Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 .. 94 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 29 post(s) |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 23:18:00 -
[1441] - Quote
Tippia wrote:5GÇô15 kills per day, many of which aren't even suicide ganks since they happen outside of highsec and/or during wardecs? Yeah, that's laughably rare.
Hey looks its Mu! |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22052
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 23:22:00 -
[1442] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Uh huh. So the phrase "not nothing" when asked a point blank simple question isn't evasive and nonsensical. Nope. It is, in fact, the only sensible answer to your false dichotomy.
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¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 23:22:00 -
[1443] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Valterra Craven wrote: So I will ask you point blank:
Is hull tanking viable for one ship, or all ships?
Neither, and you are really bad at false dichotomies.
So if I'm so bad at false dichotomies, what other options are there for hull tanking if not "viable" or "not viable" aren't the only two options? |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 23:24:00 -
[1444] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Uh huh. So the phrase "not nothing" when asked a point blank simple question isn't evasive and nonsensical. Nope. It is, in fact, the only sensible answer to your false dichotomy.
So the answer to the post is not "Mu". The answer to the post is "these are not the only two options, here are some other examples."
That's how to not be an evasive non nonsensical troll. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22052
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 23:25:00 -
[1445] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:So the answer to the post is not "Mu". Yes it is.
Quote:So if I'm so bad at false dichotomies, what other options are there for hull tanking if "viable" or "not viable" aren't the only two options? But that wasn't the question, now was it?
Oh, and: how are bulkheads imbalanced? How would making them take up no fitting space make them more imbalanced? 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¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6405
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 23:29:00 -
[1446] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Valterra Craven wrote: So I will ask you point blank:
Is hull tanking viable for one ship, or all ships?
Neither, and you are really bad at false dichotomies. So if I'm so bad at false dichotomies, what other options are there for hull tanking if "viable" or "not viable" aren't the only two options?
That is not what you wrote.
Hull tanking is not viable for just one ship, nor is it viable for all ships.
The possibility of it being somewhere in between those two extremes seems to have escaped you. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 23:30:00 -
[1447] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:So the answer to the post is not "Mu". Yes it is.
If your a troll it is.
Tippia wrote:Oh, and: how are bulkheads imbalanced? How would making them take up no fitting space make them more imbalanced?
See post #1375 for my stated answer that states exactly this. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6405
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 23:31:00 -
[1448] - Quote
Oh, and I see Rivr Luzade has no idea what the difference is between a suicide gank and any time a freighter dies, ever.
You should really look up on it. And if in fact you are not that shockingly ignorant, then that's a pretty poor attempt at trolling even for you. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 23:32:00 -
[1449] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Valterra Craven wrote: So I will ask you point blank:
Is hull tanking viable for one ship, or all ships?
Neither, and you are really bad at false dichotomies. So if I'm so bad at false dichotomies, what other options are there for hull tanking if "viable" or "not viable" aren't the only two options? That is not what you wrote. Hull tanking is not viable for just one ship, nor is it viable for all ships. The possibility of it being somewhere in between those two extremes seems to have escaped you.
No, it hasn't escaped me. I'm saying that I have seen no other provable examples to counter your point that what I've said isn't true. In fact, if what you are saying is true, the statement "Hull tanking is only currently viable for one ship" would be easily demonstrated as false by ONE example. So, let me ask you point blank. How many ships is hull tanking viable on? |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22052
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 23:33:00 -
[1450] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:If your a troll it is. I don't own any trolls, be they of an GÇ£aGÇ¥ type or otherwise.
Quote:See post #1375 for my stated answer that states exactly this. GÇ£Its not bad to balance around ships that use a given module. Its bad to balance around ships that use a given module when the module should be just as viable on other ships in the game. Because they are tanking mods and tanking mods require fitting tradeoffs. You shouldn't get something for nothing.GÇ¥
Nothing about how they are imbalanced. Nothing about how giving them fitting space would make them more imbalanced. So GÇ£exactly thisGÇ¥ is referring to something completely different than I'm asking for.
What I'm asking is: how are bulkheads imbalanced? How would making them take up no fitting space make them more imbalanced? 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¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
|
Semidurr
The North Capsuleers The North is Coming
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 23:38:00 -
[1451] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Let's compare that to the daily losses in one of the least flown ship types in the game. Oh myGǪ many times more. For something that doesn't really ever see the light of day. Yeah, GǣexceedinglyGǥ seems quite accurate for the rarity of freighter kills, and even more so for suicide ganks when you consider how commonly they are flown and how rarely they are lost.
Let's not compare daily losses of the >PVP-ONLY< hulls worth 25m each with 1b+ freighters that got nothing to do with pvp.
Making such comparisons is simply stupid. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6405
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 23:40:00 -
[1452] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote: No, it hasn't escaped me.
In which case, like I said, you are really bad at false dichotomies. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22054
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 23:40:00 -
[1453] - Quote
Semidurr wrote:Let's not compare daily losses of the >PVP-ONLY< hulls worth 25m each with 1b+ freighters that got nothing to do with pvp. Making such comparisons is simply stupid. Not particularly. We have to establish how common it is that a ship is lost. Using one of the least used ship types in the game gives us a kind of worst-case baseline for rarity of loss. Freighters, it turns out, does not even reach that baseline GÇö that's how rare freighter losses are.
Oh, and one is a ship that can easily avoid situations that gets it killed; the other is one that is very commonly flown into hostile territory and which, if caught, needs some fancy flying to get out of there. The former still gets killed tons more. Claiming that freighters have nothing to do with PvP essentially just says that they're pretty much never killed. 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¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Preto Black
Solar Clipper Trading Company
14
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 23:44:00 -
[1454] - Quote
I know it is now hopefully obvious, but this change is so bad that I have to add to the numerous posts here.
This change is badly thought out - nerfing several attributes because you can now get rigs to improve 1 or 2 of them is not sensible - EHP and agility nerfs are just not needed - even if some rigs can improve them. From a game point of view is even nerfing cargo space could be argued is not that much of an issue - there is the gank attraction penalty of having too much cargo
this change is poorly communicated - to use this method to say this change is part of balancing when it has the potential to completely change the way people play the game, seems to show either a lack of understanding of the way the game is played or a care factor of zero (or less)
|
Arthur Aihaken
Erebus Solia
3598
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 23:49:00 -
[1455] - Quote
Maybe they should get a single high slot for a Covert Ops cloak. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 23:54:00 -
[1456] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Valterra Craven wrote: No, it hasn't escaped me.
In which case, like I said, you are really bad at false dichotomies.
Either way, you still can't/haven't shown even one more example besides the Orca where hull tanking is viable. I'm sure neither of us is going to take the time to fit every ship in game with a hull tank to find out if even one more example exists. So again, your point is irrelevant. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22054
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 23:57:00 -
[1457] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:... because pointing out simple grammar mistakes ins't trollish apparently. Not particularly if it's in response to just more ad hominem fallacies.
Quote:Well for one, their relative benefits don't make sense to their fitting costs now. It's entirely in line with the other hull upgrades. vOv But yes, you're right. Their benefits should be vastly higher for the kind of fitting cost they have GÇö the low bonus they provide doesn't make much sense with that kind of CPU requirement.
Quote:In order to balance them currently they would need to have straight HP values like current shield and armor mods do. Yeah, seeGǪ the entire mistake you're making here is that you think that balance involves behaving like other modules. What other modules do is irrelevant. What you have to ask is what the effects are on a ship for fitting this module and how it stacks up to other options available.
As it happens, the percentage-based bonus from bulkheads is generally a smaller increase than the fixed amount added by shield and armour buffers, unless we're talking about a ship where those tanking types are not particularly effective. The percentage-based bonus also gets around the problem of having different-sized moduels and having to balance them against all kinds of ships you can fit them to. It's a niche module for a niche usage on a niche selection of ships, and the bonus it provides is entirely reasonable for the result you get out.
It's a few percentages more hull EHP, compared to the massive increase you'd get from, say, a suitcase. So to balance the module, the 40tf increase needs to be slashed by a massive amount to compare favourably to the 25tf of a DCI or 30tf of a DCII.
Quote:Giving them no fitting reqs would only further to make matters worse and make them more imbalanced when compared to other mods. Just one problem: they're not imbalanced. They are, in fact, very low-performing for their cost. A DCII gives 10+ù as much for -+ the cost, so a balanced fitting cost of a T2 bulkhead would be somewhere around 3 tf. We might as well round that down to 0. So, in fact, giving them no fitting reqs would make them more balanced than they currently are GÇö that way, they can be used as slot-wasteful but more granular versions of DCUs, and would allow for a 0/0-capability slotbased freighter solution that still had a sane tanking option.
Furthermore, since they offer so little advantage to most ships (again, some niches exist for a few other ships), using it as essentially a filler module for any left-over lowslots you might have just gives it a bit more usage, and a bit more choice for the ships, which is always nice. 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¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 00:00:00 -
[1458] - Quote
Holder |
Azami Nevinyrall
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
1898
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 00:09:00 -
[1459] - Quote
Preto Black wrote:this change is poorly communicated - to use this method to say this change is part of balancing when it has the potential to completely change the way people play the game, seems to show either a lack of understanding of the way the game is played or a care factor of zero (or less)
I hope everyone voted in the CSM elections! Thank you to those who actually supported my campaign! Even if I don't get elected in, I hope that the CSM that do, and Devs actually use my ideas somewhere! |
Semidurr
The North Capsuleers The North is Coming
1
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 00:10:00 -
[1460] - Quote
Tippia wrote: Not particularly. We have to establish how common it is that a ship is lost. Using one of the least used ship types in the game gives us a kind of worst-case baseline for rarity of loss. Freighters, it turns out, does not even reach that baseline GÇö that's how rare freighter losses are.
Apples and oranges. Do you got any hard data on how often ewar frigs are used? Why dont compare freighters to dst which are fulfilling similiar role in similiar environment? There were 7 dst and 16 freighters destroyed on may 18. Does it mean that dst are superior hauling ships?
Or is it just meaningless statistic one can use to make a point? |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22054
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 00:14:00 -
[1461] - Quote
Semidurr wrote:Apples and oranges. Do you got any hard data on how often ewar frigs are used? CCP occasionally publishes stats on these things. Ewar frigates consistently end up at the very bottom of the list. The GÇ£commonly gankedGÇ¥ ships tend to end up at the top. And yet, the (far) more rarely used ships are being killed in far higher numbers than the much more commonly used gank targets.
Quote:Why dont compare freighters to dst which are fulfilling similiar role in similiar environment? There were 7 dst and 16 freighters destroyed on may 18. Does it mean that dst are superior hauling ships? No, it means that freighters are destroyed more often. It tells us nothing about their other qualities. As it happens, though, what we were interested in is how common it is for a ship to be destroyed GÇö specifically in a suicide gank. 16 in a day (of which at most half even qualify as suicide ganks) is a pathetically low number compared to how common the ships in question are. 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¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 00:14:00 -
[1462] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Not particularly if it's in response to just more ad hominem fallacies. Shame IGÇÖm not using ad hominem fallacies.
Quote: It's entirely in line with the other hull upgrades. vOv . Which are also not balanced relative to other tanking mods.
Quote: Yeah, seeGǪ the entire mistake you're making here is that you think that balance involves behaving like other modules. What other modules do is irrelevant. What you have to ask is what the effects are on a ship for fitting this module and how it stacks up to other options available.
ItGÇÖs not a mistake. LetGÇÖs look at the phoenix for simplicities sake (all lvl 5 skills). It has 5 lows. If we give it 5x t2 bulkheads, that adds roughly 480k effective HP for a measly 100 cpu and 5 grid If we give it 5x t2 large shield extenders, that adds roughly 22k effective HP for 230cpu and 630 gridGǪ And thatGÇÖs balance to you?
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6408
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 00:17:00 -
[1463] - Quote
Semidurr wrote:Tippia wrote: Not particularly. We have to establish how common it is that a ship is lost. Using one of the least used ship types in the game gives us a kind of worst-case baseline for rarity of loss. Freighters, it turns out, does not even reach that baseline GÇö that's how rare freighter losses are.
Apples and oranges. Do you got any hard data on how often ewar frigs are used? Why dont compare freighters to dst which are fulfilling similiar role in similiar environment? There were 7 dst and 16 freighters destroyed on may 18. Does it mean that dst are superior hauling ships? Or is it just meaningless statistic one can use to make a point?
He said "least used ship types", not "functionally nonexistent".
I have never once, in all the time I have played this game seen a deep space transport in open space. Pretty sure the Ishukone Scorpion sees more flight time than that entire class of ships. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6408
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 00:19:00 -
[1464] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote: ItGÇÖs not a mistake. LetGÇÖs look at the phoenix for simplicities sake (all lvl 5 skills). It has 5 lows. If we give it 5x t2 bulkheads, that adds roughly 480k effective HP for a measly 100 cpu and 5 grid If we give it 5x t2 large shield extenders, that adds roughly 22k effective HP for 230cpu and 630 gridGǪ And thatGÇÖs balance to you?
So I guess more ship types than just the Orca can be hull tanked.
Are you running around in circles contradicting yourself on purpose, or is this accidental? It's equally hilarious regardless, so you may as well tell the truth. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
11679
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 00:21:00 -
[1465] - Quote
Semidurr wrote:Tippia wrote: Not particularly. We have to establish how common it is that a ship is lost. Using one of the least used ship types in the game gives us a kind of worst-case baseline for rarity of loss. Freighters, it turns out, does not even reach that baseline GÇö that's how rare freighter losses are.
Apples and oranges. Do you got any hard data on how often ewar frigs are used? Why dont compare freighters to dst which are fulfilling similiar role in similiar environment? There were 7 dst and 16 freighters destroyed on may 18. Does it mean that dst are superior hauling ships? Or is it just meaningless statistic one can use to make a point?
Given that DST are flying bricks of armour it shouldnt be all that shocking they dont get killed much.
Simple fact is that freighter ganking is a very rare event and even the rarely used e-war frigs see more losses. Anyone who says freighters are getting killed in great numbers is simply lying. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 00:22:00 -
[1466] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Valterra Craven wrote: ItGÇÖs not a mistake. LetGÇÖs look at the phoenix for simplicities sake (all lvl 5 skills). It has 5 lows. If we give it 5x t2 bulkheads, that adds roughly 480k effective HP for a measly 100 cpu and 5 grid If we give it 5x t2 large shield extenders, that adds roughly 22k effective HP for 230cpu and 630 gridGǪ And thatGÇÖs balance to you?
So I guess more ship types than just the Orca can be hull tanked. Are you running around in circles contradicting yourself on purpose, or is this accidental? It's equally hilarious regardless, so you may as well tell the truth.
The mistake you are making is that this post doesn't prove that that hull tanking is viable on this ship. For that to happen you would have to prove that a proper setup with a cap hull repair would equate to the same amount of damage as its shield tank... which you know is not possible. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22057
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 00:27:00 -
[1467] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Shame IGÇÖm not using ad hominem fallacies. Incorrect.
Quote:Which are also not balanced relative to other tanking mods. They're not tanking mods so why would you make that comparison?
Quote:ItGÇÖs not a mistake. Yes it is, because you're confusing method with result.
Let's look at the Phoenix for simplicity's sake. If we give it 5+ù RB2, it gains 480k EHP. That's obviously a pathetically small increase at an insanely wasteful cost. If we instead give it 1+ù DCII, it gains 448k GÇö almost as much GÇö for a fraction of that cost. If we try to give a proper buffer tank (a couple of Invulns and a suitcase), we've doubled the tank for less than the bulkheads' cost (and this is before we even taken things like repping and siege mode into consideration).
We, intelligently enough, don't use buffer modules because none exist on an XL-size level. I mean, yes, your basic answer is correct: the bulkhead isn't balanced in the sense that they don't stack up well to the other modules on this ship. The intent of your answer is wrong: the bulkheads are vastly underpowered compared to the other tanking options available.
Giving the bulkheads a 0/0 fitting cost would make them far more balanced (but still a horribly bad option for this 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¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 00:33:00 -
[1468] - Quote
Then lets so some examples.
Tippia wrote:They're not tanking mods so why would you make that comparison? /quote]Since when are repair modules not tanking mods? Tippia wrote: I mean, yes, your basic answer is correct: the bulkhead isn't balanced in the sense that they don't stack up well to the other modules on this ship.
And given the topic of what we are talking about (capital ships) My argument works for the freighter too. [quote=Tippia]The intent of your answer is wrong: the bulkheads are vastly underpowered compared to the other tanking options available.
The problem here is that you think I'm arguing bulkheads are underpowered. The example I used was to prove that they are overpowered. They will be more so with no fitting costs.
|
Silvetica Dian
Manson Family Advent of Fate
1039
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 00:35:00 -
[1469] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:B Plague wrote: and seeing as high sec suicide ganks are already super common Highsec suicide ganks on freighters are exceedingly rare.
This is true. I assume my freighter won't die in high sec. It long ago payed back the cost of purchase. With the new rigs i will add cargo and warp speed. One day it will get ganked and i will buy a new one. We were warned by people in this thread that rigs would mean a nerf. I listened and believed them. I will eat the nerf and make it work for me by lowering the time i spend hauling. I will continue to listen to the people that called this nerf as they clearly know what thay are talking about. Money at its root is a form of rationing. When the richest 85 people have as much wealth as the poorest 3.5 billion (50% of humanity) it is clear where the source of poverty is. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/20/trickle-down-economics-broken-promise-richest-85 |
Miss Everest
Elysium Accord
4
|
Posted - 2014.05.20 00:37:00 -
[1470] - Quote
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Good evening everyone. Just wanted to let you guys know that we haven't forgotten about you. I'm discussing a few improvements to the design with the CSM now, and we'll be able to start getting your feedback on them soon.
Have a good night! I hope you leave the stats of these ships alone...for the mostpart. Change Cargoholds so with T2 Rigs you cannot smuggle Capitals into Highsec! I can understand a slight poke here and there with the base stats, but nothing to radical as they currently are! Otherwise I'll be asking alot of "Why exactly are these changes necessary outside of something to do." Which would promptly be ignored in a orderly fashion.
Seriously why not just make capitals a prohibited item in HS. That would solve that problem. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 .. 94 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |