Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2010.05.30 23:46:00 -
[91]
Originally by: Whitehound
Originally by: Tippia ...
Tippia, I do not care at this point what you have to say.
Tough. Feel free not to post then. |
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 07:58:00 -
[92]
Whitehound said "When someone asks you "What is a tank?" you do not answer "Oh, it is complicated!" or "I show you one." You answer "It is a ship's ability to sustain damage." - You give a simple answer, one that helps." Show me where I argued against that? It's the next later step you got wrong. Once you have explained what is a tank. The next logical bit of information to give to the new player is "now you know what a tank is, here are the different versions of tanks". The bit I said you got very wrong is the bit on different versions of tanks.
Defining what the word tank is, is not something that is needed. It's a simple thing that current definitions work for. Like Tippia said "It's a way to increase how much damage your ship can take before it goes 'pop'." a tank is just a simple thing anyone can explain it. or the many other variations. I agree explaining and defining the word tank or tanking is something you might have to do to new players or the odd out of game player. But there isn't a problem at this step.
The problem area is the later steps where you explain the different types of tanks. There are only two ways of doing this. Using simple inaccurate definitions that mostly work but are not 100% perfect. Or use overly complicated very long definitions that are accurate but to long and complex for everyday use. This is the bit you seem to be stuck on. Your posts come across to me as you want that accuracy of the complex definitions in a simple short definition. But that's looks to be very impossible due to the nature of tanking.
Do you understand what I am trying to get across here?
Whitehound said "The large errors you see are only in your head." That's a very troll like thing to say. The large errors are not in my head anyone with a bit of logic can see the error is very real and you are ignoring it. You wrote some rules that are clearly wrong but instead of excepting the rules need tweaking you are refusing help and saying rubbish like this bit I just quoted. You defined it so original passive tanks are not passive tanks. How is that in my head? That is a large error.
Keep saying "only in your head" or []i"It is not a poor way"[/i] that doesn't changed the fact that your current way is a poor way that is wrong and clearly not working. Any tanking rules/definitions that say original passive tanks are not passive tanks are clearly wrong and ether need tweaking or scraping and replacing with new rules. |
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 08:05:00 -
[93]
Whitehound said "When someone then asks "What is a shield tank?" you do not ask back "What type of shield tank? There are many!" You answer "It is a ship's ability to sustain damage with only its shield." The person will likely have guessed the answer." First of all, yes I know I quoted this twice. Generally speaking this is not something you need to explain. I would guess 99.9% of people would realise after you explained what a tank is, when you say shield tank they would automatically assume it's a ship that sustains damage by its shields. Once you say armour they would automatically assume it's a tank that sustains damage by armour. And if you said speed tank they would put two and two together. Unless by some remote chance the person has never heard the word shield or armour before.
But like my older post there is not really a problem with defining shield or armour tanks. These are simple. we have -tanking = It's a way to increase how much damage your ship can take before it goes 'pop'. -shield tanking = It's a way to increase how much damage your ship can take before it goes 'pop' via using shields -armor = It's a way to increase how much damage your ship can take before it goes 'pop' via using armor.
You can even add more in like -Speed tanking = It's a way to increase how much damage your ship can take before it goes 'pop' via using speed. The problem area is the later step when you start define the many variations but very different sub category's of tanking. Once you start defining the different armour and shield tanks then you run into the problem where simple short defining do not work. Even defining speed tanks can get tricky with the different ways of doing it.
So as before I can only see two solutions. Using simple inaccurate definitions that mostly work but are not 100% perfect. Or use overly complicated very long definitions that are accurate but to long and complex for everyday use.
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 08:24:00 -
[94]
Edited by: Whitehound on 31/05/2010 08:28:51
Originally by: Pottsey Defining what the word tank is, is not something that is needed. It's a simple thing that current definitions work for. Like Tippia said "It's a way to increase how much damage your ship can take before it goes 'pop'." a tank is just a simple thing anyone can explain it. or the many other variations. I agree explaining and defining the word tank or tanking is something you might have to do to new players or the odd out of game player. But there isn't a problem at this step.
No. A tank is not an increase. You might tell a player to increase the tank on his ship, or to use a bigger ship in order to solve a problem. Most tanks are rather a trade-off, because one can only fit so many items onto a ship. An increased tank often results in lower ship speeds, an increased signature radius, lower inertia or less shield/armour hitpoints. The perception of a tank being "just more" is wrong and dumb.
Quote: Using simple inaccurate definitions that mostly work but are not 100% perfect.
Where do you have this perfectionism now? The current definitions certainly leave a lot of questions. You cannot make it right for everyone, especially for players like Tippia, who have their very own definition and are not willing to cooperate, will there always be something wrong, with anything.
Quote: Whitehound said "The large errors you see are only in your head." That's a very troll like thing to say.
Sorry, did not mean to offend you. It is however a common phrase - we have not yet worked out a definition and you already complain about a lot of errors and without solving them. You simply complain! How is this progress for finding a definition?
Quote: Any tanking rules/definitions that say original passive tanks are not passive tanks are clearly wrong and ether need tweaking or scraping and replacing with new rules.
You do not like a lot of things. You do not like change. You like to complain a lot. The best help I can give you is not to bother with the topic. --
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 08:58:00 -
[95]
Originally by: Whitehound No. A tank is not an increase.
So what is it? Don't just complain ù provide solutions.
Quote: Most tanks are rather a trade-off, because one can only fit so many items onto a ship. An increased tank often results in lower ship speeds, an increased signature radius, lower inertia or less shield/armour hitpoints.
àbut still an increase in the damage you can take. Having side-effects or trade-offs does not change this.
Quote: The perception of a tank being "just more" is wrong and dumb.
Why? And are you quite sure what it's "just more" of?
Quote: Where do you have this perfectionism now?
So you're saying that we should use definitions that lie? That later need to be redacted when we get deeper into the intricacies of tanking?
Quote: The current definitions certainly leave a lot of questions.
Such as? You still haven't provided any examples.
Quote: You cannot make it right for everyone, especially for players like Tippia, who have their very own definition and are not willing to cooperate,
Cooperate how? By accepting a definition that doesn't match what it is supposed to define? I am cooperating by showing you why your suggestion doesn't work. You refuse to accept this cooperation because your definition of cooperation is "compliance". Oh, and how about some cooperation from you? Why do you so adamantly refuse to discuss the matter at hand, and instead mewl on about the descriptions and explanations rather than the actual definition?
Quote: we have not yet worked out a definition and you already complain about a lot of errors and without solving them
Tu quoque mon chFr. So how about actually discussing the definitions offered? ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 09:29:00 -
[96]
Originally by: Tippia So how about actually discussing the definitions offered?
With whom? --
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 09:32:00 -
[97]
Originally by: Whitehound
Originally by: Tippia So how about actually discussing the definitions offered?
With whom?
The ones offering them perhaps?
àoh, and you're still doing it btw so: why do you so adamantly refuse to discuss the matter at hand, and instead mewl on about the descriptions and explanations rather than the actual definition? ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 09:44:00 -
[98]
Edited by: Whitehound on 31/05/2010 09:47:04
Originally by: Tippia The ones offering them perhaps?
Perhaps with you? --
|
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 09:49:00 -
[99]
Whitehound said "Where do you have this perfectionism now? The current definitions certainly leave a lot of questions." We do not have this perfectionism now. As I have been saying for a while the perfectionism in short simple definitions is impossible. Perfectionism is only possible in the longer complex definitions that are not practical for day to day use. Well might be possible, I still have setups I use that don't really fit into the longer complex definitions.
Whitehound said "Sorry, did not mean to offend you. It is however a common phrase - we have not yet worked out a definition and you already complain about a lot of errors and without solving them. You simply complain! How is this progress for finding a definition?" You didn't offend me, I was just pointing out your post are coming across like a troll not someone who wants to have a civilised talk about the problem. When someone points out an error or problem in your definition or rules, instead of tweaking your rules to fix the error you start trolling the person and ignore the error.
Look at it from my point of view. You post a faulty wrong definition that clearly doesn't work. I point out your definition doesn't work and say why and I say the solution looks to be impossible while keeping the solution simple. Your response is to ignore the problems. Tell me I am complaining and its all in my head and to say I am not solving them. In my books pointing out errors is helping solving them. Just because I don't have a solutions for a problem it doesn't mean I cannot spot and point out errors and problems. If I point out something that's wrong then someone else can take another look at it and find a solution. Pointing out your rules are not working is progress. If you class every comment that points out your rules do not work as complaining then you ignore the problem, then how are we meant to solve the problem? Why is pointing out your rules do not work and saying why even classed as complaining? That's what you wanted wasn't it? Or do you want everyone to ignore the problems, never point out your errors and to just blindly follow you?
I fully admit I have no solutions for a short simple 100% accurate definitions. But I can spot errors and rules that do not work in the already posted short simple definitions.
Whitehound said "You do not like a lot of things. You do not like change. You like to complain a lot. The best help I can give you is not to bother with the topic." Very funny, clearly you don't know me. You do realise don't you that I helped changed the face of tanking and tanks in Eve ? Change is something I very much like and do. How can anyone look at me and say I don't like change considering my past history in Eve.
I do like change and change a lot. Ok I can complain a bit, but when I do complain it's about valid complaints and complaining and pointing out problem helps. When I complain I don't just go that's rubbish, as that's not helpful. When I complain I explain why. Ignoring problems like you are, does not help. If I do something wrong here or in real life I would much rather someone complains at me and points out I am wrong then ignore the problem.
______ How to Passive Shield Tank T2
|
Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 09:56:00 -
[100]
Whitehound said " No. A tank is not an increase. You might tell a player to increase the tank on his ship, or to use a bigger ship in order to solve a problem....The perception of a tank being "just more" is wrong and dumb." That doesn't make any sense. A tanking is an increase. How is it dumb? Zero tank means you have zero defence. A tank is more defence over zero. A tank is always more as its more over nothing.
The main point of a tanking is to increase how long you live when you take damage. A tanks goal is to increase how long you live, increase survivability. If you have a tank you have increased your defence over zero defence.
A ship with no shields and no armour has zero tank. All player ships come with a baseline of armour and shields for a baseline tank due to us being Pod pilots. Tanking is an increase. There are 2 states. No tank, baseline zero armour, zero shields in the lore this would be some civilian ships who have no tank. Any ship with added armour or shields has a baseline tank which is an increase in defence over no tank. In the case of Eve and pod pilots tanking almost always refers to someone who has increased the tank beyond the baseline. for instance once would say "that pilot is tanking great" in reference to him tanking well over the baseline.
" Most tanks are rather a trade-off, because one can only fit so many items onto a ship. An increased tank often results in lower ship speeds, an increased signature radius, lower inertia or less shield/armour hitpoints. The perception of a tank being" talk about wondering off track. That has nothing to do with what we have been talking about. No one ever said boosting the tank is not a tradeoffs in other areas. This is all stuff that needs explaining but cannot be fit into a short simple definition.
Whitehound said "The best help I can give you is not to bother with the topic." I have done far more for tanking in Eve then most players and helping countless amounts of players. Telling people like me and the others in this thread to not bother is not helping your case. Its making you look like a troll who is only here to cause arguments.
______ How to Passive Shield Tank T2
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 10:05:00 -
[101]
Originally by: Whitehound Perhaps with you?
I've already answered this. Why do you so adamantly refuse to discuss the matter at hand, and instead mewl on about the descriptions and explanations rather than the actual definition? ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 10:06:00 -
[102]
Originally by: Tippia I've already answered this.
So I ask again ... With you? --
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 10:10:00 -
[103]
Edited by: Tippia on 31/05/2010 10:10:09
Originally by: Whitehound
Originally by: Tippia I've already answered this.
So I ask again
Why?
Oh and: Why do you so adamantly refuse to discuss the matter at hand, and instead mewl on about the descriptions and explanations rather than the actual definition? ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 10:16:00 -
[104]
Originally by: Pottsey We do not have this perfectionism now. As I have been saying for a while the perfectionism in short simple definitions is impossible. Perfectionism is only possible in the longer complex definitions that are not practical for day to day use. Well might be possible, I still have setups I use that don't really fit into the longer complex definitions.
What is your point?
Quote: In my books pointing out errors is helping solving them.
No. You help by solving them, not by pointing them out. By pointing out you only show where you have a problem with it and need the help of others. It is not the same as giving help.
Quote: Very funny, clearly you don't know me.
So you liked it?! --
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 10:20:00 -
[105]
Originally by: Whitehound What is your point?
His point is that "the perfectionism in short simple definitions is impossible".
Quote: No. You help by solving them, not by pointing them out. By pointing out you only show where you have a problem with it and need the help of others. It is not the same as giving help.
àand it shows where you are being unclear and/or inconsistent with reality, thus giving you pointers as to where improvements are needed. Thus, it helps you as well. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 10:25:00 -
[106]
Originally by: Tippia Why?
Not why, but with whom?! --
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 10:28:00 -
[107]
Originally by: Whitehound
Originally by: Tippia Why?
Not why, but with whom?!
Already answered, so why ask again?
And why do you so adamantly refuse to discuss the matter at hand, and instead mewl on about the descriptions and explanations rather than the actual definition? ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 10:34:00 -
[108]
Originally by: Tippia Already answered, so why ask again?
Again, with whom? --
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 10:38:00 -
[109]
Originally by: Whitehound
Originally by: Tippia Already answered, so why ask again?
Again, with whom?
The ones offering them. But you already know this, so why are you asking?
And why do you so adamantly refuse to discuss the matter at hand, and instead mewl on about the descriptions and explanations rather than the actual definition? |
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 10:39:00 -
[110]
Originally by: Tippia The ones offering them.
And who is this? |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 10:43:00 -
[111]
Originally by: Whitehound
Originally by: Tippia The ones offering them.
And who is this?
Read the thread. Answer the question posed to you. They're piling up quite high right now since you can't think of a single thing to say on the topic. |
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 10:45:00 -
[112]
Edited by: Whitehound on 31/05/2010 10:46:39
Originally by: Tippia Read the thread. ...
This is not an answer. I ask you again, who is this? |
|
CCP Navigator
C C P C C P Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 11:03:00 -
[113]
Thread cleaned.
Please stay on topic and discuss the actual subject matter.
Navigator Senior Community Representative CCP Hf, EVE Online
|
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 11:16:00 -
[114]
Edited by: Whitehound on 31/05/2010 11:16:45
Originally by: Tippia His point is that "the perfectionism in short simple definitions is impossible".
I can read, Tippia, but I did not bring perfectionism into the discussion. So, I ask again, what is the point?
Quote: àand it shows where you are being unclear and/or inconsistent with reality, thus giving you pointers as to where improvements are needed. Thus, it helps you as well.
No, you have failed to even answer simple questions. How can one discuss anything with you? --
|
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 11:48:00 -
[115]
Edited by: Whitehound on 31/05/2010 11:53:52 Another day, another attempt ...
Two fittings: one with a shield booster, one with a shield power relay.
Both reduce the available capacitor energy and increase the replenishing of the shield. However, one can be activated and deactivated, the other cannot not.
1.) Why is one being called active tanking and why is the other called passive tanking? 2.) Are both passive tanks or are they active tanks? 3.) Which one is active, which one is passive? --
|
Estel Arador
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 11:55:00 -
[116]
Originally by: Whitehound Why is one being called active tanking and why is the other called passive tanking?
I'll bite.
Because one actively regenerates the shield hitpoints 'on demand' whereas the other increases the passive shield regeneration.
Free jumpclone service|1092 stations! |
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 11:58:00 -
[117]
Originally by: Estel Arador I'll bite.
Because one actively regenerates the shield hitpoints 'on demand' whereas the other increases the passive shield regeneration.
So it is the ability of the item to be activated and deactivated that defines active and passive for you? And because you cannot activate or deactivate the "passive" shield regeneration, do you call it a passive shield regeneration? --
|
Estel Arador
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 12:12:00 -
[118]
Edited by: Estel Arador on 31/05/2010 12:12:35
Originally by: Whitehound
Originally by: Estel Arador I'll bite.
Because one actively regenerates the shield hitpoints 'on demand' whereas the other increases the passive shield regeneration.
So it is the ability of the item to be activated and deactivated that defines active and passive for you? And because you cannot activate or deactivate the "passive" shield regeneration, do you call it a passive shield regeneration?
I don't know how you could summarise my answer like that, nowhere in my answer did I mention 'activated' - despite your leading question, I might add. [Of course, a conversational linguist would be able to tell you that such 'formulations' (as they are called) are used to control the course of a conversation and lead to a certain outcome. Unfortunately for you, I know how to deal with them.]
The Shield Power Relay is (part of) a passive tank not because it does not have to be activated, but because it boosts the passive regeneration of the shield.
Free jumpclone service|1092 stations! |
Whitehound
The Whitehound Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 12:24:00 -
[119]
Edited by: Whitehound on 31/05/2010 12:25:41
Originally by: Estel Arador
Originally by: Whitehound So it is the ability of the item to be activated and deactivated that defines active and passive for you? And because you cannot activate or deactivate the "passive" shield regeneration, do you call it a passive shield regeneration?
I don't know how you could summarise my answer like that, ...
Just answer my questions. You do not need to know how I do this or that. --
|
Estel Arador
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 12:27:00 -
[120]
Originally by: Whitehound
Originally by: Estel Arador I don't know how you could summarise my answer like that, ...
Just answer my questions. You do not need to know how I do this or that.
That was a rhetorical statement. I explained how you could do that in the part in italics.
The answer to your question is at the end of the post. I'll repeat it here for your convenience:
The Shield Power Relay is (part of) a passive tank not because it does not have to be activated, but because it boosts the passive regeneration of the shield.
Free jumpclone service|1092 stations! |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |