| 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 .. 69 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 11 post(s) |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1017
   |
Posted - 2014.11.14 18:48:40 -
[1501] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote:
You could tank concord back then.
And your point would be what? You still haven't addressed the core of the argument, mainly that you have no evidence to back up the statement that all of the changes that have occurred over the years have curbed ganking in any meaningful way.
Your tactic of demanding increasingly large amounts of evidence for every niggling thing being said is at once cumbersome to the point of banality and vastly hypocritical, considering you fail to engender the same standards that you impose upon others.
Please stop.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
13898
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 18:50:32 -
[1502] - Quote
Querns wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote:
You could tank concord back then.
And your point would be what? You still haven't addressed the core of the argument, mainly that you have no evidence to back up the statement that all of the changes that have occurred over the years have curbed ganking in any meaningful way. Your tactic of demanding increasingly large amounts of evidence for every niggling thing being said is at once cumbersome to the point of banality and vastly hypocritical, considering you fail to engender the same standards that you impose upon others. Please stop.
Funny how these people never back themselves up with any evidence yet demand the world from us.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1017
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 18:51:53 -
[1503] - Quote
Here is a debate hint from Uncle Querns: rather than demanding an ocean of evidence for something you suspect is wrong, take it into your own hands and find your own evidence that refutes the statement.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
13898
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 18:53:33 -
[1504] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote:
You could tank concord back then.
And your point would be what? You still haven't addressed the core of the argument, mainly that you have no evidence to back up the statement that all of the changes that have occurred over the years have curbed ganking in any meaningful way.
You honestly think not being able to tank concord has had zero impact upon ganking?
Here's a challenge for you. Go find anyone that regularly ganks using battleships.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
278
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 18:54:32 -
[1505] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:baltec1 wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:
Because its a freighter without a cloak + mwd...and it's slow enough to be trapped by bumping. That makes it vastly easier to gank than a mach.
Mach can be alpha'ed rather easily. The same cannot be said for a well tanked bowhead. You are never locking it up because of cloak + mwd...not to mention that travel fit is close to 300k ehp and basically never gets suicide ganked. Feel free to post this fit.
cloak in highs, 2 pith as and 2 lses and gist x mwd in mids, 2 1600 faction plates, 4 x type harderners and dcs in low.....it would be more with shield rigs...overheated 300k ehp |
S'No Flake
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
43
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 18:59:01 -
[1506] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:S'No Flake wrote:Querns wrote:The disconnect here is that the calls for seven digit EHP and other forms of invincibility assume a position where attempting to evade or out-think the gankers in question is never broached. In a pure PvP game such as Eve: Online, you must keep death in mind at all times. There is no safety. You are prey at all times until you choose to become a predator, and even then you're only not prey if you are at the top of your game. With this ship, you can't evade anything. While you can do that with an orca by using mwd+cloak or, drop some ecm drones and get a lucky break and warp away from the tackler (if they have one only) with bowhead you can't do anything at all. Just hope and prey they do a mistake and concord arrives while you are still alive. No ship can evade everything. The cloak mwd trick doesn't work on an orca vs anyone competent and ECM drones also wont work with the tactics used in high sec gate camps.
Mwd + cloak does wonders.
Yes it can fail, you can be uncloaked and pointed but, it's still is something you can do.
ECM might get the first tackle or, you can land an ecm jam and get some (little) dps off field.
It's not much but, it is something.
Bowhead can't do anything at all.
There is basically nothing you can do... Just jump in and hope that in those 10 seconds your mwd is cycling nothing will point you. |
Valterra Craven
367
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 18:59:38 -
[1507] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
You honestly think not being able to tank concord has had zero impact upon ganking?
You honestly think that's the point I was trying to make? I never said the changes had zero impact. What I said is that given the common occurrence of the activity that the changes haven't curbed it. |
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
494
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 19:03:06 -
[1508] - Quote
If there was one of these worth ganking with escorts the escorts would be alphad and the ship bumped.
Of course anyone dumb enough to load that much into it.....
