Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25234
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 14:59:20 -
[91] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:Orca kill 29th in Uedama: Total value 728,841,031.56 ISK. GåÉ CODE, protection racket Charon kill 29th in Uedama: Total value 1,560,529,869.47 ISK. Charon kill 29th in Uedama: Total value 2,630,136,876.97 ISK. GåÉ 1.3bn cargo Charon kill 29th in Uedama: Total value 2,039,910,230.92 ISK. GåÉ 0.7bn cargo Fenrir kill 29th in Uedama: Total value 2,252,996,224.26 ISK. GåÉ 0.9bn cargo The one that remains could have been profitable with maximum luck, so GÇ£lulzGÇ¥ doesn't seem particularly applicable.
So yeah. Liar.
Quote:I'm not saying it's trivial, he was. GǪand you failed once again to realise that the point you're trying to push would go against the overall argument you're trying to make. If it is so trivial, then it is pointless to change even if there was a reason to do so (which there isn't, as you continue to prove).
Quote:Your reasoning is no different from people somehow stamping their foot for being podded in low sec and as always the answer is "it's part of the kill, why would you expect to not get podded". No. The answer is always GÇ£lol, you got podkilled in low, where it is almost impossible to not get away!? n00b!GÇ¥ GÇö an answer, by the way, which would not be applicable to CONCORD (but is curiously applicable to victims of hypergankingGǪ that would explain the foot-stomping on their part too, I suppose).
You still fail on the most basic level: to demonstrate even the slightest shred of a need to increase any of the costs related to ganks. Before you manage that, there is no reason for CONCOR to do anything other than what they're currently doing, and even once you do, podding is so far down the list that it's almost silly since (as you accidentally managed to argue) it wouldn't change anything.
SamuraiJack wrote:Except the hyperdunkers So you're basically just arguing that CONCORD should remove legitimate gameplay for no cogent reason. No. Think up something else.
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 skillplan 2.2.
|
SamuraiJack
Tritanium Industries and Technology Backseat Promises
105
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 15:13:05 -
[92] - Quote
I dont consider bumping a ship that has no defenses off grid into an alley and then pewing the crap out of it "gameplay"
Bumping IS an exploit and CCP have banned for it. Any cap ship with lateral movement CANNOT warp. You dont need to tackle it or scram it. The machariels they use to do this are invunerable as you will be concorded for attempting to stop it. Even with a webbing ship helping you move you are at risk as you now have a 15min timer if you log to avoid bumping. (They also use nub alts to suicide "tag" you if you log.)
Given most gankers like to use NPC haulers/bowheads/bumpers the only recourse you have is to suicide gank them in return. Its evasion of the highest order. Little Risk, No way to be Wardecced, "total lulz".
People with balls would put them in a corp and then deal with the wardecs... says alot really...
SJ's Chronicles - http://www.fanfiction.net/u/2103579/CLS-SamuraiJack
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25234
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 15:16:38 -
[93] - Quote
SamuraiJack wrote:I dont consider bumping a ship that has no defenses off grid into an alley and then pewing the crap out of it "gameplay"
Bumping IS an exploit Incorrect. Bumping is legal gameplay as CCP has very explicitly made clear over and over and over again. What you consider something as is superbly irrelevant.
Quote:CCP have banned for it. Incorrect. They have banned people for harassment and for POS bowling. It is the end result that is not allowed, not the act itself.
Quote:Any cap ship with lateral movement CANNOT warp. Incorrect. They can warp just fine, just not in the original direction of travel.
Quote:Given most gankers like to use NPC haulers/bowheads/bumpers the only recourse you have is to suicide gank them in return. Incorrect. There is plenty of other recourse and it too has been explicitly made clear over and over and over again. People just choose to not defend themselves and instead whine about how their decision has left them defenceless.
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 skillplan 2.2.
|
SamuraiJack
Tritanium Industries and Technology Backseat Promises
105
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 15:17:38 -
[94] - Quote
I also really wonder about the "pulling" of concord. Seems highly dubious. If the cops are "Chasing" criminals, maybe more should spawn. But of course then you couldnt do your hyperdunks for 15mins thus making it even longer to "gank"
SJ's Chronicles - http://www.fanfiction.net/u/2103579/CLS-SamuraiJack
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25235
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 15:18:43 -
[95] - Quote
SamuraiJack wrote:I also really wonder about the "pulling" of concord. Wonder no more: it is legal and purposefully built into the system. It is there (and has been cleared) for both sides to use.
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 skillplan 2.2.
|
SamuraiJack
Tritanium Industries and Technology Backseat Promises
105
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 15:22:09 -
[96] - Quote
Bit hard to align when you purposely BUMP a ship UP or DOWN (where there are NO gates/objects in space to align to.) And no you are incorrect. ANY lateral movement HAS to stop before a ship can warp. Its why "bumping" works to stop warping.
(Its also why torpedos are no longer AOE as that was a side effect from that too. Also Podding)
SJ's Chronicles - http://www.fanfiction.net/u/2103579/CLS-SamuraiJack
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25235
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 15:26:24 -
[97] - Quote
SamuraiJack wrote:Bit hard to align when you purposely BUMP a ship UP or DOWN Not really. All you do is change what it is you're aligned to.
Quote:ANY lateral movement HAS to stop before a ship can warp. Incorrect. All it has to do is warp off in the current direction. There is no such thing as GÇ£lateral movementGÇ¥ GÇö there is only a vector of travel (which is independent of the direction your ship is pointing) GÇö and if your'e at speed, you can just warp off along that vector.
Quote:(Its also why torpedos are no longer AOE as that was a side effect from that too. Also Podding) Conclusion: not just painfully ignorant, but a troll. Glad you cleared that one up.
Yeah, no. The only thing those have in common with warping is that you don't understand how any of them work.
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 skillplan 2.2.
|
Magnus Roden
6
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 15:26:46 -
[98] - Quote
It's not a trivial change, that's why many people in this thread try so hard to cover it in bullshit. It's a logical change given what EVE is, how pod killing is part of the total kill and the mentioned NPC changes.
Also, you're both wrong on bumping. It WILL get you in trouble if you do it "for no reason" but if you state a reason (ransom is an easy one) then it's allowed.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Sibyyl
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
25278
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 15:27:34 -
[99] - Quote
SamuraiJack wrote:Given most gankers like to use NPC haulers/bowheads/bumpers the only recourse you have is to suicide gank them in return. Its evasion of the highest order. Little Risk, No way to be Wardecced, "total lulz".
PVP is not consensual in this game, no matter what system you might be located in. Lowsec is not an arena, and hisec is not a park. Bumping, hyperdunking, suicide ganking, wardecs.. all of these are not just tactics that are "tolerated" by CCP, they are explicitly called out as not being exploits.
This clarification has been made in writing because folks like yourself simply aren't getting the message.
PVP means people will use any legal means necessary to destroy your ship. PVP is war. It's not war in some real life scenario, it's war in a video game. This means that there are no rules, and everything that is within the EULA is fair game.
All your unarmed hauler is, is a target. If you can't make the trip without getting blown up, then use services like Red Frog who happen to love gankers. The pro space truckers love gankers. The ones that get blown up don't. Have you considered that the haulers complaining about gankers aren't particularly good at their profession?
If you aren't good at something, and complaining is your solution, I think it is time to find a new EVE profession or a new game.
All our times have come
Here but now they're gone
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25235
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 15:34:47 -
[100] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:It's not a trivial change Which change are you talking about?
Quote:It's a logical change given what EVE is, how pod killing is part of the total kill and the mentioned NPC changes. What's the logic in increasing the cost of ganks? What's the logical connection between a environment-defining game mechanic and the difficulty setting of a rat?
Quote:Also, you're both wrong on bumping. Not really, no (wellGǪ unless you're including someone else in GǣbothGǥ, but I can't see who else that would be since there's only two of us talking about it).
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 skillplan 2.2.
|
|
Magnus Roden
6
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 15:50:26 -
[101] - Quote
The change of making npc/concord pod kill.
I'd not call "5 freighters and an orca in just one system on one day" rare, especially not given how most of them aren't exactly worthwhile and it, as you put it, doesn't tend to be the busiest day of the week.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
SamuraiJack
Tritanium Industries and Technology Backseat Promises
107
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 15:55:14 -
[102] - Quote
How about another lovely change...
Allowing a GCC char to board a ship from your bowhead/orca? Makes you suspect. You aided and abetted a criminal. Just like remote repping via neutral alts.
/me sits back and waits for the whining from the gankers/griefers.
SJ's Chronicles - http://www.fanfiction.net/u/2103579/CLS-SamuraiJack
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25236
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 16:01:11 -
[103] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:The change of making npc/concord pod kill. It's a trivial change to implement. There just has to be a reason to do so, which there isn't.
Quote:I'd not call "5 freighters and an orca in just one system on one day" rare It's laughably rare, especially in that system and especially given how all but one carried enough cargo to be worth-while or flew a GÇ£prohibitedGÇ¥ ship into a blockaded area. Had you seen that many every hour of every day, you might approach actually having a case. Total, over a whole day? Lolno.
Again, this is gank central we're talking about. Back when ganking was actually slightly commonplace, you'd see that many in the far more secure systems of Jita, Sobaseki, and Perimeter, never mind what happened in the less secure sections of the large trade routes.
Not only does the number itself demonstrate the near-extinction status of ganking, the number of outfits doing it demonstrates what a highly specialised, professionalised, and non-casual activity it has become. The level of effort and investment needed has simply been pushed far above what a regular player could conceivably put in, which helps explain the rarity.
SamuraiJack wrote:How about another lovely change...
To go with the fitting ban...
Allowing a GCC char to board a ship from your bowhead/orca? Makes you suspect. You aided and abetted a criminal. Just like remote repping via neutral alts. Why should any of that happen? Oh, and I see we can add CrimeWatch to the things you have no clue aboutGǪ
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 skillplan 2.2.
|
Magnus Roden
6
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 16:28:19 -
[104] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Magnus Roden wrote:The change of making npc/concord pod kill. It's a trivial change to implement. There just has to be a reason to do so, which there isn't.
There is, you just don't want it.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25236
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 16:36:25 -
[105] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:There is Do tell.
What reason is there to increase the costs of ganks, especially seeing as how you've already demonstrated their rarity and how they are pretty much universally done for profit by a very small selection of outfits? What problem does it solve?
Quote:you just don't want it. GǪbecause you haven't provided a cogent or coherent reason why I should.
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 skillplan 2.2.
|
Magnus Roden
7
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 16:54:49 -
[106] - Quote
There's ganks going on that make no sense and should not happen (hyperdunking being one) because the cost of ganking is in no way related to the ship cost of the target. A few catalysts killing a freighter is silly, a bulky freighter should be able to move more than 2 bil in cargo before it's deemed a target and It makes no sense other than "that's how it's been up till now" and "please don't change it, I'm having too much fun".
Apart from that there's the little thing that has been stated before: New NPC pod, pod is a normal part of the kill. I'd say the time is exactly right to make NPC/Concord pod kill if only to make it . HTFU and all that.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Valkin Mordirc
1076
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 17:03:25 -
[107] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:There's ganks going on that make no sense and should not happen (hyperdunking being one) because the cost of ganking is in no way related to the ship cost of the target. A few catalysts killing a freighter is silly, a bulky freighter should be able to move more than 2 bil in cargo before it's deemed a target and It makes no sense other than "that's how it's been up till now" and "please don't change it, I'm having too much fun".
Apart from that there's the little thing that has been stated before: New NPC pod, pod is a normal part of the kill. I'd say the time is exactly right to make NPC/Concord pod kill if only to make it . HTFU and all that.
Calling people biased, but only wanted this change to GCC and Concord so YOU can move things without worry is biased.
And hypocritical.
Brah.
#DeleteTheWeak
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25237
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 17:16:10 -
[108] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:There's ganks going on that make no sense and should not happen (hyperdunking being one) Can you give any examples? Why shouldn't they happen? Why shouldn't something as inoffensive as huperdunking, of all things, not happen? Why should legitimate gameplay be removed?
Quote:because the cost of ganking is in no way related to the ship cost of the target. That's called balance. It is a good thing. Why should balance be removed?
Quote:A few catalysts killing a freighter is silly, a bulky freighter should be able to move more than 2 bil in cargo before it's deemed a target and It makes no sense other than "that's how it's been up till now" and "please don't change it, I'm having too much fun". How is it silly that a dozen combat ships can kill a single bulk transporter? Why is it a problem that it is deemed a target at that cargo value?
Quote:Apart from that there's the little thing that has been stated before: New NPC pod, pod is a normal part of the kill. I'd say the time is exactly right to make NPC/Concord pod kill if only for equality. So basically, you want to turn CONCORD (which is a gameplay-defining mechanic) into a mere NPCs. I can only assume that by this you mean that CONCORD can be beaten, and fairly trivially, with the right amount of preparation; that killed CONCORD will not respawn for a couple of hours; that CONCORD will drop valuable loot; and that CONCORD will not have any easily exploitable trigger conditions such as C-flags.
If that's the case, why should that happen? Why should CONCORD be reduced to an NPC? Why should highsec be removed? Why should people like me not be allowed to travel safely anywhere in space?
If that's not the case, then we're back to the original question that you still are utterly and completely incapable of answering: why should the price of aggression go up, seeing as how you have proven that ganks are ridiculously rare and really only done for profit?
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 skillplan 2.2.
|
Magnus Roden
8
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 17:16:16 -
[109] - Quote
Valkin Mordirc wrote:Magnus Roden wrote:There's ganks going on that make no sense and should not happen (hyperdunking being one) because the cost of ganking is in no way related to the ship cost of the target. A few catalysts killing a freighter is silly, a bulky freighter should be able to move more than 2 bil in cargo before it's deemed a target and It makes no sense other than "that's how it's been up till now" and "please don't change it, I'm having too much fun".
Apart from that there's the little thing that has been stated before: New NPC pod, pod is a normal part of the kill. I'd say the time is exactly right to make NPC/Concord pod kill if only to make it . HTFU and all that. Calling people biased, but only wanted this change to GCC and Concord so YOU can move things without worry is biased. And hypocritical. Brah.
I don't mine or haul for profit or anything related so no idea where you got that from. If I use a hauler they will be tanked or cloaky and I'll use a webber alt when I DO use a freighter (which is almost never). That doesn't change the fact that in its current state ganking still is silly, yes it's been nerfed hard over time but the actual problem was never really addressed: cost to gank.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Magnus Roden
8
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 17:18:15 -
[110] - Quote
Explain to us how a massive inequality in regards to gank ship cost vs gank target ship hull cost (Catalysts vs Freighter, for instance) is somehow balanced.
Quote:So basically, you want to turn CONCORD (which is a gameplay-defining mechanic) into a mere NPCs. I can only assume that by this you mean that CONCORD can be beaten, and fairly trivially, with the right amount of preparation; that killed CONCORD will not respawn for a couple of hours; that CONCORD will drop valuable loot; and that CONCORD will not have any easily exploitable trigger conditions such as C-flags.
It's funny to see you try so hard to change the subject and lure me, and others, into semantics and nonsense. as you always do :)
Nothing what you stated there makes sense or is logical in anyway nor could anything from that be implied from what I stated.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25237
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 17:19:22 -
[111] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:That doesn't change the fact that in its current state ganking still is silly, yes it's been nerfed hard over time but the actual problem was never really addressed: cost to gank. Incorrect. The cost of ganking has been adjusted time and time again GÇö in fact, every time ganking has changed, cost has been addressed.
That is why ganking is now so ridiculously rare: the cost is too high. That is why ganking is relegated to cheap ships: because that's the only way to reduce the cost.
Magnus Roden wrote:Explain to us how a massive inequality in regards to gank ship cost vs gank target ship hull cost (Catalysts vs Freighter, for instance) is somehow balanced. Because if only an expensive ship can kill an expensive ship, then you have no balance GÇö only an ever-increasing climb towards having the most expensive thing out there.
Cost is not, never has been, and never can be, a factor in balance. As long as you refuse to accept this simple fact GÇö proven in this game and in every other competitive game out there GÇö everything you say about ganking balance will be flat out, undeniably, objectively wrong.
Not only is ISK-tanking a fundamentally flawed concept from a game-mechanics perspective, it is also completely nonsensical from a logical perspective: again, why should your single bulk hauler not be able to be destroyed by a two dozen combat ships?
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 skillplan 2.2.
|
Magnus Roden
8
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 17:29:01 -
[112] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Magnus Roden wrote:That doesn't change the fact that in its current state ganking still is silly, yes it's been nerfed hard over time but the actual problem was never really addressed: cost to gank. Incorrect. The cost of ganking has been adjusted time and time again GÇö in fact, every time ganking has changed, cost has been addressed. That is why ganking is now so ridiculously rare: the cost is too high. That is why ganking is relegated to cheap ships: because that's the only way to reduce the cost. Magnus Roden wrote:Explain to us how a massive inequality in regards to gank ship cost vs gank target ship hull cost (Catalysts vs Freighter, for instance) is somehow balanced. Because if only an expensive ship can kill an expensive ship, then you have no balance GÇö only an ever-increasing climb towards having the most expensive thing out there. Cost is not, never has been, and never can be, a factor in balance.
Don't lie, of course cost is used in balance. It's done all the time, just because CCP fails at it at times (like with so many things) that doesn't somehow mean it's not accounted for. It's done by altering the amount/type of components/minerals required and by regulating the scarcity of those items. Stating cost is not factored in balancing is a hilariously terrible, and mistaken, meme. Especially so with T1 hulls.
It's just that you use a different "form" of balance atm, because it suits you, on purpose :)
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
13223
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 17:32:29 -
[113] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:Explain to us how a massive inequality in regards to gank ship cost vs gank target ship hull cost (Catalysts vs Freighter, for instance) is somehow balanced.
Because the game is not balanced on pricetag. It is a total non factor.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25240
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 17:38:26 -
[114] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:Don't lie, of course cost is used in balance. Cost is a product of balance GÇö it is not something that you can use to balance other factors out. It is not a factor in balance.
If something is better because it is expensive, then the expense is irrelevant because everyone will just go for it because it is better. This is not the same thing as being expensive because it is better, because then you have to ask GÇ£what is it that warrants the increased expenseGÇ¥.
EVE uses the latter logic: you buy increasingly marginal improvements for exponential costs (in time, material, SP, bonuses, and everything else). A freighter is more expensive because it does its thing GÇö hauling GÇö better than the cheaper version. Being better at hauling does not make it better at combat. A battlecruiser is more expensive because it does its thing GÇö killing stuff GÇö better than the cheaper version. Being better at killing things does not make it better at moving around.
A destroyer is much much much worse hauler than a freighter and a much worse killer than a BC, so it is also much much cheaper than both. That does not preclude it from being much better in combat than a freighter. The improvements it buys comes in an area where the freighter has bought next to none.
Quote:just because CCP fails at it at times (like with so many things) that doesn't somehow mean it's not accounted for. Actually, CCP does it far better than most, with the exception of supercaps (which were balanced on a na+»ve idea about costing too much to be useful). That's why supercaps have been a balancing headache for close to a decade now.
Cost can work as a balance measure under one very specific circumstance: when there is a strict upper limit to time and resources and you have to budget your expenditures with those maximums in mind. In an infinitely renewable economy, cost cannot balance anything because as a limitation it is always trivial to overcome. That is why RTSes and MOBAs have vastly different designs than persistent MMOs.
GǪand guess what? Zerg rush.
Quote:Stating cost is not factored in balancing is Truth. Simple truth. Accept it or live in a state of delusion where your arguments will never ever work.
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 skillplan 2.2.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16011
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 17:41:32 -
[115] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:Explain to us how a massive inequality in regards to gank ship cost vs gank target ship hull cost (Catalysts vs Freighter, for instance) is somehow balanced.
I know of a megathron that is worth over 10 trillion. Using your logic it would have a tank greater than a combined titan fleet.
Tank based upon cost is a moronic mechanic.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Valkin Mordirc
1077
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 17:45:07 -
[116] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Magnus Roden wrote:Explain to us how a massive inequality in regards to gank ship cost vs gank target ship hull cost (Catalysts vs Freighter, for instance) is somehow balanced.
I know of a megathron that is worth over 10 trillion. Using your logic it would have a tank greater than a combined titan fleet. Tank based upon cost is a moronic mechanic.
QFT
Officer fit Ibis' would wreck 20man cruiser fleets. Pay To Win, FTW.
#DeleteTheWeak
|
Magnus Roden
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 17:48:08 -
[117] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Magnus Roden wrote:Explain to us how a massive inequality in regards to gank ship cost vs gank target ship hull cost (Catalysts vs Freighter, for instance) is somehow balanced.
I know of a megathron that is worth over 10 trillion. Using your logic it would have a tank greater than a combined titan fleet. Tank based upon cost is a moronic mechanic.
I like how you're avoiding the actual issue. I'm talking hull cost, you know I do, I know that you know I do :)
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Magnus Roden
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 17:51:53 -
[118] - Quote
Tippia wrote:[ Quote:Stating cost is not factored in balancing is Truth. Simple truth. Accept it or live in a state of delusion where your arguments will never ever work.
"bigger/more expensive isn't necessarily better" is not the same as "there is zero relation between cost and effectiveness". If that were the case then T2/T3 and faction ships could/should cost the same as basic T1 hulls. It's in fact the increased cost (through required materials or scarcity) that makes it more balanced, otherwise no one would ever fly T1 hulls.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Carrie-Anne Moss
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
172
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 17:52:46 -
[119] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:baltec1 wrote:Magnus Roden wrote:Explain to us how a massive inequality in regards to gank ship cost vs gank target ship hull cost (Catalysts vs Freighter, for instance) is somehow balanced.
I know of a megathron that is worth over 10 trillion. Using your logic it would have a tank greater than a combined titan fleet. Tank based upon cost is a moronic mechanic. I like how you're avoiding the actual issue. I'm talking hull cost, you know I do, I know that you know I do :) Thanks for clarification i get it now. A Raven should NEVER BE ABLE TO DIE to an incursus, an ishkur, a drake, an arbitrator, a vexor, a navy vexor, a caracal.....
I dont feel like typung every ship in the game thats hull cost is less than a raven hull yet more than capable of killing the raven..
God you are either trolling, ignorant or just stupid |
Magnus Roden
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 17:55:36 -
[120] - Quote
Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:Magnus Roden wrote:baltec1 wrote:Magnus Roden wrote:Explain to us how a massive inequality in regards to gank ship cost vs gank target ship hull cost (Catalysts vs Freighter, for instance) is somehow balanced.
I know of a megathron that is worth over 10 trillion. Using your logic it would have a tank greater than a combined titan fleet. Tank based upon cost is a moronic mechanic. I like how you're avoiding the actual issue. I'm talking hull cost, you know I do, I know that you know I do :) Thanks for clarification i get it now. A Raven should NEVER BE ABLE TO DIE to an incursus, an ishkur, a drake, an arbitrator, a vexor, a navy vexor, a caracal..... I dont feel like typung every ship in the game thats hull cost is less than a raven hull yet more than capable of killing the raven.. God you are either trolling, ignorant or just stupid
Ok, you go GCC in one of those ships you mentioned vs a Raven in high sec. See where that gets you.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |