Maybe not your's but it was his.

To answer your original question. I don't want a smaller more tankier version of the freighter (which would be the JF) I wanted a smaller less tankier version than a freighter so that a ship would exist in its proper pre-nerfed form so that it could have rigs.

I'd just like to take this moment to say to all those carebears that wanted Freighter customization congratulations, and now I'd like to tell them I TOLD YOU SO about the massive cargo nerf for customization.

No, not his either.
You claimed that you ever said anything about orcas in any of your posts. He demonstrated that your claim was wrong.

To answer your original question. I don't want a smaller more tankier version of the freighter (which would be the JF) I wanted a smaller less tankier version than a freighter so that a ship would exist in its proper pre-nerfed form so that it could have rigs.

What it didn't do was show anything else.

yes it did. read the post.

No, what he did was showed that the word orca existed in my post. What it didn't do was show anything else.

And I would agree with your assessment if nothing were changing. But things change, and with change old things don't hold up anymore.

I did read it.

Your argument was that I was whining about what an orca could and could not do.
My response was that you were wrong and I never mentioned the orca. My point still stands. I never did mention the orca. Someone else brought it up and I corrected them.

It showed that you said something about orcas in your posts, thereby proving your claim wrong. You forgot what you had said and made a boo-boo. Just live with it.They hold up even more now since there's a lot more variation in the ships that fill out any gaps that existed before.

I've been working on a web tool to help wrap my head around these changes. Fairly limited right now but gets some basic info across. Works in IGB as well, does not require trust.

http://xyjax.com/optimizer_kronos/index.html

go and read the posts, you're just embarrassing yourself with how wrong you are.

you said you didn't mention orcas; i quoted the post where you did. you were wrong; it's that simple.

And I didn't mention orcas.

yes, you did. as per the quote i've linked, several times.

You can say this all you want, but it doesn't make it anymore true.

You can say this all you want, but it doesn't make it anymore true.

no, the fact that you said it, and i subsequently quoted it, proves it to be true.

That's true enough. It can't really be more true than true, which it is, as demonstrated by the post where you mention them.

Now, if you want to claim that you didn't mention Orcas, can you explain what you were doing when you mentioned orcas in the post in question?

I didn't mention them.

at this point i'm honestly not sure if you don't understand english, or you've got some kind of underlying detrimental condition.

because you did, and evidence has been produced to prove it.

Well had the fact that I said it actually occurred. it would have proved it.

I responded to their mentionings. That is not the same as what you are accusing me.

I didn't mention them

Think of it like the Clinton scandal.

No I didn't.

I can see some of these reductions are needed to compensate for the boost from rigs. But even with rigs, a freighter cannot be brought up to the same performance level it has right now. If you rig for cargo, the tank is less. If you rig for tank, the cargo is less. If you rig a bit for both, both are less. There is no combination of rigs that return a freighter to where it is right now.

Please reconsider the degree of the reductions to cargo and tank.

It wasn't really a question. It was a demonstration that what you're asking for is pretty much already in the game. We have a neat progression of an almost constant doubling of capacity between DST GåÆ Orca GåÆ JF GåÆ Freighter. There's very little room for any additional ships in that progression.

So it's proven then, since it is indeed a fact that you said it.

Look, you're just clogging up the thread with this idiotic refusal to accept reality. You mentioned them. It's right there in the thread. You thought you hadn't, or you made a mistake about what people were saying, but the facts are the facts. Just live with it GÇö it will all be deleted anyway. Also, look up what the word GÇ£mentionGÇ¥ mean because you seem to be a bit confused by it.

[quote=Valterra Craven]I responded to their mentionings. That is not the same as what you are accusing me.

I can see some of these reductions are needed to compensate for the boost from rigs. But even with rigs, a freighter cannot be brought up to the same performance level it has right now. If you rig for cargo, the tank is less. If you rig for tank, the cargo is less. If you rig a bit for both, both are less. There is no combination of rigs that return a freighter to where it is right now.

Please reconsider the degree of the reductions to cargo and tank.

It's NOT A COMBAT SHIP. It doesn't effect game play. If I need to move 5 Mil m3's around in Null. More or less capacity wont change anything.