Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25242
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 18:02:37 -
[121] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote: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 :) Doesn't matter. Either cost is a factor or it isn't. Ok, so you have a 1bn ISK hull and he has a 1M ISK one. He has a 2bn ISK weapon and you have a 0 ISK tank. So he should win, right? After all, he payed infinitely more for his weapon than you did for your tankGǪ
Quote:"bigger/more expensive isn't necessarily better" is not the same as "there is zero relation between cost and effectiveness". It means that you can't use cost as an argument for saying that ship A shouldn't be able to kill ship B, which is what you're trying to do.
You have to look at what improvements you're buying with your money. If none of them are in the area of combat survivability, then arguing that you should survive better in combat is pretty nonsensical.
In the mean-time, the fact, no matter how expensive your ship, a vastly cheaper one can kill it means that there is proper balance and that you haven't arrived in a degenerate apex-ship/P2W design state.
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.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
13224
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 18:03:12 -
[122] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote: I like how you're avoiding the actual issue.
There is no issue.
"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.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
16015
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 18:06:51 -
[123] - 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 :)
That is the hull cost.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Magnus Roden
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 18:16:11 -
[124] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Magnus Roden wrote: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 :) Doesn't matter. Either cost is a factor or it isn't. Ok, so you have a 1bn ISK hull and he has a 1M ISK one. He has a 2bn ISK weapon and you have a 0 ISK tank. So he should win, right? After all, he payed infinitely more for his weapon than you did for your tankGǪ Quote:"bigger/more expensive isn't necessarily better" is not the same as "there is zero relation between cost and effectiveness". It means that you can't use cost as an argument for saying that ship A shouldn't be able to kill ship B, which is what you're trying to do. You have to look at what improvements you're buying with your money. If none of them are in the area of combat survivability, then arguing that you should survive better in combat is pretty nonsensical. In the mean-time, the fact that, no matter how expensive your ship, a vastly cheaper one can kill it means that there is proper balance and that you haven't arrived in a degenerate apex-ship/P2W design state. You have yet to demonstrate that this in any way presents a problem that needs to be fixed.
Trying to lure into semantics, away from the subject again, are we :)
We are talking about high sec ganks and how the cost of a Catalyst (and other high dps cheap hulls) is in no way balanced compared to what it can do, especially so when in groups dealing with high EHP high hull cost targets. It's too good, it's out of whack. Which is demonstrated by how a gaggle of Catalysts lulz kills (nearly) empty freighters.
One could argue that rebalancing the ships involved would solve the issue but that would create other issues. It's far easier to change it so that ganking has more repercussions (ACTUAL repercussions, not the "we're CCP and we don't really know what we're doing" ones) to a point where lulz ganks become a moot point. Where a tanked Hulk is somewhat safe because unless you REALLY want it dead it's just not worth it, where a freighter can have 4-5 bil onboard and not be an automatic kill.
Increase cost of ganking and increase repercussions of ganking through pod killing, introduce automatic pod killing of, say, -8 upon entering high sec and lowering concord response times. If you want to fight people then either find some folks in null/low who actually fit guns, don't be scared now, or start a wardec (and yes, I realise that wardecs being broken is one of the reasons why ganking was on the up).
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
13225
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 18:18:49 -
[125] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote: We are talking about high sec ganks and how the cost of a Catalyst (and other high dps cheap hulls) is in no way balanced compared to what it can do, especially so when in groups dealing with high EHP high hull cost targets.
No, "we" are not talking about that. You're making that claim, and it's a lie.
Quote: If you want to fight people then either find some folks in null/low who actually fit guns ,don't be scared now, or start a wardec (and yes, I realise that wardecs being broken is one of the reasons why ganking was on the up).
No. EVE Online is a PvP game, and PvP belongs everywhere, that includes highsec.
If you don't like it, feel free to quit.
"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
25247
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 18:19:10 -
[126] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Magnus Roden wrote:baltec1 wrote: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 :) That is the hull cost. Not to mention that, if hull cost was all that mattered, then suddenly all that talk about how ganks below a certain cargo value shouldn't happen proves to be nothing but pointless noise. It would mean an empty hauler is as reasonable a target as one filled with EVE's total yearly supply of PLEX GÇö if one happens, the other must also happen because the balance certainly hasn't changed.
Magnus Roden wrote:Ok, you go GCC in one of those ships you mentioned vs a Raven in high sec. See where that gets you. The Raven dies, and much faster than a freighter wouldGǪ
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
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 18:20:49 -
[127] - Quote
You of course know that he/she/it meant a single ship, and I replied in similar manner :)
But nice try.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Mashie Saldana
Gallente Rebels Inc. Villore Accords
1614
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 18:21:08 -
[128] - Quote
SamuraiJack wrote:I've got much better idea.
If you GCC. Concord Pods you. End of hyperdunking.
You are a criminal in highsec. They shouldnt just pop you. They should kill you. You broke the law. Have some ****ing concequences. Hows that for realism.
This man is right.
How to win EVE
|
Magnus Roden
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 18:21:34 -
[129] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Magnus Roden wrote: We are talking about high sec ganks and how the cost of a Catalyst (and other high dps cheap hulls) is in no way balanced compared to what it can do, especially so when in groups dealing with high EHP high hull cost targets.
No, "we" are not talking about that. You're making that claim, and it's a lie. Quote: If you want to fight people then either find some folks in null/low who actually fit guns ,don't be scared now, or start a wardec (and yes, I realise that wardecs being broken is one of the reasons why ganking was on the up).
No. EVE Online is a PvP game, and PvP belongs everywhere, that includes highsec. If you don't like it, feel free to quit.
Yes, so start wardecs. I do it all the time.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25247
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 18:21:51 -
[130] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:Trying to lure into semantics, away from the subject again, are we :) No. Not we. You are. The rest of us are ripping your pathetic excuse for a non-argument into its tiny illogical shreds.
Quote:We are talking about high sec ganks and how the cost of a Catalyst (and other high dps cheap hulls) is in no way balanced compared to what it can do, especially so when in groups dealing with high EHP high hull cost targets. No. that's just something you've made up because you have no idea how balancing works. You have yet to prove that there is a problem related to this, and the rest of us keep trying to make you come up with any such proof aboutGǪ wellGǪ any of the nonsensical claims you've made so far.
Quote:It's far easier to change it so that ganking has more repercussions (ACTUAL repercussions, not the "we're CCP and we don't really know what we're doing" ones) Yes. It's so easy that it has already happened. You have yet to demonstrate any need why it needs to happen again.
Quote:Increase cost of ganking and increase repercussions of ganking through pod killing, introduce automatic pod killing of, say, -8 upon entering high sec and lowering concord response times. Why should any of that happen?
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.
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25247
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 18:23:13 -
[131] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:You of course know that he/she/it meant a single ship And you understand that you poisoned the well by introducing the irrelevant GCC limitation to the mix GÇö one that is countered by adding more pilots and therefore irrelevant to the balance discusssion.
Nice try. Do you have an actual argument yet?
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.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
13225
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 18:24:19 -
[132] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote: Yes, so start wardecs. I do it all the time.
I do. But ganking is an equally viable and reasonable method of engaging enemy targets. Which is as intended.
"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.
|
Magnus Roden
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 18:24:41 -
[133] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Magnus Roden wrote:You of course know that he/she/it meant a single ship And you understand that you poisoned the well by introducing the irrelevant GCC limitation to the mix GÇö one that is countered by adding more pilots and therefore irrelevant to the balance discusssion. Nice try. Do you have an actual argument yet?
You mean like the GCC that happens with ganking?
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Magnus Roden
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 18:25:28 -
[134] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Magnus Roden wrote: Yes, so start wardecs. I do it all the time.
I do. But ganking is an equally viable and reasonable method of engaging enemy targets. Which is as intended.
Show me where CCP states it to be as intended.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25248
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 18:26:38 -
[135] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:You mean like the GCC that happens with ganking? I mean the GCCs that are of no consequence or relevance to ganking.
Do you have an actual argument yet?
Quote:Show me where CCP states it to be as intended. CONCORD exists. That is all the proof you need.
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.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
13225
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 18:28:21 -
[136] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Magnus Roden wrote: Yes, so start wardecs. I do it all the time.
I do. But ganking is an equally viable and reasonable method of engaging enemy targets. Which is as intended. Show me where CCP states it to be as intended.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4964171#post4964192
"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.
|
Magnus Roden
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 18:30:12 -
[137] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Magnus Roden wrote:You mean like the GCC that happens with ganking? I mean the GCCs that are of no consequence or relevance to ganking. Do you have an actual argument yet? Quote:Show me where CCP states it to be as intended. CONCORD exists. That is all the proof you need.
Aha, so according to that logic everything as it is in EVE is exactly as CCP intends it to be. No problems, imbalances, issues, exploits exist. JUST because Concord exists and slaps you on the wrist (Catalyst losses are really expensive and the 15 minute bathroom break isn't handy at all) doesn't mean it's enough or in any way logical.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Magnus Roden
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 18:31:32 -
[138] - Quote
Now should me where he states that CCP is 100% happy with the current balancing of ganking, concord and everything related.
You just want to keep the current situation, because it suits you.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25248
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 18:35:22 -
[139] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:Aha, so according to that logic Non sequitur. You didn't get the logic.
Try this on:
Which of the two is more simple to implement and maintain?
a) valid_target ? keep_firing() : dont_fire();
or
b) All of CONCORD, all of CrimeWatch, faction navies, sec standings etc etc etc.
CONCORD is all the proof you need that ganking is intended to exist.
Quote:Now should me where he states that CCP is 100% happy with the current balancing of ganking, concord and everything related. You lost. Moving the goalposts will not change this.
You still have no argument and still have failed at every conceivable point in every conceivable way to demonstrate any need whatsoever for things to change the way you want them to.
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.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
13227
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 18:37:35 -
[140] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote: Now should me where he states that CCP is 100% happy with the current balancing of ganking, concord and everything related.
Keep pressing the dev button below his portrait.
Quote: You just want to keep the current situation, because it suits you.
And you selfishly want to change it to suit you.
"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.
|
|
Magnus Roden
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 18:42:19 -
[141] - Quote
My arguments have been there all the time:
- Concord should pod on GCC because it simply makes sense given the changes in regards to NPCs and SP loss, and because of HTFU
- apparently it's still to easy to gank high EHP ships in high sec as people still gank empty freighters. Risk/reward for freighters is completely whack, it should be possible for one to have a decent amount of value onboard (while tanked) and be decently safe, atm it isn't
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
13227
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 18:45:32 -
[142] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote: - Concord should pod on GCC because it simply makes sense given the changes in regards to NPCs and SP loss, and because of HTFU
No. If you want that to happen, inflict those consequences yourself.
And using HTFU to argue for more safety is just obscene, by the way. Apply it to yourself before you try to cry about other people, most especially the only profession in highsec that actually has mechanical consequences.
Quote: - apparently it's still to easy to gank high EHP ships in high sec as people still gank empty freighters.
As before, working as intended. In fact, I would argue that they have made it entirely too hard, since very few people do it these days.
Quote: Risk/reward for freighters is completely whack, it should be possible for one to have a decent amount of value onboard (while tanked) and be decently safe, atm it isn't
That should not be possible, in any way.
"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
25250
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 18:47:25 -
[143] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:- Concord should pod on GCC because it simply makes sense given the changes in regards to NPCs and SP loss, and because of HTFU That is not an argument. That is a statement with no grounding in logic, gameplay, balance, or indeed anything other than your fevered dreams.
Quote:apparently it's still to easy to gank high EHP ships in high sec as people still gank empty freighters. Why is this a problem?
Quote:it should be possible for one to have a decent amount of value onboard (while tanked) and be decently safe It is, as you have amply demonstrated by showing the insane rarity of ganks and how they are pretty much univesally done for profit. As Kaarous points out, this is actually a problem rather than a state to be desired since being ganked for your cargo is a risk that should always be present but, as you have proven, is almost completely absent at the moment.
Neither of those two are arguments, but rather a deeply confused expression of a wish to see things be the way they are now.
You have yet to present a cogent and coherent argument why ganking needs to cost more.
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
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 18:52:10 -
[144] - Quote
Quote:No. If you want that to happen, inflict those consequences yourself.
Why? Should Concord be removed and have players inflict consequences on gankers? Concord is doing the killing part already, why stop at just the ship? Pod kill is just part of the kill dontyouknow.
Quote:As before, working as intended How many thing in EVE are actually working as intended? Scaps? Drones? High sec income? Low sec?
Quote:That should not be possible, in any way. You should never be safe in a billion isk ship, no matter where you are. Quite correct, but then I never disputed this. The repercussions should be severe enough so that it's only viable vs economically worthwhile targets (with a different balance as it is right now) or when it's a gank for personal reasons. Random ganks for the lulz vs high EHP targets and being able to get away with it (cost/repercussion wise) makes no sense.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
25250
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 18:55:35 -
[145] - Quote
Because there is no reason for CONCORD to do your job for you.
Quote:Should Concord be removed and have players inflict consequences on gankers? That is indeed what you're arguing. It's probably part of why your idea is not getting much traction. It does not follow from anything anyone else has said, though.
Quote:How many thing in EVE are actually working as intended? Irrelevant. This one thing is working as intended, and the state of other things does not change this.
Quote:Quite correct, but then I never disputed this. Yes you did. That is what your whole GÇ£balance by hull EHPGÇ¥ amounts to.
Quote:Random ganks for the lulz vs high EHP targets and being able to get away with it (cost/repercussion wise) makes no sense.
Yes they do. You even explain why they do. Just because you don't like the sene they make does not mean they do not make sense. It just means you need to either learn to play the game or leave, since you don't like the game.
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
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 18:56:11 -
[146] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Magnus Roden wrote:- Concord should pod on GCC because it simply makes sense given the changes in regards to NPCs and SP loss, and because of HTFU That is not an argument. That is a statement with no grounding in logic, gameplay, balance, or indeed anything other than your fevered dreams. Quote:apparently it's still to easy to gank high EHP ships in high sec as people still gank empty freighters. Why is this a problem? Quote:it should be possible for one to have a decent amount of value onboard (while tanked) and be decently safe It is, as you have amply demonstrated by showing the insane rarity of ganks and how they are pretty much univesally done for profit. As Kaarous points out, this is actually a problem rather than a state to be desired since being ganked for your cargo is a risk that should always be present but, as you have proven, is almost completely absent at the moment. Neither of those two are arguments, but rather a deeply confused expression of a wish to see things be the way they are now. You have yet to present a cogent and coherent argument why ganking needs to cost more.
There you go again, trying to push the conversation away form the actual subject.
I have, you just don't like what I have to say.
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
13230
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 18:57:43 -
[147] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote: Why? Should Concord be removed and have players inflict consequences on gankers?
Honestly, yes. They are an outdated, binary, heavy handed mechanic that began to show it's age years ago.
Quote: How many thing in EVE are actually working as intended?
Not many where a developer has come onto the forums and outright said so. Like ganking.
Quote:The repercussions should be severe enough so that it's only viable vs economically worthwhile targets
No. Putting an "if" in front of actions is just a dishonest way of saying you want player freedom handcuffed.
And that is unacceptable, too much of that has been done already in highsec, for the sake of people who can't be asked to play the game correctly.
"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
25252
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 18:59:03 -
[148] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote:There you go again, trying to push the conversation away form the actual subject. No. I'm trying to push you towards actually presenting an argument for the change you want to se.
As it happens, your nonsensical and baseless quest to remove ganking (which is what it is, your ineffectual and blatantly false assurances to the contrary aside) is off-topic. So if that's the line of reasoning you want to pursue, you should probably stop posting entirely.
Quote:I have, you just don't like what I have to say. No. You just keep repeating a wish to see the change, not a reason why it should happen. In fact, the only arguments you've provided have been evidence against the false preconceptions your wish is based on.
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
9
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 19:03:16 -
[149] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Because there is no reason for CONCORD to do your job for you. Quote:Should Concord be removed and have players inflict consequences on gankers? That is indeed what you're arguing. It's probably part of why your idea is not getting much traction. It does not follow from anything anyone else has said, though.
That's weird, given my idea for increasing concord's capabilities I'd say that I'd argue the other way. You on the other hand are trying to use it as you stated :)
Quote:How many thing in EVE are actually working as intended? Irrelevant. This one thing is working as intended, and the state of other things does not change this[/quote] Ah yes, of course. Prove it.
Quote:Yes you did. That is what your whole GÇ£balance by hull EHPGÇ¥ amounts to. No, it doesn't. There's a distinct difference between "make it impossible" and "less easy than it is atm".
Ganking cost and repercussions are not on par with the cost and repercussions for their targets. Stick to the discussion :)
Excellence is the gradual result of always striving to do better.
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
13230
|
Posted - 2015.05.31 19:10:11 -
[150] - Quote
Magnus Roden wrote: Ganking cost and repercussions are not on par with the cost and repercussions for their targets
False.
"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.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |