Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Iain Cariaba
2692
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 09:54:28 -
[31] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Danika Princip wrote:Because a nerus or an iteron V can haul whatever they want, not an extremely limited range of items.
It is called a tradeoff. The tradeoff is too strong. The Epithal carries nearly twice as much as the Iteron Mk V with full cargo fit; with no expanders it hauls nearly ten times as much. The Epithal can carry twice as much PI materials as the Iteron Mk V. On the otherhand, the Iteron Mk V, on my alt that has Gallente Industrial V, can carry 10x as much of every ******* thing else than the Epithal, with no fitting. Add a full cargo fit and they number goes up so that the Iteron Mk V can carry 58 times the amount of everything other than PI that the Epithal can.
I don't see where this is a problem. The problem I see, as was previously mentioned, is that you're comparing monkey balls and apples.
EvE is hard. It's harder if you're stupid.
I couldn't have said it better.
Hello, Mr Carebear. Would you like some cheese with that whine?
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2926
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 10:03:15 -
[32] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:If you give haulers no weapons, tank is useless against a gank attempt. Without being able to kill off the pesky mosquitoes, the haulers still dies regardless of how much tank it has. My tank and survival rate begs to differ. There are many ways tank helps you live until you escape, You just have to be ready to escape at all. Also, buffer tank is king for protection against suicide ganks in highsec.
Rivr Luzade wrote:The Epithal just as the Iteron V cannot carry anything worth anything on trade routes that matter. Any T1 hauler with more than 100M in their cargo is a 98% guaranteed suicide. My Epithal carries 300 mil worth through highsec trade routes near Amarr during highsec wars and I have yet to get ganked.
FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."
Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
|
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
752
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 14:47:49 -
[33] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:There is a blatant unbalance between standard and specialty industrials in which, while their max storage sizes are pretty well balanced, the specialty industrials reach that max without any cargo expanders but the standard haulers only reach it with a full set of expanders. Working as intended if you ask me, now people are flying something other than the Iteron V of old. Working as intended because now there are not only fitting choices to be made but ship choices as well and to me that is a good thing.
Nevyn Auscent wrote:A stacking penalty on cargo extenders is generally good for haulers since it actually provides them with much more meaningful choices. At lvl 5 skills the capacity of a maximum cargo fit would not change, yet the base capacity is lowered to account for the greater bonuses from these new +40% expanders that are subject to stacking penalties. I cannot even begin to see how this is giving the pilot MORE fitting choices.
In the end the only players I see benefiting from this are the gankers for that reason alone this gets -1. Not true you may say and I obviously disagree. Expanders would be needed to even reach the current base cargo volume leaving fewer slots to fit tank, stabs, or agility mods making the gankers life easier. Go full tank, stabs or agility fit and you nerf your capacity forcing you to make more trips to haul the same stuff which again increases your risk of being ganked.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
1595
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 16:09:03 -
[34] - Quote
But the spa were balanced around not needing the lows for expanders particularly the dsts
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4739
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 17:48:49 -
[35] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Danika Princip wrote:Because a nerus or an iteron V can haul whatever they want, not an extremely limited range of items.
It is called a tradeoff. The tradeoff is too strong. The Epithal carries nearly twice as much as the Iteron Mk V with full cargo fit; with no expanders it hauls nearly ten times as much. The Epithal is also useless if you want to haul minerals as it can carry a grand total of 550m3.
Or anything else....you see a guy in an epithal you KNOW what he is hauling.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Gadget Helmsdottir
Gadget's Workshop
142
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 19:32:16 -
[36] - Quote
Haven't I posted in this thread before?
Oh, wait. That was this one: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=372369
Reaver, I know it's been a few years, but things haven't changed enough to warrant messing about with specialized indies.
Well, except that we might need a few more types.
--Gadget
Work smarter, not harder. --Scrooge McDuck, an eminent old-Earth economist
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
1599
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 20:17:45 -
[37] - Quote
Gadget Helmsdottir wrote:Haven't I posted in this thread before? Oh, wait. That was this one: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=372369Reaver, I know it's been a few years, but things haven't changed enough to warrant messing about with specialized indies. Well, except that we might need a few more types. --Gadget
I day fuel for caldari (including isotopes) and non pi components for amarr
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2926
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 21:40:26 -
[38] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:At lvl 5 skills the capacity of a maximum cargo fit would not change, yet the base capacity is lowered Lowered!? No, it would be raised dramatically. I don't think you understand how stacking penalties work.
FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."
Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4741
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 21:55:56 -
[39] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Danika Princip wrote:You're not wanting a nerf to specialised haulers, but you are wanting a nerf to specialised haulers?
Why do you think the difference in sizes is actually a problem anyway? I can ONLY haul PI gear in my epithal, while my iteron V can haul anything I want. How is there an issue when both ships fit in seperate niches and do different things?
Why do you want a return to the times when everyone flew iteron Vs and nothing else was ever undocked? I meant it will in no way nerf how much capacity they have. I don't think the difference in size is a problem. I think the difference in which one has fitting options is the problem. Why should the Epithal get full fitting freedom while the Nereus and Iteron Mk V have to fit cargo expanders in all low and rig slots just to gain slightly competitive space?
But they really are not competing. If you are going to haul PI stuff you are doing it wrong if you are using an Iteron Mk V. Conversely if I need to haul StuffGäó I use an Iteron Mk. V. Depending on what I haul may change the fittings on the Iteron V or even switch over to a transport ship.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4741
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 22:03:28 -
[40] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Danika Princip wrote:Because a nerus or an iteron V can haul whatever they want, not an extremely limited range of items.
It is called a tradeoff. The tradeoff is too strong. The Epithal carries nearly twice as much as the Iteron Mk V with full cargo fit; with no expanders it hauls nearly ten times as much.
Twice as much what?
Yes an Epithal can care 2x the PI material an Iteron V can. The Iteron V can carry almost 17x more non-PI cargo than an Epithal.
Nerf the Iteron V!!! [/sarcasm]
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2044
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 22:12:22 -
[41] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Danika Princip wrote:Because a nerus or an iteron V can haul whatever they want, not an extremely limited range of items.
It is called a tradeoff. The tradeoff is too strong. The Epithal carries nearly twice as much as the Iteron Mk V with full cargo fit; with no expanders it hauls nearly ten times as much.
Quantifying m3 with a very limited use-case as if it's just as good as general m3 is ridiculous, bordering on intellectually dishonest.
How about a weighted value? Epithal m3 * (% of typeIds epithal can carry) Vs. I5 m3 * (% of typeIds an I5 can carry).
Pretty sure the epithal needs a HUGE buff if we use that entirely arbitrary comparison instead of your entirely arbitrary comparison.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2926
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 22:21:45 -
[42] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:But they really are not competing. If you are going to haul PI stuff you are doing it wrong if you are using an Iteron Mk V. Conversely if I need to haul StuffGäó I use an Iteron Mk. V. Depending on what I haul may change the fittings on the Iteron V or even switch over to a transport ship. Please stop using this argument! You're only making yourself look stupid!
There is no point in comparing the tiny generic cargohold on the specialized industrials with the cargohold on large industrials. The pilot of the Epithal has the power to choose to carry PI materials in the ship. If that pilot wishes to carry something else, they can simply buy a different ship. The argument is moot, and the comparison between its PI hold and the Iteron's cargohold is the only comparison that matters. Its ability to haul only one material type is not nearly so strong a disadvantage as you make it out to be.
SurrenderMonkey wrote:Quantifying m3 with a very limited use-case as if it's just as good as general m3 is ridiculous, bordering on intellectually dishonest. Bordering on it? It IS intellectually dishonest. Fortunately, I have done no such thing. I have been very clear that I believe the specialized haulers should keep a larger total size than generalized haulers.
Please desist in misrepresenting my arguments.
FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."
Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4742
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 22:24:00 -
[43] - Quote
I also find the argument, "But everyone fits ship X the same way" rather dubious as well.
Yes there is lots of possible variation, but in the end, for most (if not all) ships there are probably a small number of fits. Some ships that have dual purposes (e.g. PvP or PvE) might have the highest number of fits, but haulers are not like that. Many people who have been playing the game for a period of time will eventually settle on the same or rather similar fits.
Why is this bad? People try to optimize their fits (as people often do with most things in and out of game)...this is bad because....?
Changing things so that people go back to the drawing board and re-optimize is good....because...?
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2926
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 22:28:22 -
[44] - Quote
How do you people survive with this little intelligence?
FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."
Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4742
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 22:32:22 -
[45] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:The pilot of the Epithal has the power to choose to carry PI materials in the ship. If that pilot wishes to carry something else, they can simply buy a different ship.
Yes, that was my point. Which you call me stupid for pointing out. The two ships are for different purposes, hence comparing the specialized cargo bay to the generic cargo bay is intellectually dishonest.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4742
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 22:38:07 -
[46] - Quote
Are you not comparing the generic cargo hold of the Iteron V with the specialized cargo hold of the Epithal?
From your first post:
Quote:But what if we measure their storage without cargo expanders? Just max skills:
Nereus: 3375 m3 Epithal: 68,050 m3 Iteron Mk V: 7250 m3
You are quite clearly comparing a specialized cargo hold with a generic cargo hold. That is what everyone else in the thread has been pointing out is where the balancing is taking place.
Yes, you are correct the specialized cargo hold on the Epithal is much larger than the generic cargo hold on the Iteron V. However, the Epithal can only carry one thing, PI stuff, whereas the Iteron V can carry anything.
Depending on what you are doing you'll want an Epithal or an Iteron V or maybe even both...the point I made earlier for which you called me stupid.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2926
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 22:47:23 -
[47] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Yes, that was my point. Which you call me stupid for pointing out. The two ships are for different purposes, hence comparing the specialized cargo bay to the generic cargo bay is intellectually dishonest. So absolutely any comparison at all between them is intellectually dishonest? What if the Epithal's PI hold carried 5,000,000m3 of PI materials, and the Iteron Mk V had a base cargohold of 1000m3, and a max cargohold of ~5000m3. Would it then be intellectually dishonest to offer any comparison between the two?
FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."
Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4742
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 22:52:26 -
[48] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Yes, that was my point. Which you call me stupid for pointing out. The two ships are for different purposes, hence comparing the specialized cargo bay to the generic cargo bay is intellectually dishonest. So absolutely any comparison at all between them is intellectually dishonest? What if the Epithal's PI hold carried 5,000,000m3 of PI materials, and the Iteron Mk V had a base cargohold of 1000m3, and a max cargohold of ~5000m3. Would it then be intellectually dishonest to offer any comparison between the two?
And you complain about others misrepresenting your position. Pot meet kettle.
Here is a thought Reaver, maybe the specialized cargo holds do not benefit or need expanders because of a good reason?
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2926
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 23:12:01 -
[49] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Here is a thought Reaver, maybe the specialized cargo holds do not benefit or need expanders because of a good reason? Please do tell me the reason.
Because I'm pretty sure it's just entirely easier to haul any goods that fit in specialty haulers than it is to haul anything else, and I don't see any good reason for the disparity to be as large as it is.
FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."
Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2045
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 23:21:42 -
[50] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Yes, that was my point. Which you call me stupid for pointing out. The two ships are for different purposes, hence comparing the specialized cargo bay to the generic cargo bay is intellectually dishonest. So absolutely any comparison at all between them is intellectually dishonest? What if the Epithal's PI hold carried 5,000,000m3 of PI materials, and the Iteron Mk V had a base cargohold of 1000m3, and a max cargohold of ~5000m3. Would it then be intellectually dishonest to offer any comparison between the two?
Actually, yes, because they still have a qualitative difference that you're opting to ignore.
Both a 5MM m3 PI hauler and a 5K m3 max standard hauler would be bad, but neither would be bad as a consequence of the size disparity between them.
You may as well be comparing gas cloud harvester yield to strip miner yield. The two aren't really in competition with each other.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2926
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 23:33:33 -
[51] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:You may as well be comparing gas cloud harvester yield to strip miner yield. The two aren't really in competition with each other. It would be more like comparing gas cloud harvester yield to mining laser yield, and the two are in comparison because the ships that use either one can use the other, and the stuff from it goes into the same hold. It would be wrong to say that the yield should necessarily be the same, but it would also be wrong to say that you cannot compare the two.
Likewise, the size of PI materials was initially balanced for being carried in non-specialized haulers, as was the size of minerals and ore, and they still are stored in non-specialized containers. So stop telling me they can't be compared because they can and should be compared!
FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."
Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2047
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 23:50:05 -
[52] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:SurrenderMonkey wrote:You may as well be comparing gas cloud harvester yield to strip miner yield. The two aren't really in competition with each other. It would be more like comparing gas cloud harvester yield to mining laser yield, and the two are in comparison because the ships that use either one can use the other, and the stuff from it goes into the same hold. It would be wrong to say that the yield should necessarily be the same, but it would also be wrong to say that you cannot compare the two.
You absolutely can't in any meaningful way. "They go in the same hold" is an arbitrary, meaningless basis for comparison.
Both yields are balanced around the desirable level of supply for their respective commodities - NOT around each other.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4744
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 23:54:46 -
[53] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Teckos Pech wrote:Here is a thought Reaver, maybe the specialized cargo holds do not benefit or need expanders because of a good reason? Please do tell me the reason. Because I'm pretty sure it's just entirely easier to haul any goods that fit in specialty haulers than it is to haul anything else, and I don't see any good reason for the disparity to be as large as it is.
I'm sorry, I'm too stupid.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4744
|
Posted - 2016.02.21 23:59:43 -
[54] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:Reaver Glitterstim wrote:SurrenderMonkey wrote:You may as well be comparing gas cloud harvester yield to strip miner yield. The two aren't really in competition with each other. It would be more like comparing gas cloud harvester yield to mining laser yield, and the two are in comparison because the ships that use either one can use the other, and the stuff from it goes into the same hold. It would be wrong to say that the yield should necessarily be the same, but it would also be wrong to say that you cannot compare the two. You absolutely can't in any meaningful way. "They go in the same hold" is an arbitrary, meaningless basis for comparison. Both yields are balanced around the desirable level of supply for their respective commodities - NOT around each other.
BTW, there is a hint in here to the answer to my question. And since you are so much smarter than the rest of us, I'm sure you'll see the answer right away.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2926
|
Posted - 2016.02.22 00:19:53 -
[55] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:You absolutely can't in any meaningful way. "They go in the same hold" is an arbitrary, meaningless basis for comparison.
Both yields are balanced around the desirable level of supply for their respective commodities - NOT around each other. No, the yield sizes are balanced around hauling and storage. The level of supply is independent as the unit sizes can be adjusted.
Teckos Pech wrote:BTW, there is a hint in here to the answer to my question. And since you are so much smarter than the rest of us, I'm sure you'll see the answer right away. Quoting for posterity.
FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."
Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
|
Teckos Pech
The Executives Executive Outcomes
4744
|
Posted - 2016.02.22 01:28:37 -
[56] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:SurrenderMonkey wrote:You absolutely can't in any meaningful way. "They go in the same hold" is an arbitrary, meaningless basis for comparison.
Both yields are balanced around the desirable level of supply for their respective commodities - NOT around each other. No, the yield sizes are balanced around hauling and storage. The level of supply is independent as the unit sizes can be adjusted. Teckos Pech wrote:BTW, there is a hint in here to the answer to my question. And since you are so much smarter than the rest of us, I'm sure you'll see the answer right away. Quoting for posterity.
To be clear, in this thread you are coming off as a complete arrogant **** who thinks he is smarter than everyone else, when in fact the reality is quite the opposite.
Here is what I meant, since it is quite clear you are NOT nearly as smart as you think you are....
Perhaps, specialty ships have their specialty cargo holds unaffected by expanders because balance is not just between ships, but also what they do. Did it even enter your brain that perhaps when CCP was thinking about this that maybe...they looked at this issue and felt yeah...PI needed a production buff...which in turn would lower prices? Same with mined products? SurrenderMonkey also hinted at this. Balance isn't not just what different ships can do, but also how they impact the larger game world.
You want to keep harping on the intra-ship differences as if that were the only dimension on which balance should be considered.
In short you are a completely blinkered tool who is running around calling everyone else in this thread stupid. Maybe you are indeed a lone genius...or, as is more likely, you are the lone boob who is quite simply wrong. So please do continue with our monomanical focus and ignore the rest of the issue, but let me tell you that you cannot optimize a multi-variable process by looking at the optima for each variable while ignoring the others.
Oh...and it is cargo hold, not cargohold.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2048
|
Posted - 2016.02.22 01:39:35 -
[57] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote: No, the yield sizes are balanced around hauling and storage. The level of supply is independent as the unit sizes can be adjusted.
Yield has nothing to do with how much tritanium builder bob can fit in his freighter to bring over to his assembly array. That's volume.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2927
|
Posted - 2016.02.22 01:50:24 -
[58] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Perhaps, specialty ships have their specialty cargo holds unaffected by expanders because balance is not just between ships, but also what they do. Did it even enter your brain that perhaps when CCP was thinking about this that maybe...they looked at this issue and felt yeah...PI needed a production buff...which in turn would lower prices? It did enter my brain...way back during the few minutes I spent reading the devblog about the release of these monstrosities, and I came to the conclusion that didn't make a lick of sense and it was far more likely that CCP just threw stats at these things in a lazy attempt to give them a purpose.
If they wanted to decrease the price of PI goods by making them easier to ship, they could and should simply decrease the volume of the PI goods, because then they'll fit into freighters more easily as well. If they didn't want to increase the capacity of storage units and launch pads, they could simply shrink their volume to match the shrunk volume of the goods going into them.
I don't understand what is so difficult about this.
SurrenderMonkey wrote:Yield has nothing to do with how much tritanium builder bob can fit in his freighter to bring over to his assembly array. That's volume. That's what I'm saying!!
FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."
Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
|
SurrenderMonkey
Space Llama Industries
2048
|
Posted - 2016.02.22 01:52:29 -
[59] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote: That's what I'm saying!!
Yield isn't volume, so, no, it isn't what you're saying unless, in your brilliance, you've entirely conflated the two sides of the analogy.
"Help, I'm bored with missions!"
http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2927
|
Posted - 2016.02.22 01:56:04 -
[60] - Quote
SurrenderMonkey wrote:Reaver Glitterstim wrote: That's what I'm saying!!
Yield isn't volume, so, no, it isn't what you're saying unless, in your brilliance, you've entirely conflated the two sides of the analogy. I was trying to explain to you how you're conflating yield with volume, and you, in your apparent brilliance, responded by stating my point against you as if it was your point against me.
YOU said that volume cannot be compared because yield is separate.
I corrected you by pointing out that the volume of the unit and the volume of the yield can be adjusted independent of each other.
FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."
Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |