 will fit his Hulk with 3 Inv. Fields II and an SSE II. He will go mining like this for a few days until he realizes how boring mining is. So he will drop an Inv. Field and put a survey scanner back into his Hulk so that he can at least see which asteroids to pick. He then will continue mining for another few days until he gets sick of constantly docking up and because his cargohold just does not do it. He then puts cargo expanders into his low-slots so that he can stay in the belt a little longer. Can one blame him for doing it? No. But one can slap him every single time he tries to get a bit more fun out of his mining ship. I can laugh about it, but I cannot call it fair.
Silly nonsence. I mine while I mine in minecraft so I don't get bored
Also I go for 1 MSE, 2x invuln, an EM resist amp, DCU II, sheild expander rigs and implants. |
Severian Carnifex
167
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 11:29:00 -
[638] - Quote
Miss Whippy wrote:Ildryn wrote:Hulks can get 22k ehp
that's enough to deter most solo gankers....no ship should be immune to multiple gankers
You CAN do this, but then your mining yield is reduces to near that of a Covetor, so why would you use a hulk at all?
You know that that is one Tornado with 2 shots. And they can do it almost everywhere in Hi-sec. So you are killed by one ship and you ****** your mining yield - nice one. |
Jojo Jackson
Dead Red Eye
138
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 12:49:00 -
[639] - Quote
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. Why the hell can't I fitt capital repairs or shield booster on an Orca ... it's an CAPITAL ship! |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6033
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 12:55:00 -
[640] - 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. |
|
Danny John-Peter
The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
78
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 13:14:00 -
[641] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:[quote=baltec1]
When one needs to pimp a Hulk to the point where it costs like 500m ISKs only to have 28k eHP then you have not made an argument for the Hulk or against the Covetor. You have made it an argument to gank more Hulks.
[Hulk, Tanked Hulk] Damage Control II Micro Auxiliary Power Core II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Medium Shield Extender II Rock-Scanning Sensor Array I
Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II Modulated Strip Miner II, Veldspar Mining Crystal II
Medium Ancillary Current Router I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
Hey look, 28k EHP, T2 Strips and a Survey Scanner, also
[Hulk, Tanked Hulk] Damage Control II Micro Auxiliary Power Core II
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Medium Shield Extender II Upgraded EM Ward Amplifier I
Strip Miner I Strip Miner I Strip Miner I
Medium Core Defense Field Extender I Medium Core Defense Field Extender I
32+k EHP, yeah, clearly both ships are extremely pimped with there T2/Meta lvl Fittings |
Whitehound
32
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 13:16:00 -
[642] - Quote
Tippia wrote: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 is how CCP are. They will not care about what you think is good for their game's balance. You can argue about it or deny it as long as you want. It is not going to change them. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6033
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 13:25:00 -
[643] - 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. |
Whitehound
32
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 13:29:00 -
[644] - Quote
Danny John-Peter wrote:... Hey look, 28k EHP, T2 Strips and a Survey Scanner, also ... 32+k EHP, yeah, clearly both ships are extremely pimped with there T2/Meta lvl Fittings The cynicism is nice, but it does not quite work when these ships still cost you 400m ISKs. |
Ana Vyr
Vyral Technologies
217
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 14:03:00 -
[645] - Quote
I fit my usual Hulk for yield and cargo space with a roid scanner.
I've never once been ganked, because I mine at the keyboard and watch local and even use the d-scanner to keep an eye on things around me. I'll take that risk because tanking a Hulk at the expense of efficiency when you are doing something that disgustingly boring is a waste of time to me.
If I get ganked, that's my fault, and I accept that. |
Whitehound
33
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 14:08:00 -
[646] - Quote
Tippia wrote: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? ... I see you having hopes and opinions and that you are now turning ugly towards CCP, yet I still do not see you having a point.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6036
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 14:14:00 -
[647] - 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. |
Oxylan
1 Caldaryjski Pluton Uderzeniowy
9
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 14:23:00 -
[648] - Quote
Guys belive me or not but curple months ago i use badger mk2 as bait vs kamikaze on gates, i use invuls + em resist in low slots dcu + some PDS, my bait badger mk2 was abble to survive atack form 2x armagedon + sentry drones, and this ship cost me max 7-8mil isk for t2 modules and t1 rigs, i cant understand why ship worth actualy 330mil cant stand to curple t1 fited derstroyers or even cant survive one tornado, crazy... If it bleed we can kill it. |
Whitehound
33
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 14:24:00 -
[649] - Quote
Tippia wrote: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. I'm turning ugly towards you because you keep on lying and making a fool of yourself with your endless stream of unproven claims, nonsensical statements, idiocy and fallacies. 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. I do not need to read what you write, Tippia. I do know you have your opinions. |
Karim alRashid
Aliastra Gallente Federation
181
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 14:28:00 -
[650] - Quote
Whitehound,
Stop embarrassing yourself.
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6037
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 14:33:00 -
[651] - 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. |
Kengutsi Akira
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
392
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 14:34:00 -
[652] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Miss Whippy wrote:
You CAN do this, but then your mining yield is reduces to near that of a Covetor, so why would you use a hulk at all?
To not get blown up. A destroyer will kill said covetor while the hulk will keep on chugging rocks which makes the hulk a fair bit more isk efficient.
yes but you can replace said covetor in no time so it doesnt matter....
just playing devil's advocate, I never tank my hulk and have never been killed OR attempted a gank on. Then again I mine where there arent ever people and when ppl show up, I move on to a system where there arent people lol
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1109909#post1109909
My stance on WiS (updated) |
Whitehound
34
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 14:50:00 -
[653] - Quote
Tippia wrote: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. No, it does not mean that I agree with you. It means that I will not read any more of your ugly comments. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1506
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 14:50:00 -
[654] - Quote
Tippia wrote: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.
Yeah, I missed the last few pages of this particular debate.
When Caps and then Super Caps were introduced CCP learned, and publicly announced, that they err'ed in their belief that cost would make an effiective balancing point.
This is why those ships, super caps in particular, have been scaled back in capability repeatedly since that point. CCP believed that their high cost would ensure that they never became numerous in game, that cost would balance their extreme effectiveness.
Now we have thousands of super caps in game, and they are a serious issue that is still being sorted out.
People proved that you cannot balance a ship via it's cost, as if it's effective at what it does people WILL come up with the ISK regardless of how rediculous the price is... and you will end up with tons of "unbalanced" ships in the game.
CCP pointed this out pretty clearly, and has reinterated the point several times since then. I'm really not sure why this debate is still going on. When I check troll in the dictionary, it has a photo shopped picture of you standing somewhere in the vicinity of a point.
Also, I can kill you with my brain. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6038
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 15:02:00 -
[655] - 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. |
Kengutsi Akira
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
393
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 15:04:00 -
[656] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Tippia wrote: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. Yeah, I missed the last few pages of this particular debate. When Caps and then Super Caps were introduced CCP learned, and publicly announced, that they err'ed in their belief that cost would make an effiective balancing point. This is why those ships, super caps in particular, have been scaled back in capability repeatedly since that point. CCP believed that their high cost would ensure that they never became numerous in game, that cost would balance their extreme effectiveness. Now we have thousands of super caps in game, and they are a serious issue that is still being sorted out. People proved that you cannot balance a ship via it's cost, as if it's effective at what it does people WILL come up with the ISK regardless of how rediculous the price is... and you will end up with tons of "unbalanced" ships in the game. CCP pointed this out pretty clearly, and has reinterated the point several times since then. I'm really not sure why this debate is still going on.
well yeah... you have a game with essentially unlimited resources at your hands, all you have to worry about is time to make it (and in 0.0 tech moon terms just unlimited funds) cost as a balancing factor becomes moot
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1109909#post1109909
My stance on WiS (updated) |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
613
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 15:16:00 -
[657] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:No, it does not mean that I agree with you. It means that I will not read any more of your ugly comments.
Hide posts, problem solved |
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
521
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 15:20:00 -
[658] - Quote
Lanasak wrote:if somebody probed out your grav sites two days ago they wouldn't be there today
You obviously haven't been in w-space much, have you? We want breast augmentations and sluttier clothing in the NeX! |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1508
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 15:31:00 -
[659] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:. However, since in this case Tip is merely relaying inconvenient facts (from your point of view), that would be more a case of sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting "La la la la la".
Since Tippia is well known for ignoring any argument that it doesn't like, turn around is fair play. *shrugs*
Offering direct refutation and logical arguments is not "ignoring the argument".
Tippia and I often do not see eye to eye, however arguing a well considered point of view in detail is not trolling, it's called discussion. Even when we dissagree I listen to Tippia's point of view because he/she often has strong reasons to believe that way... even if I don't always agree with those reasons. When I check troll in the dictionary, it has a photo shopped picture of you standing somewhere in the vicinity of a point.
Also, I can kill you with my brain. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
543
|
Posted - 2012.04.12 15:33:00 -
[660] - Quote
Ana Vyr wrote:I fit my usual Hulk for yield and cargo space with a roid scanner.
I've never once been ganked, because I mine at the keyboard and watch local and even use the d-scanner to keep an eye on things around me. I'll take that risk because tanking a Hulk at the expense of efficiency when you are doing something that disgustingly boring is a waste of time to me.
If I get ganked, that's my fault, and I accept that.
Real miner spotted. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 39 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |