| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Dave Stark
4158
   |
Posted - 2014.01.10 19:57:00 -
[1] - Quote
i feel that this is appropriate. |
Dave stark
4162
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 20:39:00 -
[2] - Quote
this thread is getting good. i don't have any popcorn but i do have mini toblerones. will share; i hate dark chocolate. milk and white are mine, though. |
Dave stark
4162
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 20:44:00 -
[3] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:**** white chocolate. That **** is disgusting.
You can feed it to dogs though, since it doesn't contain theobromine.
white chocolate, best chocolate. |
Dave Stark
4165
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 20:51:00 -
[4] - Quote
dexington wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Grath Telkin: disparages the N+1 subcap game.
Promotes N+1 titan game. Considering the titan is the "most powerful" ship in the game, what would be the alternative?
a balanced game where there are options other than "more warm bodies" as the ONLY viable tactic? |
Dave Stark
4165
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 20:53:00 -
[5] - Quote
Andski wrote:we only call it "more warm bodies" as long as it's not more warm bodies in supercarriers
tbh if your fleet is active in the US tz, i doubt there are any warm bodies. |
Dave Stark
4165
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 21:07:00 -
[6] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:baltec1 wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:
You know, you may have a point here. Maybe cap construction should be opened up more, so that everyone would have a chance for a combined arms approach to fleets. Will the CFC pursue such a change with equal vigor?
Wont make a difference. The old capitals are still there and for every one you build they are also building one. You simply cannot catch up as they are just not getting killed in enough numbers. Oh and this litle gem here, 400+ carriers die in 60 days but according to Baltec here they're just not getting killed in enough numbers....
are 400+ carriers dying every 60 days, or is this just an outlier that you're quoting?
really nothing irks me more than bad statistics.
edit: especially since 60 days is a very short time period in a game that's a decade old. |
Dave Stark
4165
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 21:12:00 -
[7] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:baltec1 wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:
You know, you may have a point here. Maybe cap construction should be opened up more, so that everyone would have a chance for a combined arms approach to fleets. Will the CFC pursue such a change with equal vigor?
Wont make a difference. The old capitals are still there and for every one you build they are also building one. You simply cannot catch up as they are just not getting killed in enough numbers. Oh and this litle gem here, 400+ carriers die in 60 days but according to Baltec here they're just not getting killed in enough numbers.... are 400+ carriers dying every 60 days, or is this just an outlier that you're quoting? really nothing irks me more than bad statistics. edit: especially since 60 days is a very short time period in a game that's a decade old. 400 carriers have died since the start of the Holloween war, over 100 dreads have died, 50 supers, and 1 titan.
so it's just an outlier that you're quoting? |
Dave Stark
4165
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 21:17:00 -
[8] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Dave Stark wrote:
so it's just an outlier that you're quoting?
Wouldn't call ~2 months of war an outlier when discussing wars between the 2 major powerblocs.
do you think 60 days of war, out of a game with 10 years of history, is a suitable frame to estimate the death rate of capital ships? |
Dave Stark
4165
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 21:20:00 -
[9] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Dave Stark wrote:
so it's just an outlier that you're quoting?
I dont know, is it an outlier or is it me taking issue with Batlec saying they're not dying in significant numbers? Because i know which one I think it is, however I'm sure you're going to try and shift it around to something other than exactly what it was: proving Baltec is a ******.
going to go with both.
sure you might take issue with what he says, but just because 400+ have died in the last 60 days doesn't tell us anything about the average rate of capital ship deaths, and just as importantly we don't have the rate of capitals being produced to compare it with.
quoting 400 capitals in 60 days is irrelevant, then again it doesn't matter as we have nothing to compare that statistic to. |
Dave Stark
4165
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 21:30:00 -
[10] - Quote
PotatoOverdose wrote:Dave Stark wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:Dave Stark wrote:
so it's just an outlier that you're quoting?
Wouldn't call ~2 months of war an outlier when discussing wars between the 2 major powerblocs. do you think 60 days of war, out of a game with 10 years of history, is a suitable frame to estimate the death rate of capital ships? Tbh I don't think the ten years of history are terribly relevant. First off, capitals haven't even existed for all of those years. When they were introduced, in the first few years the amount of caps in the game was tiny. Hell even through 2007-2009 caps weren't THAT common. IMO (and I could be wrong about this) it wasn't until the DRF wars that caps saw truly massive use. So at best, we're talking about 4 years or so of really *relevant* history. And well....60 days out of 4 years isn't really negligible, especially given that the conflict is ongoing.
2007 so that's still a solid 7 years. that's a substantial time period. taking a small window of 60 days in order to determine the rate of capital ship deaths is almost like me taking a cup of water from the ocean in order to estimate the population of whales in the ocean. especially since the last 60 days have basically seen one half of null sec bang it's head against the other half of null sec, it's hardly a "typical" 60 days.
also, surely if the rate of production were lesser or equal to the rate of deaths, then capitals still wouldn't be *that* common?
ok so let's only take the last 4 years. 60 days out of 1460 days, so 4.1% of the days is an adequate representation? especially when all 60 days are during a time period where, arguably, capitals have seen more use than ever before? (i only pose that question because i've never been aware of capitals being used quite this much before, especially when we're seeing full fleets of them being fielded.)
anyway, like i said the point is largely irrelevant since we haven't got a rate of ship production to compare it against. |
Dave Stark
4165
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 21:47:00 -
[11] - Quote
i think grath is about to point out that just because 100 maelstroms can't alpha a carrier doesn't mean carriers are immune to subcaps. |
| |
|