That said, I'll almost certainly never use it. |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
Chelonaphobia
638
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 19:03:14 -
[1509] - Quote
Can we just agree that the tug or bowhead or what ever is a cool ship and it shouldn't have 90% fatigue immunity and move on. Good Job CCP (once you pull the fatigue immunity). |
xKOMODOx
23
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 19:03:24 -
[1510] - Quote
Confirmed by CCP Seagull
"If a Bowhead is destroyed, there is a chance that assembled ships can be found amongst the wreckage."
read more at Rhea |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1017
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 19:03:33 -
[1511] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Querns wrote:
Your tactic of demanding increasingly large amounts of evidence for every niggling thing being said is at once cumbersome to the point of banality and vastly hypocritical, considering you fail to engender the same standards that you impose upon others.
Please stop.
No. The biggest problem with these threads is that people make baseless claims to support their arguments and when asked to man up and prove their validity instead attack the one asking them to prove their claims. Generally speaking I have respected your (as in qurens and not a more general you as in goons) opinions because you've at least done your homework (myrra sp?included) Why should people's statements be taken at face value when they could potentially have an affect on the balance of the game? Now I'm not sure how you can make the claim that I'm being hypocritical when several times in this very thread I've gone out and researched data that several of your alliance members asked for when they have not taken the time or effort to do so themselves..
Except, this is not what you're doing. What you are doing is recursively descending into an argument and asking for forms to be filled out in triplicate. You're not actually demanding evidence for anything useful GÇö-áyou're making busy work in the hopes that your debate opponent will just give up instead of submitting to the massive workload you request. Doing this turns the discussion from efficient point and counterpoint to an exercise in who can demand the most paperwork from the other. The original point is quickly lost, and the conversation goes in strange, unfruitful directions.
I understand that you want people to back up their statements, but the way you're going about demanding it is just irritating. It's far more efficient for both parties to find evidence that the other person is talking out of their ass then trying to turn it into a game of who can produce the most homework.
Find a facet of the discussion that you think is wrong. Disassemble it with your own evidence.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1017
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 19:05:12 -
[1512] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Querns wrote:Here is a debate hint from Uncle Querns: rather than demanding an ocean of evidence for something you suspect is wrong, take it into your own hands and find your own evidence that refutes the statement. Oh, you mean just like I did with baltec's false statements about mOo. I'm sorry but you have no leg to stand on.
No, not really. You just did the same thing you always did GÇö-ádeclare yourself the winner because a niggling portion of what you talk about did not have its requisite reams of paperwork. Please, just stop.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
13898
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 19:06:07 -
[1513] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:
cloak in highs, 2 pith as and 2 lses and gist x mwd in mids, 2 1600 faction plates, 4 x type harderners and dcs in low.....it would be more with shield rigs...overheated 300k ehp
1 billion isk in droppable loot. It requires 6 tornados to gank. Potential profit of 300-400 mil.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
Chelonaphobia
638
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 19:06:32 -
[1514] - Quote
Querns wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:Querns wrote:
Your tactic of demanding increasingly large amounts of evidence for every niggling thing being said is at once cumbersome to the point of banality and vastly hypocritical, considering you fail to engender the same standards that you impose upon others.
Please stop.
No. The biggest problem with these threads is that people make baseless claims to support their arguments and when asked to man up and prove their validity instead attack the one asking them to prove their claims. Generally speaking I have respected your (as in qurens and not a more general you as in goons) opinions because you've at least done your homework (myrra sp?included) Why should people's statements be taken at face value when they could potentially have an affect on the balance of the game? Now I'm not sure how you can make the claim that I'm being hypocritical when several times in this very thread I've gone out and researched data that several of your alliance members asked for when they have not taken the time or effort to do so themselves.. Except, this is not what you're doing. What you are doing is recursively descending into an argument and asking for forms to be filled out in triplicate. You're not actually demanding evidence for anything useful GÇö-áyou're making busy work in the hopes that your debate opponent will just give up instead of submitting to the massive workload you request. Doing this turns the discussion from efficient point and counterpoint to an exercise in who can demand the most paperwork from the other. The original point is quickly lost, and the conversation goes in strange, unfruitful directions. I understand that you want people to back up their statements, but the way you're going about demanding it is just irritating. It's far more efficient for both parties to find evidence that the other person is talking out of their ass then trying to turn it into a game of who can produce the most homework. Find a facet of the discussion that you think is wrong. Disassemble it with your own evidence.
I just tell the guy he's stoopit in a sideways manner he won't understand and move on. Remember, it takes 2 (or 3 in this case) to tango.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1017
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 19:06:35 -
[1515] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:Can we just agree that the tug or bowhead or what ever is a cool ship and it shouldn't have 90% fatigue immunity and move on. Good Job CCP (once you pull the fatigue immunity).
As long as interceptors shed their warp bubble immunity and jump freighters are nerfed, I concur. Trying to nerf one form of power projection while leaving a vastly superior one in place is hypocrisy.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
13898
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 19:07:42 -
[1516] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote:
You honestly think not being able to tank concord has had zero impact upon ganking?
You honestly think that's the point I was trying to make? I never said the changes had zero impact. What I said is that given the common occurrence of the activity that the changes haven't curbed it.
So how do you explain the fact that CCP stated that barge ganking is at its lowest point in the games history?
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
Chelonaphobia
638
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 19:08:42 -
[1517] - Quote
Querns wrote:Serendipity Lost wrote:Can we just agree that the tug or bowhead or what ever is a cool ship and it shouldn't have 90% fatigue immunity and move on. Good Job CCP (once you pull the fatigue immunity). As long as interceptors shed their warp bubble immunity and jump freighters are nerfed, I concur. Trying to nerf one form of power projection while leaving a vastly superior one in place is hypocrisy.
agreed |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
13898
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 19:11:00 -
[1518] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:
You did ruin the sov holding part of null on a fundamental level in incremantal steps... making it basically unplayable.... causeing most players to play afk by ping or lose interest all together and leave for mech warrior. Don't be bashful. You earned it. Step up and tak a bow.
Null was broken long before goons were a thing. We have managed to get a few things changes, such as tracking titans and tech moons but M0o impacted some very core aspects of the game such as untankable concord, getting tracking introduced on turrets, stacking penalties on weapons and hardeners, gate guns, NPC navies on gates.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Valterra Craven
367
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 19:12:57 -
[1519] - Quote
Querns wrote:
Except, this is not what you're doing. What you are doing is recursively descending into an argument and asking for forms to be filled out in triplicate. You're not actually demanding evidence for anything useful GÇö-áyou're making busy work in the hopes that your debate opponent will just give up instead of submitting to the massive workload you request. Doing this turns the discussion from efficient point and counterpoint to an exercise in who can demand the most paperwork from the other. The original point is quickly lost, and the conversation goes in strange, unfruitful directions.
I understand that you want people to back up their statements, but the way you're going about demanding it is just irritating. It's far more efficient for both parties to find evidence that the other person is talking out of their ass then trying to turn it into a game of who can produce the most homework.
Find a facet of the discussion that you think is wrong. Disassemble it with your own evidence.
Can you point me to a resource that shows how many ganks have occurred daily that has historical data for years? In essence that is what it would take to shut this debate down. I've done some digging but I can't find a way to even find out how many ganks actually occur in a day without having to verify that every person that died in hi sec in a given day wasn't under war dec and wasn't awoxed.
And that is the point that I'm trying to make. Why do the majority of goons feel the need to make claims that can not be proven or disproven? |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
Chelonaphobia
638
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 19:14:02 -
[1520] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Serendipity Lost wrote:
You did ruin the sov holding part of null on a fundamental level in incremantal steps... making it basically unplayable.... causeing most players to play afk by ping or lose interest all together and leave for mech warrior. Don't be bashful. You earned it. Step up and tak a bow.
Null was broken long before goons were a thing.
You need to prove a statement like or it will get all recursive and stuff. |
Valterra Craven
367
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 19:15:07 -
[1521] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote:
You honestly think not being able to tank concord has had zero impact upon ganking?
You honestly think that's the point I was trying to make? I never said the changes had zero impact. What I said is that given the common occurrence of the activity that the changes haven't curbed it. So how do you explain the fact that CCP stated that barge ganking is at its lowest point in the games history?
Does barge ganking encompass all ganking? Did crimewatch have anything to do with it? Did other changes in the game BESIDES given those ships better tank contribute to that? Or are you saying that giving barges more tank was the right way for CCP to handle the situation of barge ganking? And if so would that not also apply to other ships? |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
13898
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 19:15:47 -
[1522] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:baltec1 wrote:Serendipity Lost wrote:
You did ruin the sov holding part of null on a fundamental level in incremantal steps... making it basically unplayable.... causeing most players to play afk by ping or lose interest all together and leave for mech warrior. Don't be bashful. You earned it. Step up and tak a bow.
Null was broken long before goons were a thing. You need to prove a statement like or it will get all recursive and stuff.
Added more.
We did some good things but nothing like M0o managed.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Pippan
DerpCo Conglomerate
3
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 19:16:17 -
[1523] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Acquisition will work the same as freighters - there will be a NPC seeded BPO (with the same distribution as the Orca), it will be a bit cheaper than a freighter BPO, the Bowhead build materials will also be similar to other Freighters but will be be a bit lower. I would expect eventual market price to be 100 or 200 mil lower than other freighters.
It will use capital rigs.
I think it's been said other places but as far as loot - we hope to get a change ready in time for Rhea that will make SMA loot work the same as CHAs where the contents will be inside the wreck on ship death, it's still not totally clear if that will happen in time but it would be in the following release if not.
I'm not convinced about the EHP needing to be higher but I'll bring this to the rest of the team and get back to you.
I do not understand why this would be an SOE ship instead of an Interbus ship. Seems the obviouss choice to me.. |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
278
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 19:17:22 -
[1524] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:
cloak in highs, 2 pith as and 2 lses and gist x mwd in mids, 2 1600 faction plates, 4 x type harderners and dcs in low.....it would be more with shield rigs...overheated 300k ehp
1 billion isk in droppable loot. It requires 6 tornados to gank. Potential profit of 300-400 mil.
6??????
Try 20, and that without logi on grid or cloak + mwd trick. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1017
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 19:21:44 -
[1525] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Querns wrote:
Except, this is not what you're doing. What you are doing is recursively descending into an argument and asking for forms to be filled out in triplicate. You're not actually demanding evidence for anything useful GÇö-áyou're making busy work in the hopes that your debate opponent will just give up instead of submitting to the massive workload you request. Doing this turns the discussion from efficient point and counterpoint to an exercise in who can demand the most paperwork from the other. The original point is quickly lost, and the conversation goes in strange, unfruitful directions.
I understand that you want people to back up their statements, but the way you're going about demanding it is just irritating. It's far more efficient for both parties to find evidence that the other person is talking out of their ass then trying to turn it into a game of who can produce the most homework.
Find a facet of the discussion that you think is wrong. Disassemble it with your own evidence.
Can you point me to a resource that shows how many ganks have occurred daily that has historical data for years? In essence that is what it would take to shut this debate down. I've done some digging but I can't find a way to even find out how many ganks actually occur in a day without having to verify that every person that died in hi sec in a given day wasn't under war dec and wasn't awoxed. And that is the point that I'm trying to make. Why do the majority of goons feel the need to make claims that can not be proven or disproven?
Obviously I can't GÇö-áno one compiles information like that. That is why your tactics are so disingenuous GÇö-áyou set up complicated scaffoldings that imply that the points require an impossible level or quality of evidence, then go on about how without this evidence, the whole thing falls down. There's more nuance to conversations than this, and you can't just demand evidence about barely related things all the time and expect anyone to take you seriously.
Like, I have no idea why you even WANT that information! I have no idea why it even remotely relates to the discussion of Bowhead EHP. Can you even backtrack this conversation to re-assert your initial point?
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
13898
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 19:21:52 -
[1526] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote:
You honestly think not being able to tank concord has had zero impact upon ganking?
You honestly think that's the point I was trying to make? I never said the changes had zero impact. What I said is that given the common occurrence of the activity that the changes haven't curbed it. So how do you explain the fact that CCP stated that barge ganking is at its lowest point in the games history? Does barge ganking encompass all ganking? Did crimewatch have anything to do with it? Did other changes in the game BESIDES given those ships better tank contribute to that? Or are you saying that giving barges more tank was the right way for CCP to handle the situation of barge ganking? And if so would that not also apply to other ships?
Actually the barge balance pass was a disaster, which is why CCP had to have another go at it. They learned a lot of lessons with that balance pass, the most important being not to listen to bears who want perfect safety in a ship right out of the box.
Simple fact here though is that CCP themselves have stated and shown that high sec has never been safer. Simply looking at the changes made to the game will show you how this is true. The insurance nerf for example forced gankers to work together and use a smaller range of ships. The introduction of faster concord esponce times ment that gankers had less time to attack someone which meant people with tanks became safer.
Its idiotic to state that ganking has not been reduced over the years. The simple fact that there are only two well known groups left is evidence enough that ganking is massivly reduced compared to several years ago.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
13898
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 19:24:32 -
[1527] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:baltec1 wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:
cloak in highs, 2 pith as and 2 lses and gist x mwd in mids, 2 1600 faction plates, 4 x type harderners and dcs in low.....it would be more with shield rigs...overheated 300k ehp
1 billion isk in droppable loot. It requires 6 tornados to gank. Potential profit of 300-400 mil. 6?????? Try 20, and that without logi on grid or cloak + mwd trick.
Nope, 6.
I used your exact fit with all skills at V vs a standard nado using my own skills. Logi dont matter, they wont help.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1018
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 19:29:05 -
[1528] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
Actually the barge balance pass was a disaster, which is why CCP had to have another go at it. They learned a lot of lessons with that balance pass, the most important being not to listen to bears who want perfect safety in a ship right out of the box.
Simple fact here though is that CCP themselves have stated and shown that high sec has never been safer. Simply looking at the changes made to the game will show you how this is true. The insurance nerf for example forced gankers to work together and use a smaller range of ships. The introduction of faster concord esponce times ment that gankers had less time to attack someone which meant people with tanks became safer.
Its idiotic to state that ganking has not been reduced over the years. The simple fact that there are only two well known groups left is evidence enough that ganking is massivly reduced compared to several years ago.
FYI, this is what we in the posting biz refer to as "evidence." This stuff comes right out of patch notes.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
278
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 19:30:53 -
[1529] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:baltec1 wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:
cloak in highs, 2 pith as and 2 lses and gist x mwd in mids, 2 1600 faction plates, 4 x type harderners and dcs in low.....it would be more with shield rigs...overheated 300k ehp
1 billion isk in droppable loot. It requires 6 tornados to gank. Potential profit of 300-400 mil. 6?????? Try 20, and that without logi on grid or cloak + mwd trick. Nope, 6. I used your exact fit with all skills at V vs a standard nado using my own skills. Logi dont matter, they wont help.
Your numbers are WAAAAAAAAAAAY off....your nado is maxing out at about 12k a volley (unless you start using real expensive implants, but that is a huge risk that gankers don't take). So 6 is giving you 72k volley (assuming 100% damage which ain't happening against decent transversal), or 144k total damage (only getting 2 volleys in a 0.5) versus a 300k+ ehp tank (and it cant go a lot higher if you get best armor rigs). Not to mention gate guns, facpo, the mach shooting back, etc.....
Try again. And anyway you are never locking to begin with because of cloak + mwd trick. Don't believe me? Go look through zkill to see how many travel machs suicide ganked - and then compare to freighters. Even with the buffed ehp, Bowhead is still going to be a vastly higher risk. |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
13898
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 19:33:03 -
[1530] - Quote
If we want some more numbers on ganking then we can look at the number of freighters getting killed. On average this year more freighters were killed via war decs than were ganked. So, there are literally more dumb people undocking their freighters into a war than are getting killed out of the blue by a gank.
Going back to last year so far shows the same result.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
| |
|
| 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 .. 69 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |