EVE Search - Sticky:A Message Regarding "Hyperdunking"

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Sticky:A Message Regarding "Hyperdunking"

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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 .. 75 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 4 post(s)
Valterra Craven 439	Posted - 2015.02.12 14:27:55 - [1201] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: On the literal previous page, you outright admitted that you're just trolling and that you have no clue what you're talking about. On the literal previous page I outright admitted to a debate tactic by which you forced me to use because of your asshattery.
Valterra Craven 439	Posted - 2015.02.12 14:28:42 - [1202] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: No, you did. He might not have used a strong enough plural, though, since you've probably snagged the record for the forums. Just because you say something doesn't make it true.
Kaarous Aldurald Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 11752	Posted - 2015.02.12 14:30:14 - [1203] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: On the literal previous page, you outright admitted that you're just trolling and that you have no clue what you're talking about. On the literal previous page I outright admitted to a debate tactic by which you forced me to use because of your asshattery. No, you're simply being obtuse because you lack any knowledge about the subject you've chosen to soapbox about. You're arguing out of a position of pure ignorance, simple as that. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Valterra Craven 439	Posted - 2015.02.12 14:31:32 - [1204] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: No, you're simply being obtuse because you lack any knowledge about the subject you've chosen to soapbox about. You're arguing out of a position of pure ignorance, simple as that. Oh right, still clinging to the tear down the debater rather than the arguments tactic...
Kaarous Aldurald Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 11752	Posted - 2015.02.12 14:33:12 - [1205] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: No, you're simply being obtuse because you lack any knowledge about the subject you've chosen to soapbox about. You're arguing out of a position of pure ignorance, simple as that. Oh right, still clinging to the tear down the debater rather than the arguments tactic... Your arguments remain countered, long hence. All you've done so far is spill out more tears about how you aren't able to pontificate from ignorance. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.
Valterra Craven 439	Posted - 2015.02.12 14:35:33 - [1206] - Quote Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Your arguments remain countered, long hence. Oh, You've gone through and cataloged everything I've said and has been said to me? You have 100% evidence of this? Oh right, you are too lazy to do any actual work and actually show what you've got. (I still haven't forgotten that you've failed to chose) Kaarous Aldurald wrote: All you've done so far is spill out more tears about how you aren't able to pontificate from ignorance. All of you done so far is spill out more tears about how you are unable to make any reasonable argument and would rather cry that people don't know what they are talking about.
Aralyn Cormallen Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation 717	Posted - 2015.02.12 14:36:58 - [1207] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: debate tactic Use of a term like this alone says all that need be said. If your hope here is that some CCP moderator with a clipboard is watching the thread ticking off points, I hate to point out that they probably stopped caring about the contents of posts (other than to watch for obvious rule-breakers) at about page 20, when everything of any worth had already been said twice, and left the rest of the thread to the three people who absolutely have to have the last word to roll the post count up pointlessly.
Valterra Craven 439	Posted - 2015.02.12 14:43:41 - [1208] - Quote Aralyn Cormallen wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: debate tactic Use of a term like this alone says all that need be said. If your hope here is that some CCP moderator with a clipboard is watching the thread ticking off points, I hate to point out that they probably stopped caring about the contents of posts (other than to watch for obvious rule-breakers) at about page 20, when everything of any worth had already been said twice, and left the rest of the thread to the three people who absolutely have to have the last word to roll the post count up pointlessly. My post count is irrelevant to me. In fact if you go back through my entire post history (not just this thread) you'll notice that the only threads I post in are threads that either dev's start or dev's post in. I'm not tippia after all. As far debate tactic, given that the opposing forces stoop far lower than that, some modicum of reasonableness must be maintained. As far as everything of any worth being said, I disagree with you there, being that I think I offered a different take on it than other posters had (at least in this thread anyway). That being said I understood your subtle jab and will take it at face value.
Hiasa Kite Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 197	Posted - 2015.02.12 15:01:21 - [1209] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Hiasa Kite wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: My point is that the freighter doesn't need to be 100% invulnerable for this mechanic to be game breaking. If the goal is to reduce the risk of getting blown up to near zero or actually zero, and the goal is achieved, then by the very nature of the parameters that the way the game is laid out that ability would be game breaking. You keep trying to force this, but that's not how it works. If freighters that can stay safe is game breaking, then what of: Cloaking devices? Warp core stabilizers? Interdiction nullificattion? Instant alignment? Local intel? D-scan? Combat probes? Jump drives? Tactical bookmarks (instant docks/undocks etc)? And indeed, player communication All of these mechanics, used properly and/or in some combination allow pilots to attain a very high degree of safety and in most cases, near-as-dammit 100% in quite literally any area of space. To argue that safe freighters are game breaking is to argue all of the above are game breaking, too. Shockingly enough, I don't think anyone's going to support the removal of ALL of those features. Because NO ONE has made a complaint about anything on that list when being used improperly being game breaking? Or do the reams of threads on afk cloaking in NULL pass you by, or the reams of threads about how people were farming Faction Warfare with WCS on? Or the fact that people have complained endlessly about ceptors being overpowered with nullification, or the reams of thread about how broken local is, or the fact that they just nerfed the ever living hell out of jump drives... right... How is "They're in the same system as me. I deserve to kill them." any different from "I deserve 100% for no effort."? Both arguments are at the opposite end of the spectrum and both arguments are ridiculous. They're both come from sets of players that simply feel entitled to success and feel that anyone that can out play them should be nerfed. I like a balanced game. That means people can squeeze by my attempts to kill them and it means others can kill me if I don't play for the utmost safety. Either way, my opponent outplays me and that is fine. In neither scenario is the game broken. People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
Valterra Craven 439	Posted - 2015.02.12 15:10:43 - [1210] - Quote Hiasa Kite wrote: How is "They're in the same system as me. I deserve to kill them." any different from "I deserve 100% for no effort."? I see what you are saying, but from my perspective the argument "They're in the same system as me. I deserve to kill them." is no different than what the gankers are saying in this thread! Hiasa Kite wrote: Both arguments are at the opposite end of the spectrum and both arguments are ridiculous. They're both come from sets of players that simply feel entitled to success and feel that anyone that can out play them should be nerfed. There should always be an opportunity to outplay someone. Hiasa Kite wrote: I like a balanced game. That means people can squeeze by my attempts to kill them and it means others can kill me if I don't play for the utmost safety. Either way, my opponent outplays me and that is fine. In neither scenario is the game broken. The problem comes in because a lot of these mechanics don't have counters. OR are you suggesting that a game with mechanics that have no counters is balanced? Because from where I sit, a mechanic that has no counter is the very definition of imbalance.
Hiasa Kite Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 198	Posted - 2015.02.12 15:21:52 - [1211] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: I see what you are saying, but from my perspective the argument "They're in the same system as me. I deserve to kill them." is no different than what the gankers are saying in this thread! How so? I've stated that I have no issues with people getting away from me. Hell, the CODE. alliance is built around the entire precept that players should take advantage of the fact they can defend themselves. I very much doubt they're against people who play well enough outplaying them at every encounter. Quote: Because from where I sit, a mechanic that has no counter is the very definition of imbalance. Implying that mechanics that do zero damage to you need a counter. People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
Concord Guy's Cousin State War Academy Caldari State 602	Posted - 2015.02.12 15:29:41 - [1212] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Hiasa Kite wrote: How is "They're in the same system as me. I deserve to kill them." any different from "I deserve 100% for no effort."? I see what you are saying, but from my perspective the argument "They're in the same system as me. I deserve to kill them." is no different than what the gankers are saying in this thread! Hiasa Kite wrote: Both arguments are at the opposite end of the spectrum and both arguments are ridiculous. They're both come from sets of players that simply feel entitled to success and feel that anyone that can out play them should be nerfed. There should always be an opportunity to outplay someone. Hiasa Kite wrote: I like a balanced game. That means people can squeeze by my attempts to kill them and it means others can kill me if I don't play for the utmost safety. Either way, my opponent outplays me and that is fine. In neither scenario is the game broken. The problem comes in because a lot of these mechanics don't have counters. OR are you suggesting that a game with mechanics that have no counters is balanced? Because from where I sit, a mechanic that has no counter is the very definition of imbalance. Which mechanics would those be? ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries" NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
Valterra Craven 439	Posted - 2015.02.12 15:36:57 - [1213] - Quote Hiasa Kite wrote: Implying that mechanics that do zero damage to you need a counter. This is Eve remember. Based on everything said in this thread from pro-gankers, every game mechanic should have a counter.
Valterra Craven 439	Posted - 2015.02.12 15:37:49 - [1214] - Quote Concord Guy's Cousin wrote: Which mechanics would those be? Well according to Kaarous, webbing a freighter has no counter, remember?
Concord Guy's Cousin State War Academy Caldari State 602	Posted - 2015.02.12 15:47:33 - [1215] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Concord Guy's Cousin wrote: Which mechanics would those be? Well according to Kaarous, webbing a freighter has no counter, remember? I seem to remember people saying that it's difficult to counter but not impossible, which is why freighters that use the mechanic don't tend to die. They don't have to be faster than the predator, they just have to be faster than the rest of the prey. ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries" NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
Valterra Craven 439	Posted - 2015.02.12 15:54:49 - [1216] - Quote Concord Guy's Cousin wrote: I seem to remember people saying that it's difficult to counter but not impossible. Well you remembered wrong. Which is funny because its not like I had to go all that far back in this thread to find the exact quotes where exactly the opposite of what you remembered was said. If you are going to mis-remember something, at least make sure that its so far back that its going to be extremely difficult for me to find. Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Also because being ganked is 100% avoidable. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=400977&p=55 post 1089 Kaarous Aldurald wrote: First of all, if they actually want to gank both of my ships at once while they're on grid together, they have about a six second window to actually do it. After that, the freighter is in the air. Secondly, it's a freaking Dramiel. I can kite a Catalyst for more than long enough for them to be destroyed by facpo. Hell I can kite ten of them for long enough. A Thrasher will have some trouble as well, since that thing has a sig radius only slightly higher than a drone, and can get some pretty insane speeds with a T2 afterburner. So please, I would like you to try and explain your ridiculous statements. And hopefully, actually elaborate this perfect gank you keep talking about. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=400977&p=57 post 1140
Concord Guy's Cousin State War Academy Caldari State 602	Posted - 2015.02.12 16:00:21 - [1217] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Well you remembered wrong. Which is funny because its not like I had to go all that far back in this thread to find the exact quotes where exactly the opposite of what you remembered was said. If you are going to mis-remember something, at least make sure that its so far back that its going to be extremely difficult for me to find. Kaarous Aldurald wrote: Also because being ganked is 100% avoidable. He's not wrong, it is 100% avoidable, as long as you take precautions and use the tools available to you. For instance: how to 100% avoid getting ganked in Uedama, don't fly through Uedama. Quote: Kaarous Aldurald wrote: First of all, if they actually want to gank both of my ships at once while they're on grid together, they have about a six second window to actually do it. After that, the freighter is in the air. Secondly, it's a freaking Dramiel. I can kite a Catalyst for more than long enough for them to be destroyed by facpo. Hell I can kite ten of them for long enough. A Thrasher will have some trouble as well, since that thing has a sig radius only slightly higher than a drone, and can get some pretty insane speeds with a T2 afterburner. So please, I would like you to try and explain your ridiculous statements. And hopefully, actually elaborate this perfect gank you keep talking about. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=400977&p=57 post 1140 Nowhere in this post does he state that it's impossible to counter a webbing ship, he implies that it's extremely difficult, they do not mean the same thing. ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries" NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
Valterra Craven 439	Posted - 2015.02.12 16:14:06 - [1218] - Quote Concord Guy's Cousin wrote: He's not wrong, it is 100% avoidable, as long as you take precautions and use the tools available to you. For instance: how to 100% avoid getting ganked in Uedama, don't fly through Uedama. Same argument applies to not playing the game. Also last I checked not all ganks are limited to Uedama. Concord Guy's Cousin wrote: Nowhere in this post does he state that it's impossible to counter a webbing ship, he implies that it's extremely difficult, they do not mean the same thing. Actually he implies it with this one line. "So please, I would like you to try and explain your ridiculous statements. And hopefully, actually elaborate this perfect gank you keep talking about." Because the problem is that this entire statement is predicated on the fact that to have any meaning at all it has to mean that there is no effective counter to his setup. And if there is no effective counter to his setup, then guess what that means! An implication of perfection! Concord Guy's Cousin wrote: your reading comprehension on the other hand, it appears to need some work. Appearances can be deceiving.
Hiasa Kite Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 198	Posted - 2015.02.12 16:20:53 - [1219] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Hiasa Kite wrote: Implying that mechanics that do zero damage to you need a counter. This is Eve remember. Based on everything said in this thread from pro-gankers, every game mechanic should have a counter. I don't recall anyone saying such a thing. Even if anyone has, I disagree with that notion. People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
Ned Thomas Hellbound Turkeys Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects 840	Posted - 2015.02.12 16:33:29 - [1220] - Quote Hiasa Kite wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: Hiasa Kite wrote: Implying that mechanics that do zero damage to you need a counter. This is Eve remember. Based on everything said in this thread from pro-gankers, every game mechanic should have a counter. I don't recall anyone saying such a thing. Even if anyone has, I disagree with that notion. Well, everything does have a counter. It's just that a good majority of the counters aren't programmed into the game. Vote Sabriz!
Valterra Craven 439	Posted - 2015.02.12 16:47:49 - [1221] - Quote Ned Thomas wrote: Well, everything does have a counter. Not according to Kaarous Aldurald.
Concord Guy's Cousin State War Academy Caldari State 602	Posted - 2015.02.12 17:15:23 - [1222] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Also last I checked not all ganks are limited to Uedama. The same advice applies to any chokepoint between market hubs, to 100% avoid exploding there, you don't go there or you pay someone else to move your stuff through there. Quote: Actually he implies it with this one line. "So please, I would like you to try and explain your ridiculous statements. And hopefully, actually elaborate this perfect gank you keep talking about." WatGäó? That implies nothing of the sort, he's asking for an explanation of something you posted earlier and an elaboration on what you call "a perfect gank". Quote: Because the problem is that this entire statement is predicated on the fact that to have any meaning at all it has to mean that there is no effective counter to his setup. And if there is no effective counter to his setup, then guess what that means! An implication of perfection! You don't half talk some bollocks. Quote: Appearances can be deceiving. Evidently not. ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries" NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
Valterra Craven 439	Posted - 2015.02.12 17:27:27 - [1223] - Quote Concord Guy's Cousin wrote: The same advice applies to any chokepoint between market hubs, to 100% avoid exploding there, you don't go there or you pay someone else to move your stuff through there. And the same could be said about not playing the game. Taking his posts out of context to be completely disingenuous is not a valid argument. Concord Guy's Cousin wrote: Wat That implies nothing of the sort, he's asking for an explanation of something you posted earlier and an elaboration on what you call "a perfect gank". Except reading comprehension means being able to understand context. His argument was that his tactics could not be countered. I said that there should be at least one scenario in which they could be. He referred to this as the perfect gank which he implied was not possible. Concord Guy's Cousin wrote: You don't half talk some bollocks. Well you make up for it for the both of us. Concord Guy's Cousin wrote: Evidently not. Apparently so.
Concord Guy's Cousin State War Academy Caldari State 602	Posted - 2015.02.12 17:33:06 - [1224] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Taking his posts out of context to be completely disingenuous is not a valid argument. Maybe you should stop doing it then. Quote: Except reading comprehension means being able to understand context. His argument was that his tactics could not be countered. I said that there should be at least one scenario in which they could be. He referred to this as the perfect gank which he implied was not possible. You provided the source, I read it. The context is in other posts which you failed to link, see my comment above. Oh and you're still wrong. ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries" NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
Ned Thomas Hellbound Turkeys Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects 840	Posted - 2015.02.12 17:33:46 - [1225] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Ned Thomas wrote: Well, everything does have a counter. Not according to Kaarous Aldurald. The counter to a webbing dramiel is not a gank catalyst or thrasher =/= there is no counter to a webbing dramiel The ability to counter a webbing dramiel =/= it is possible to gank a frieghter perfectly every time Vote Sabriz!
Valterra Craven 439	Posted - 2015.02.12 17:35:13 - [1226] - Quote Concord Guy's Cousin wrote: Maybe you should stop doing it then. Maybe you should come up with an actual true counter. Concord Guy's Cousin wrote: You provided the source, I read it. The context is in other posts which you failed to link, see my comment above. No, I provided SOME sources. The context I'm talking about still applies. Concord Guy's Cousin wrote: Oh and you're still wrong. Then prove it. I'll be here waiting.
Valterra Craven 439	Posted - 2015.02.12 17:39:14 - [1227] - Quote Ned Thomas wrote: The counter to a webbing dramiel is not a gank catalyst or thrasher =/= there is no counter to a webbing dramiel I agree. So, if as you say there is a counter to everything, then prove you can counter this tactic.
Hiasa Kite Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 198	Posted - 2015.02.12 17:43:57 - [1228] - Quote Ned Thomas wrote: Hiasa Kite wrote: Valterra Craven wrote: Hiasa Kite wrote: Implying that mechanics that do zero damage to you need a counter. This is Eve remember. Based on everything said in this thread from pro-gankers, every game mechanic should have a counter. I don't recall anyone saying such a thing. Even if anyone has, I disagree with that notion. Well, everything does have a counter. It's just that a good majority of the counters aren't programmed into the game. That depends on how you define a counter. I mean, you could get 100+ people together in order to take down an escorted freighter. It's possible but would it be effective considering the effort put in? I'd say no. That's why I disagree with your statement - it can be done but not to the point we can say the escort has been countered. People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Cagali Cagali, Steve Ronuken, Manfred Sideous, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
Ned Thomas Hellbound Turkeys Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects 842	Posted - 2015.02.12 17:54:45 - [1229] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: Ned Thomas wrote: The counter to a webbing dramiel is not a gank catalyst or thrasher =/= there is no counter to a webbing dramiel I agree. So, if as you say there is a counter to everything, then prove you can counter this tactic. Off the top of my head, something fast with a sensor boost, sensor damp or ECM, and scram. It would add to the time frame you have to take the freighter down. There would be ways for the drami pilot to mitigate that threat, and there would be ways to counter that counter to the original counter that countered the first counter. Vote Sabriz!
Kaarous Aldurald Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 11753	Posted - 2015.02.12 23:14:28 - [1230] - Quote Valterra Craven wrote: The problem comes in because a lot of these mechanics don't have counters. Except that they do. You lot just reject them because they take more effort than zero. You've demonstrated that quite clearly. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws." One of ours, ten of theirs.

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 .. 75 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

Copyright © 2006-2025, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,09s, ref 20250908/0333
EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.