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) |
Valterra Craven
367
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 20:42:11 -
[1561] - Quote
Querns wrote:Valterra Craven wrote: Well there's this saying about assuming things... I stated that I respect you because I've most often seen you rise above the actions of the majority of your alliance mates. My purposes were not to character assassinate you personally, but to merely build a frame of reference around how a majority of your affiliates argue. Like it or not Goons don't exactly have a sterling reputation for forum behavior and none of that is by my doing. If you are thus offended then perhaps you should rethink your affiliations. You will note that based on my corp history I didn't stay with BoB through the foolishness of the great war primarily because I thought they had poor moral ground to stand on as it were and I left. You are more than capable of making those same choices.
This still counts as character assassination. My affiliations have nothing to do with my forums posting, and I have graciously extended this consideration to others. Building a frame of reference about how the majority of my affiliates argue has nothing to do with how *I* argue and trying to use that as the fulcrum to demand an above-and-beyond level of busywork is asinine.
I'm sorry but that is a pretty flimsy argument considering that before I even mention your affiliations I said you were above them. This is doubly true when the points I was making were referring to how others were posting in this thread and that I was trying to find a way to confront THEIR foolishness. You will note that I never requested you to provide that data, because well you never made that arguement. In my response to you I said I wouldn't refrain from asking others to back up their claims when they were making arguments that can't be backed up. Since I had already stated that I did not observe that behavior from you I'm not sure how you could possibly conclude that were included in the same vein as your affliates.
Valterra Craven wrote: So you are arguing that the only effective deterrent to ganking is and always will be to add HP to ships then? And thereby saying by extension that all of the other arguments that people are making about crime watch are indeed irrelevant to ganking?
Holy Jump To Conclusions, Batman.
Uh, no. That is not remotely what I said.[/quote]
Well then what was the point you were trying to make? I fail to see how how barge HP changes relate to the state of ganking as in hole when looking at changes like crime watch etc.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13901
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 20:42:20 -
[1562] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:baltec1 wrote:
Chist alive Pith A types? This makes your fit EVEN MORE gank worthy. I'd at least assumed you would have had the sense to fit the C types...
Please, fly this thing so we can get this ALOD.
Months of flying...incursion runners travel with this stuff every day...and no ganks. Why? Because of cloak+mwd trick, huge tanks, and most gankers being -10 and unable to wait on gates, therefore needing to use bumping. Result - freighters ganked, haulers ganked, miners ganked....incursion & mission runners - not ganked. So now explain why the Bowhead should expose me to more risk than the 0% I face now???
Incursion runners do not fit ships like this, I'm starting to think you don't do incursions at all. At the very least I know you don't fit your ships yourself and most likely use battleclinic because that fit is just horrid.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1023
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 20:42:29 -
[1563] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:No its not. You've said yourself that the numbers of freighters that have died to ganks in the past two years has remained constant. These ships didn't get the HP buff that the barges did. Freighters received significantly larger increases in EHP than barges did. While each freighter lost some raw hull, each of them received a more-than-commensurate increase in shields and/or armor to compensate, as well as the ability to fit three reinforced bulkheads, increasing their hull EHP to 175% of what it is normally. This more than compensates for the slight reduction in raw hull EHP, when throwing the increase in shield/armor EHP out the window.
See https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=345280 for more information about the freighter buffs.
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
280
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 20:44:19 -
[1564] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:baltec1 wrote:
Chist alive Pith A types? This makes your fit EVEN MORE gank worthy. I'd at least assumed you would have had the sense to fit the C types...
Please, fly this thing so we can get this ALOD.
Months of flying...incursion runners travel with this stuff every day...and no ganks. Why? Because of cloak+mwd trick, huge tanks, and most gankers being -10 and unable to wait on gates, therefore needing to use bumping. Result - freighters ganked, haulers ganked, miners ganked....incursion & mission runners - not ganked. So now explain why the Bowhead should expose me to more risk than the 0% I face now??? Incursion runners do not fit ships like this, I'm starting to think you don't do incursions at all. At the very least I know you don't fit your ships yourself and most likely use battleclinic because that fit is just horrid.
That you are clueless about incursions is kinda irrelevant. Quit goons and go run them for a couple of months, and then you can talk.
But again - a travel fit mach like mine faces 0% risk of ganking....why should the bowhead raise my risk profile???? It's not being designed as a loot pinata. |
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
504
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 20:48:45 -
[1565] - Quote
Well just today I did a minor deployment to be there for a little action, so moved some ships for this, having one of these with my logistics toon and my self in a webbing ships would be the approach. There was 1 BS and multiple fitted cruisers, of course people outside Incursion runners will run them.
But here is the issue, 3 x T2 fitted T1 BS, we are talking about 205 to 270m ISK say per BS, but lets step back and add some cruisers, a Loki with factin webs, 750m , or a Vagabond, 190m, and of course we can get a lot more in and their hull costs are similar to a T1 BS, yet you can fit in a lot more of them.
If CCP is using a benchmark of 3 x T2 fitted T1 BS then they are under-estimating the required tank, simple as.
Baltec and others have said that ganking has gone down, and in truth they are technically right because they compare to the massive campaigns of ganking that went on in the past, but the real comparison is ISK value and with the ganking of freighters rather than paper thin mining ships the actual cost is way up even if the actual number of ganks is down. Of course I cannot prove what I said as I am not CCP and neither is Baltec, however it does not take that many full freighters or JF's does it to beat ISK values of Hulks....
Ella's Snack bar
|
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
5507
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 20:48:48 -
[1566] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:
Now please explain why a bowhead should expose incursion runners to more than the 0% risk they face now????
Properly used, with this level of EHP, it won't expose you to more risk if you need the convenience of moving many ships in fewer trips. Stuffing it full of Pith-A and Core-X mods would be exposing yourself to the risk - not the ship's fault.
If you just need to move your one pricey BS, then there's no need for you to use it. Others will find it handy.
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1023
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 20:50:15 -
[1567] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote: I'm sorry but that is a pretty flimsy argument considering that before I even mention your affiliations I said you were above them. This is doubly true when the points I was making were referring to how others were posting in this thread and that I was trying to find a way to confront THEIR foolishness. You will note that I never requested you to provide that data, because well you never made that arguement. In my response to you I said I wouldn't refrain from asking others to back up their claims when they were making arguments that can't be backed up. Since I had already stated that I did not observe that behavior from you I'm not sure how you could possibly conclude that you were included in the same vein as your affliates.
The principle still applies GÇö your preconceived notions due to the poster's alliance colored your responses. If you were willing to overlook it for me, personally, great GÇö-áthat doesn't excuse you for turning heel and continuing to do it to others.
I inherently discard all information about a poster's alliance and corporation when posting because using that information to assassinate a person's character is poor form. It makes things too easy. I prefer to operate from a position where that cannot be used against me, and I often succeed.
Valterra Craven wrote: Well then what was the point you were trying to make? I fail to see how how barge HP changes relate to the state of ganking as a whole when looking at changes like crime watch etc.
The point is that the barge EHP increase had a measurable effect in reducing the incidence of suicide ganking.
Hell, we can measure it right now GÇö-áI, personally, stopped suicide ganking due to that change. Too much effort for too little reward.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Valterra Craven
367
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 20:50:24 -
[1568] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
The barge lineup was messed up badly. It wasnt the ganking that was the disater, it was the fact that the barge lineup because very unbalanced and favoured the use of just two ships out of six.
K, so why make the statement when it has nothing to do with the argument of ganking vs hp?
baltec1 wrote: Maby you should look things up before you make baseless claims.
What exactly is baseless about the claim I made?
baltec1 wrote: Its a poor fit.
Compared to what? The fit that most people have on when they get ganked, or the maxed possible tank fit available?
baltec1 wrote: Actually freighters were effectivly nerfed with their change this year due to people being able to anti-tank them.
Well at least you guys are consistently inconsistent.... |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13901
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 20:52:58 -
[1569] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Well just today I did a minor deployment to be there for a little action, so moved some ships for this, having one of these with my logistics toon and my self in a webbing ships would be the approach. There was 1 BS and multiple fitted cruisers, of course people outside Incursion runners will run them.
But here is the issue, 3 x T2 fitted T1 BS, we are talking about 205 to 270m ISK say per BS, but lets step back and add some cruisers, a Loki with factin webs, 750m , or a Vagabond, 190m, and of course we can get a lot more in and their hull costs are similar to a T1 BS, yet you can fit in a lot more of them.
If CCP is using a benchmark of 3 x T2 fitted T1 BS then they are under-estimating the required tank, simple as.
Baltec and others have said that ganking has gone down, and in truth they are technically right because they compare to the massive campaigns of ganking that went on in the past, but the real comparison is ISK value and with the ganking of freighters rather than paper thin mining ships the actual cost is way up even if the actual number of ganks is down. Of course I cannot prove what I said as I am not CCP and neither is Baltec, however it does not take that many full freighters or JF's does it to beat ISK values of Hulks....
Actually we made more with the mining interdictions because the hulks were not where the profit was being made.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
280
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 20:54:27 -
[1570] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:
That you are clueless about incursions is kinda irrelevant. Quit goons and go run them for a couple of months, and then you can talk.
But again - a travel fit mach like mine faces 0% risk of ganking....why should the bowhead raise my risk profile???? It's not being designed as a loot pinata.
You call me clueless after showing us a travel fit mach that is slower than normal, sports more isk than most incursion boats and uses things like faction plates that are WORSE than t2... Christ we could throw 40 tornados at this thing and still walk away with a profit.
Skills forced a very minor compromise....will be fixed soon.
Again..speed doesn't matter...I just use cloak + mwd.....and gankers in high don't have 40 nados hanging around....they face limited numbers....hence the use of bumping and multiple waves.
So again - using cloak + mwd incursion runners can travel in absolute safety with all the shiny onboard.
Why should the Bowhead increase their risk profile? |
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1023
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 20:54:48 -
[1571] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:baltec1 wrote: Actually freighters were effectivly nerfed with their change this year due to people being able to anti-tank them.
Well at least you guys are consistently inconsistent.... It isn't CCP's job to enforce player fits. If players want to increase their risk by fitting modules that reduce their tank to increase their efficacy at another role, that's fine, but you make a conscious decision when doing so to increase your exposure to a suicide gank event.
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
13901
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 20:55:58 -
[1572] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:
K, so why make the statement when it has nothing to do with the argument of ganking vs hp?
Context.
Valterra Craven wrote: What exactly is baseless about the claim I made?
That ganking is unchanged over the years.
Valterra Craven wrote: Compared to what? The fit that most people have on when they get ganked, or the maxed possible tank fit available?
Compared to a good fit.
Valterra Craven wrote: Well at least you guys are consistently inconsistent....
He isnt wrong, you can get more tank. I am also not wrong, you can reduce the tank to well below what they used to have.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1023
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 20:56:08 -
[1573] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Again..speed doesn't matter...I just use cloak + mwd.....and gankers in high don't have 40 nados hanging around....they face limited numbers....hence the use of bumping and multiple waves.
So again - using cloak + mwd incursion runners can travel in absolute safety with all the shiny onboard.
Why should the Bowhead increase their risk profile? So, the gankers don't have enough hulls and pilots to gank a battleship with less EHP, but they do with bowheads?
I'm confused.
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
13901
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 20:58:14 -
[1574] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:baltec1 wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:
That you are clueless about incursions is kinda irrelevant. Quit goons and go run them for a couple of months, and then you can talk.
But again - a travel fit mach like mine faces 0% risk of ganking....why should the bowhead raise my risk profile???? It's not being designed as a loot pinata.
You call me clueless after showing us a travel fit mach that is slower than normal, sports more isk than most incursion boats and uses things like faction plates that are WORSE than t2... Christ we could throw 40 tornados at this thing and still walk away with a profit. Skills forced a very minor compromise....will be fixed soon. Again..speed doesn't matter...I just use cloak + mwd.....and gankers in high don't have 40 nados hanging around....they face limited numbers....hence the use of bumping and multiple waves. So again - using cloak + mwd incursion runners can travel in absolute safety with all the shiny onboard. Why should the Bowhead increase their risk profile?
Speed is everything with the MWD trick. You want to get into warp faster not slower.
Also the tactics used on freighters are not the same as used on subcaps.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13901
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 20:59:06 -
[1575] - Quote
Querns wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Again..speed doesn't matter...I just use cloak + mwd.....and gankers in high don't have 40 nados hanging around....they face limited numbers....hence the use of bumping and multiple waves.
So again - using cloak + mwd incursion runners can travel in absolute safety with all the shiny onboard.
Why should the Bowhead increase their risk profile? So, the gankers don't have enough hulls and pilots to gank a battleship with less EHP, but they do with bowheads? I'm confused.
Im still trying to get my head around how he can manage to fail in every goal he had with this ship.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Invisusira
The Rising Stars Tactical Narcotics Team
273
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 21:01:51 -
[1576] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:travel in absolute safety with all the shiny onboard good lord man, are you trying to paint a target on your face?
EVE Music
|
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
280
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 21:04:05 -
[1577] - Quote
Querns wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:Again..speed doesn't matter...I just use cloak + mwd.....and gankers in high don't have 40 nados hanging around....they face limited numbers....hence the use of bumping and multiple waves.
So again - using cloak + mwd incursion runners can travel in absolute safety with all the shiny onboard.
Why should the Bowhead increase their risk profile? So, the gankers don't have enough hulls and pilots to gank a battleship with less EHP, but they do with bowheads? I'm confused.
Stop playing dumb. What they do with freighters is bump them to prevent align to....then warp in the -10s and gank so they get the full 20 seconds. Then, if not dead...they keep bumping, and hit again 15 minutes later.
With a battleship, bumping doesn't work, so they need to point right away, drawing CONCORD...and by time gankers land and lock only 10 seconds left - almost impossible to pull off.
Hence the campaign against freighters...or against autopiloting battleships where scram not needed, and mods off too.
Check the killboards - freighters are dying - travel fit battleships are not. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1023
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 21:04:11 -
[1578] - Quote
Besides, Cloak + MWD trick is hardly perfect safety. I've successfully caught several covert nullified T3s in nullsec, which move faster and have half to a third of the align time that a Cloak + MWD trick BS has (minimum 10 seconds.)
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
280
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 21:04:51 -
[1579] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:baltec1 wrote:Veers Belvar wrote:
That you are clueless about incursions is kinda irrelevant. Quit goons and go run them for a couple of months, and then you can talk.
But again - a travel fit mach like mine faces 0% risk of ganking....why should the bowhead raise my risk profile???? It's not being designed as a loot pinata.
You call me clueless after showing us a travel fit mach that is slower than normal, sports more isk than most incursion boats and uses things like faction plates that are WORSE than t2... Christ we could throw 40 tornados at this thing and still walk away with a profit. Skills forced a very minor compromise....will be fixed soon. Again..speed doesn't matter...I just use cloak + mwd.....and gankers in high don't have 40 nados hanging around....they face limited numbers....hence the use of bumping and multiple waves. So again - using cloak + mwd incursion runners can travel in absolute safety with all the shiny onboard. Why should the Bowhead increase their risk profile? Speed is everything with the MWD trick. You want to get into warp faster not slower. Also the tactics used on freighters are not the same as used on subcaps.
Please show me the battleships miniluv has been killing. |
Valterra Craven
367
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 21:10:58 -
[1580] - Quote
Querns wrote: The principle still applies GÇö your preconceived notions due to the poster's alliance colored your responses. If you were willing to overlook it for me, personally, great GÇö-áthat doesn't excuse you for turning heel and continuing to do it to others.
But did they? My response to you was not colored by your affiliations, therefore I must be capable of seeing past them. To be frank I watch what people say and make judgement based on that. I measure people by their postings and then if they act like a majority of their friends, put them under that banner. If I didn't do that I wouldn't be able to see exceptions like you or myrra (I really need to figure out how to spell his name)
Querns wrote: I inherently discard all information about a poster's alliance and corporation when posting because using that information to assassinate a person's character is poor form. It makes things too easy. I prefer to operate from a position where that cannot be used against me, and I often succeed.
*Shrug* You are a better person and a more effective debater. I have no qualms admitting that. I don't have the skills that you do, therefore asking people to back up their arguments is not inherently a bad strategy.
Valterra Craven wrote: The point is that the barge EHP increase had a measurable effect in reducing the incidence of suicide ganking.
Hell, we can measure it right now GÇö-áI, personally, stopped suicide ganking due to that change. Too much effort for too little reward.
Ok, I can easily agree that adding EHP to a ship has a measurable effect in reducing the incidence of suicide ganking. I think that is almost universally agreed upon, otherwise people wouldn't be asking for the bowhead to have more HP.
What I fail to see is how that is related to things like crime watch and kill rights changes etc. |
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1023
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 21:14:15 -
[1581] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote: But again...per you....there should be a real gank risk - so show me your kills.
If you don't have any (surprise) then you are implicitly agreeing that Bowheads are increasing the gank risk and therefore need more tank and a quicker align time.
Found one: https://zkillboard.com/kill/42294111/
Also, your implication is facile.
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
13901
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 21:15:20 -
[1582] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:
If you don't have any (surprise) then you are implicitly agreeing that Bowheads are increasing the gank risk and therefore need more tank and a quicker align time.
So explain to us how a ship with 450-700k ehp with 1.8 bil in scannable pirate battleships in the hold is at more risk than you in your "300k ehp" mach with over 3 bil in mods not including the other fittings in your hold?
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13901
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 21:16:52 -
[1583] - Quote
Querns wrote:Veers Belvar wrote: But again...per you....there should be a real gank risk - so show me your kills.
If you don't have any (surprise) then you are implicitly agreeing that Bowheads are increasing the gank risk and therefore need more tank and a quicker align time.
Found one: https://zkillboard.com/kill/42294111/ Also, your implication is facile.
Oh well done, its even travel fitted.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Valterra Craven
367
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 21:17:34 -
[1584] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: That ganking is unchanged over the years.
I never said that ganking has gone unchanged over the years. What I did say is that I believed that changes to crime watch and kill rights havent had a meaningful impact in the incidence rate of ganking.
baltec1 wrote: Compared to a good fit.
Well would you care to show me what you would call a good fit since I took the time and effort to look up my loss mail?
baltec1 wrote: He isnt wrong, you can get more tank. I am also not wrong, you can reduce the tank to well below what they used to have.
I was just pointing out that you one of you said the changes were a nerf and of you said they were buff.
I was part of that discussion too sadly. But I don't remember the numbers being as lopsided as an 175% improvement. |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
280
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 21:17:50 -
[1585] - Quote
Querns wrote:Veers Belvar wrote: But again...per you....there should be a real gank risk - so show me your kills.
If you don't have any (surprise) then you are implicitly agreeing that Bowheads are increasing the gank risk and therefore need more tank and a quicker align time.
Found one: https://zkillboard.com/kill/42294111/ Also, your implication is facile.
Not a travel fit....proving my point for me.....with full tank mods those 26 ships would have been nowhere near enough dps.
While travelling a brick tanked cloak + mwd battleships has very near to a 0% chance of being ganked.
A bowhead, which can be trapped through bumping, has a much higher gank chance.
I mean, this is trivial stuff.....at some point you just need to admit that you are wrong. |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
280
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 21:18:38 -
[1586] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
So explain to us how a ship with 450-700k ehp with 1.8 bil in scannable pirate battleships in the hold is at more risk than you in your "300k ehp" mach with over 3 bil in mods not including the other fittings in your hold?
Because it can be trapped through bumping, can't cloak + mwd, and has a huge sig radius. |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13901
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 21:20:24 -
[1587] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Querns wrote:Veers Belvar wrote: But again...per you....there should be a real gank risk - so show me your kills.
If you don't have any (surprise) then you are implicitly agreeing that Bowheads are increasing the gank risk and therefore need more tank and a quicker align time.
Found one: https://zkillboard.com/kill/42294111/ Also, your implication is facile. Not a travel fit....proving my point for me.....with full tank mods those 26 ships would have been nowhere near enough dps. While travelling a brick tanked cloak + mwd battleships has very near to a 0% chance of being ganked. A bowhead, which can be trapped through bumping, has a much higher gank chance. I mean, this is trivial stuff.....at some point you just need to admit that you are wrong.
It has three inertia stabs on it, thats to get it into warp faster. Thats what a travel fit requires. Brick tanking is not a travel fit, its brick tanking.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1025
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 21:22:07 -
[1588] - Quote
Also, how do the bumpers keep the ship locked down without giving the target a weapons timer, which attracts CONCORD (which, by your own admission, makes the gank significantly more difficult?) Why doesn't the bowhead or freighter simply safe log the moment they start to get bumped?
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
13901
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 21:22:20 -
[1589] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:
Because it can be trapped through bumping, can't cloak + mwd, and has a huge sig radius.
Your battleship has a huge sig radius thanks to your fit, a dreadnought wouldn't have issues hitting you. Your battleship is easier to kill and will provide a provit. The bowhead is harder to kill and provides a loss to the ganker.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
13901
|
Posted - 2014.11.14 21:23:17 -
[1590] - Quote
Querns wrote:Also, how do the bumpers keep the ship locked down without giving the target a weapons timer, which attracts CONCORD (which, by your own admission, makes the gank significantly more difficult?) Why doesn't the bowhead or freighter simply safe log the moment they start to get bumped?
Or just have a guy in a web ship.
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 |