Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 39 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Darth Gustav
Sons Of 0din Fatal Ascension
315
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 20:27:00 -
[421] - Quote
Kengutsi Akira wrote:Tippia wrote: Sure it should. The fact that a new character in a destroyer can kill this expensive and low-to-mid req (in terms of skills) ship is a sign of good design.
Gotta agree with T But you should be required to keep those biomassed gank alts for a set time imo. Yeah its a exploit to biomass them but the ccp ppl are forever saying they dont have the ppl to watch every biomass so theres a big loophole
I think they do this now. It's 10 hours, right?
I'm not saying there's no room for change, just confirming that the mechanic is currently in-place if they ever did.
He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1504
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 20:30:00 -
[422] - Quote
malcovas Henderson wrote:it seems to me, all the comparisons are a little skewed.
nay sayers say Tank the hulk. it's the only way. Combat ships lose DPS if they tank their ship. You talk as if the hulk should be in a fleet.The thing you seem to forget. In a fleet. You fit your role. IE DPS. EWAR. War links bla bla bla. In a fleet by that comparison the hulk should be able to fit it's role. By the same comparison, you dont see 1 destroyer going into a fleet of combat ships, and Picking off a cruiser. (Hi sec)
It is imbalanced. Even if you are in a fleet with 1 million combat ships protecting you. You cannot do anything before the ganker attacks. So even Fleeted the Hulk must gimp its use to survive.
Solo Hulks like all things, should find a happy medium between tank and usefulness. But again. There is not really a happy medium for the hulk.
For those that say TANK TANK TANK. You are not getting the whole picture. I have stated where there is imbalance. And it is using your own arguements in using fleets. If a hulk is fleeted it should be able to fit for its role. Would you take a logi into an Incursion if it maxed out its tank? at the expense of its role? would you?
I'll leave you to figure it out. It has a fleet role and no matter how you paint it. It cannot perform that roll to maximum performance if it needs to lose performance.
o7
Not everyone in the thread is screaming Tank! Tank!. Some of us view the Hulks role as being alert enough to simply avoid the gank, with a decent tank to offer a chance of survival if you screw up and get caught.
All fittings are a trade off, no matter what ship you are talking about. If you fit solely to fulfill a specific role with no thought to anything else you will be extremely vulnerable to anything outside of that role.
Now you "CAN" do this if you are situationally alert enough to get your ship out of harms way before something it is not set up to handle occurs, but that requires a modicum of skill.
When I check troll in the dictionary, it has a photo shopped picture of you standing somewhere in the vicinity of a point.
Also, I can kill you with my brain. |
Digital Messiah
Midnight Elites Echelon Rising
161
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 20:30:00 -
[423] - Quote
You guys are totally right, Why should the best and only top of the line mining ship for minerals be super tanky?
Lets review a few points. 1. It costs upwards of 200 million isk. 2. People have chosen to exploit its inability to tank a gank from an over heated frigate class ship. 3. The cost to tank ratio makes it not even worth fitting to survive a gank from a cruiser / battle cruiser sized ship. 4. You are more likely to lose it during hulkageddon than to ever pay it off. 5. I'm running out of reasons to even consider flying it...
Which is probably why afk bots are the only things sane enough to do it in mass all the time. lulz
On a more serious note, you don't train to fly a faction battleship, command ship, or say a titan. Only to have everyone tell you it shouldn't be able to fill its own role and survive a gank from a frigate sized vessel... I don't know the last time i heard someone tell me about how they lost their Carrier or battleship because an overheated destroyer ganked them before concord could come. Admit it, you guys like to exploit its weaknesses and do so only for the sheer joy of griefing another player. Which I'm not going to say is wrong or bad. Hell I have done my fair share of trolling. But would it be so bad as to provide it with some buff?
A few suggested buffs. 1. A fourth non-hardpoint high slot. Cloaky hulks?! Oh my! 2. Increase in powergrid. You might actually have to try, and that is only if that hulk pilot chooses to be tank fit. 3. give it a higher armor and shield base value. Even it they buffed it up to 5000 of each, it would be a major improvement.
For those crying that this would make it to difficult to gank. Consider why you became a pirate. Did you do it because it was easy? Or did you do it because it provided a challenge with the rewards of making people upset. Also why should there be no risk versus reward for the ganker? Losing sec status isn't a risk, it is a constant. Anyone with half a brain can overheat a brutix and blaster down a hulk before concord shows.
But this is my rant. I'm certain I will get flamed for having an opinion on the subject. I don't really care, most the views of gankers is biased. Not to mention CCP would rather keep hulks gankable rather than fix mining. "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn"
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6010
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 20:30:00 -
[424] - Quote
Kengutsi Akira wrote:Gotta agree with T
But you should be required to keep those biomassed gank alts for a set time imo. Yeah its a exploit to biomass them but the ccp ppl are forever saying they dont have the ppl to watch every biomass so theres a big loophole More to the point, there is pretty much no reason to recycle a gank alt GÇö it already has the skill and the sec status isn't much of a hindrance (once again due to people choosing it not to be). 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
bornaa
GRiD.
206
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 20:33:00 -
[425] - Quote
Tippia wrote:bornaa wrote:Ill just say XD and that you dont know what open market is. Good for you. Doesn't change the fact that you're using incomparable points of comparison if you just pick the lowest price, and that Jita is the point of comparison for goods in EVE.
When I compare prices, I compare prices from manufacturer or importer for both products so that I dont have a problem with not knowing how much middlemans were there and how big their margin were. And you like to use price for one thing form one quy that bought that thing from manufacturer and second from 10th middleman. Good for you. I see now how you allways "win" a debate.
Over and out. That Ain't Right |
Aranakas
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
286
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 20:33:00 -
[426] - Quote
Digital Messiah wrote: On a more serious note, you don't train to fly a faction battleship, command ship, or say a titan. Only to have everyone tell you it shouldn't be able to fill its own role and survive a gank from a frigate sized vessel... I don't know the last time i heard someone tell me about how they lost their Carrier or battleship because an overheated destroyer ganked them before concord could come. Admit it, you guys like to exploit its weaknesses and do so only for the sheer joy of griefing another player. Which I'm not going to say is wrong or bad. Hell I have done my fair share of trolling. But would it be so bad as to provide it with some buff? .
T3, deadspace-fit PVE strategic cruisers costing 1-2 billion isk can be ganked by 1-2 hurricanes costing 10% as much.
Over-all, it's suicide ganking as a whole that's too powerful, since there's essentially zero risk of a pre-emptive strike against the offenders. Aranakas CEO of-áGreen Anarchy Green vs Green |
Darth Gustav
Sons Of 0din Fatal Ascension
316
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 20:36:00 -
[427] - Quote
Aranakas wrote:Digital Messiah wrote: On a more serious note, you don't train to fly a faction battleship, command ship, or say a titan. Only to have everyone tell you it shouldn't be able to fill its own role and survive a gank from a frigate sized vessel... I don't know the last time i heard someone tell me about how they lost their Carrier or battleship because an overheated destroyer ganked them before concord could come. Admit it, you guys like to exploit its weaknesses and do so only for the sheer joy of griefing another player. Which I'm not going to say is wrong or bad. Hell I have done my fair share of trolling. But would it be so bad as to provide it with some buff? .
T3, deadspace-fit PVE strategic cruisers costing 1-2 billion isk can be ganked by 1-2 hurricanes costing 10% as much. Over-all, it's suicide ganking as a whole that's too powerful, since there's essentially zero risk of a pre-emptive strike against the offenders. Where should said risk come from?
Answer that question correctly and you win Eve.
Answer it wrong and you forever label yourself a victim. He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom |
Aranakas
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
287
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 20:37:00 -
[428] - Quote
Darth Gustav wrote: Where should said risk come from?
Answer that question correctly and you win Eve.
Answer it wrong and you forever label yourself a victim.
Considering that it's supposedly PVP, the risk to suiciders should come from other players, not a 20 second CONCORD timer.
Aranakas CEO of-áGreen Anarchy Green vs Green |
Darth Gustav
Sons Of 0din Fatal Ascension
316
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 20:38:00 -
[429] - Quote
Aranakas wrote:Darth Gustav wrote: Where should said risk come from?
Answer that question correctly and you win Eve.
Answer it wrong and you forever label yourself a victim.
Considering that it's supposedly PVP, the risk to suiciders should come from other players, not a 20 second CONCORD timer.
Why doesn't anybody do anything about it then?
The problem is mentality, not rules. He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6011
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 20:40:00 -
[430] - Quote
bornaa wrote:When I compare prices, I compare prices from manufacturer or importer for both products so that I dont have a problem with not knowing how much middlemans were there and how big their margin were. You mean those things that will affect all things equally in a large-volume hub such as Jita?
The problem is that your GÇ£lowest priceGÇ¥ points of comparison do not let you filter out the factors you just mentioned GÇö they just pick where people are being the most na+»ve about how much they ask for their goods without any kind of knowledge of why they're asking for those prices. You are comparing disparate points with unknown, unknowable, and most likely vastly different market forces are creating that low price. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
|
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
594
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 20:42:00 -
[431] - Quote
Tippia wrote: Did that already. Also, go read any of the ship popularity lists in the old QENs, in Diagoras' tweets, in the Economy presentations, and/or in the economy snapshots.
Oh, you're going to equivocate with "popularity", got it.
Tippia wrote: Agreed. The fundamental design principle of EVE GÇö that bigger isn't better and that marginal improvement comes at exponential cost GÇö is what makes it good design.
Ignoring arguments you don't like by trying to recast them into another black and white paradigm. Your game is old, learn some new tricks.
|
Aranakas
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
287
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 20:42:00 -
[432] - Quote
Darth Gustav wrote: Why doesn't anybody do anything about it then?
The problem is mentality, not rules.
There's no telling who's a suicide ganker and who their target is. All you see is a Tornado sitting outside a station. If you were to dock and get a Tornado and blow them up, they'd just get a new Tornado. If you keep doing that, you're just going to drive yourself into negative sec status and you'd have caused no more damage to him than you did to yourself.
On the other hand, burning a tornado to kill a t3 is very profitable, so there will always be someone doing it. Aranakas CEO of-áGreen Anarchy Green vs Green |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
594
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 20:43:00 -
[433] - Quote
Darth Gustav wrote: Why doesn't anybody do anything about it then?
The problem is mentality, not rules.
Sadly, the gankbears are just as protected by Concord as the miners. Here's to high hopes for crimewatch 2.0. |
malcovas Henderson
Smoking Minerals Syndicate Cannabis Legionis
9
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 20:48:00 -
[434] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:
Not everyone in the thread is screaming Tank! Tank!. Some of us view the Hulks role as being alert enough to simply avoid the gank, with a decent tank to offer a chance of survival if you screw up and get caught.
All fittings are a trade off, no matter what ship you are talking about. If you fit solely to fulfill a specific role with no thought to anything else you will be extremely vulnerable to anything outside of that role.
Now you "CAN" do this if you are situationally alert enough to get your ship out of harms way before something it is not set up to handle occurs, but that requires a modicum of skill.
I understand what you are saying. A little common sense, and a little grey matter will allow you to avoid some ganks. Not all but some.
If you got to warp out everytime a ratting ship enters your belt. It becomes a little tiresome. Added to the fact, that those ships will do that continiously, just to annoy you.
Yes I mine. No, I dont care how weak or strong the hulk is. I play my game my way, with the tools I am given. If I am ganked, I know I have 1 month to get my revenge.It still remains, in a fleet, the Hulk cannot not Fit for its role, if it needs to trank itself.
o7 |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1504
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 20:49:00 -
[435] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:Tippia wrote: Did that already. Also, go read any of the ship popularity lists in the old QENs, in Diagoras' tweets, in the Economy presentations, and/or in the economy snapshots.
Oh, you're going to equivocate with "popularity", got it. Tippia wrote: Agreed. The fundamental design principle of EVE GÇö that bigger isn't better and that marginal improvement comes at exponential cost GÇö is what makes it good design.
Ignoring arguments you don't like by trying to recast them into another black and white paradigm. Your game is old, learn some new tricks.
My friend, you are starting to lose your credibility.
The numbers of Hulk flown vs other ships is easily verifiable at the sources listed. The game design principles that CCP sticks with are the same as they have always been.
Respectfully, it's time to step back.
When I check troll in the dictionary, it has a photo shopped picture of you standing somewhere in the vicinity of a point.
Also, I can kill you with my brain. |
Sycho Pathic
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
17
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 20:49:00 -
[436] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:Darth Gustav wrote: Why doesn't anybody do anything about it then?
The problem is mentality, not rules.
Sadly, the gankbears are just as protected by Concord as the miners. Here's to high hopes for crimewatch 2.0.
I'm kind of hoping the "Shoot someone and you're fair game" mechanic happens. Having an honest-to-God cluster**** of violence and mayhem break out over a simple can flip would be quite fun. Yes, it would be abused mightily by the gankers but it would be fun none-the-less until the nerfs hit.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6011
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 20:50:00 -
[437] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:Darth Gustav wrote:Why doesn't anybody do anything about it then?
The problem is mentality, not rules. Sadly, the gankbears are just as protected by Concord as the miners. Here's to high hopes for crimewatch 2.0. Incorrect. Gankers are not as protected as the miners are, since the act of ganking means that CONCORD will bow out should you choose to seek revenge. As DG points out, the problem is mentality not rules GÇö people choose to let the gankers be protected, when they could equally choose not to.
In fact, if the (unconfirmed) rumours that Crimewatch 2.0 will remove kill rights are true, they will actually be more protected after the patch than before.
If that doesn't happen, then CW2.0 will have no effect at all.
Sycho Pathic wrote:I'm kind of hoping the "Shoot someone and you're fair game" mechanic happens. That mechanic already exists. It's called GCC. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
594
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 20:50:00 -
[438] - Quote
Darth Gustav wrote: So mining drops your security status by the mineral intake or what?
Get bad standings with the veldspar faction, probably. |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
594
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 20:52:00 -
[439] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote: My friend, you are starting to lose your credibility.
The numbers of Hulk flown vs other ships is easily verifiable at the sources listed. The game design principles that CCP sticks with are the same as they have always been.
Respectfully, it's time to step back.
My argument wasn't about the popularity of the ship. Tip attempting to recast the argument. Sorry. I'm not going to debate Y when my point is X. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1504
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 20:53:00 -
[440] - Quote
Sycho Pathic wrote:Adunh Slavy wrote:Darth Gustav wrote: Why doesn't anybody do anything about it then?
The problem is mentality, not rules.
Sadly, the gankbears are just as protected by Concord as the miners. Here's to high hopes for crimewatch 2.0. I'm kind of hoping the "Shoot someone and you're fair game" mechanic happens. Having an honest-to-God cluster**** of violence and mayhem break out over a simple can flip would be quite fun. Yes, it would be abused mightily by the gankers but it would be fun none-the-less until the nerfs hit.
Be careful what you wish for. When I check troll in the dictionary, it has a photo shopped picture of you standing somewhere in the vicinity of a point.
Also, I can kill you with my brain. |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6011
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 20:55:00 -
[441] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:My argument wasn't about the popularity of the ship. Tip attempting to recast the argument. Sorry. I'm not going to debate Y when my point is X. Your argument is that the T2 upgrade to barges isn't worth the effort; my argument is that the numbers don't support this claim GÇö if it were true, exhumers should be far less popular than they are, and the price for the upgrade shouldn't be anywhere as beneficial as it is.
I'm not trying to recast the argument GÇö I'm countering your assertion with data. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
594
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 21:02:00 -
[442] - Quote
Tippia wrote: What's equivocal about CCP's numbers on which ships are used the most (among them the Hulk) and which are used the least (among them the Covetor, to the point where they're adjusting its price/performance ratio)?
There are additional factors to that, such as the hulk having skill requirements that made the covetor passed over in short order.
Besides, popularity was never the point. You choose to wander off to make an argument about popularity and ignore what you do not want to address.
Quote:What argument was being ignored? The fact is that bigger-isn't-better and marginal-improvement-for-huge-cost are fundamental design principles of EVE, and that a ship that adheres to these principles is thus well designed. It's not my opinion GÇö it's how they've chosen to approach balance.
That does not always lead to "good design". You choose to ignore the basic economic arguments for a ship balancing debate. Congrats on once again proving you ignore what you do not wish to address.
|
malcovas Henderson
Smoking Minerals Syndicate Cannabis Legionis
9
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 21:03:00 -
[443] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Adunh Slavy wrote:My argument wasn't about the popularity of the ship. Tip attempting to recast the argument. Sorry. I'm not going to debate Y when my point is X. Your argument is that the T2 upgrade to barges isn't worth the effort; my argument is that the numbers don't support this claim GÇö if it were true, exhumers should be far less popular than they are, and the price for the upgrade shouldn't be anywhere as beneficial as it is.
The answer to why that is, Greed. pure and simple. It's why Miners do not tank Hulks. Fitted for it's role the Hulk outperforms the Covetor by over 25%. It is not because the Hulk is in a good position. It's because it generates more Iskies.
o7 |
Whitehound
27
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 21:07:00 -
[444] - Quote
Tippia wrote:1. Cost isn't a balancing factor. 2. No. People have chosen not to make use of its ability to tank, allowing it to be ganked from an overheated frigate. If people chose to actually make use of that ability, the frigate would no longer stand a chance. 3. The cost to tank ratio is anGǪ oddGǪ measure since, again, cost is not a balancing factor. Fitting a tank pretty much ensures that it will survive a cruiser/BC ship trying to gank it, and that makes the benefit pretty much infinite. 4. GǪso don't fly it during hulkageddon? 5. Interesting. A large number of people disagree with you, what with it being one of the most popular ships in the game. Be fair. ISK prices are a balancing factor. CCP has made changes to the balance by adjusting the bill of materials as well as to the source of materials a few times. They cannot adjust the price itself. How could they?
People then fly the Hulk often because they can skill for it after the Covetor for only a little bit of extra time and because Hulkageddon does not catch all Hulks. If gankers were putting more effort into it then how do you think would this affect the numbers?
|
VagabondAlt
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 21:09:00 -
[445] - Quote
Kengutsi Akira wrote:Tippia wrote: Sure it should. The fact that a new character in a destroyer can kill this expensive and low-to-mid req (in terms of skills) ship is a sign of good design.
Gotta agree with T But you should be required to keep those biomassed gank alts for a set time imo. Yeah its a exploit to biomass them but the ccp ppl are forever saying they dont have the ppl to watch every biomass so theres a big loophole Nobody biomasses ganking alts because they work just fine at -10. |
Darth Gustav
Sons Of 0din Fatal Ascension
318
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 21:09:00 -
[446] - Quote
Whitehound wrote:Tippia wrote:1. Cost isn't a balancing factor. 2. No. People have chosen not to make use of its ability to tank, allowing it to be ganked from an overheated frigate. If people chose to actually make use of that ability, the frigate would no longer stand a chance. 3. The cost to tank ratio is anGǪ oddGǪ measure since, again, cost is not a balancing factor. Fitting a tank pretty much ensures that it will survive a cruiser/BC ship trying to gank it, and that makes the benefit pretty much infinite. 4. GǪso don't fly it during hulkageddon? 5. Interesting. A large number of people disagree with you, what with it being one of the most popular ships in the game. Be fair. ISK prices are a balancing factor. CCP has made changes to the balance by adjusting the bill of materials as well as to the source of materials a few times. They cannot adjust the price itself. How could they? People then fly the Hulk often because they can skill for it after the Covetor for only a little bit of extra time and because Hulkageddon does not catch all Hulks. If gankers were putting more effort into it then how do you think would this affect the numbers? We'll find out in 17 days won't we? He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom |
Whitehound
27
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 21:13:00 -
[447] - Quote
Darth Gustav wrote:We'll find out in 17 days won't we? I will try to sit in a cloaked ship and stream it over Justin TV if I find the time. I do not want to miss it for anything. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
540
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 21:15:00 -
[448] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote: The numbers of Hulk flown vs other ships is easily verifiable at the sources listed. The game design principles that CCP sticks with are the same as they have always been.
Respectfully, it's time to step back.
The published numbers were from the time when botters had complete free reign. Nor the published numbers say why people go for those ships.
A botter thinks in a macro view:
1) Squeeze out the maximum minerals per day, with their immense volume the cost of a T2 mining ship tends to zero.
2) Everything is disposable and will be caught one day, including banned pilots and tied ships. Keep efficiency high till it lasts.
They will go for hulks / macks because if they lose 1-2-3 of them they have 4 spares at the station already. Making some tens of billions in botted mineral has its perks and money is one of them.
At the same time, losing 1-2-3 of those is still rare enough expecially when you have others guarding and perma-repping (go to see any "modern" bot operation and you'll see how they adapted).
The average real miner will have 1-3 ships, a botter will have 8-10, guess which best efficiency ships will be over-popular?
Also - and I don't know how the Bright Minds in this thread missed it - players in all the MMOs tend to want to get to "end game", and T2 mining ships are the end game and the trophy to proudly show off. Right today there was a guy in local announcing how he couldn't wait the 1h 24m till he "dinged" ice mining V.
That freshness, those feelings for something new and rewarding are something that has long abandoned the forum berserkers in here. They won't be able to understand.
That guy tomorrow will buy a mack like it's his "supercar". That's what drives players to leave the retriever / covetor more than some dry, stupid numbers.
Only later, he'll learn that he could have stuck with his old Honda.
Over time, the general populace will decide how to solve the "Hulk is crap" dilemma and the development I have seen, greatly amuses me, because it does NOT go with the poopy advices going on this forum.
Guess what, they don't retardedly go for over 90000 EHP gimpy waste of ships but they bring in mercs and friends and me. Feel free to browse some random ice systems KBs close to Jita to see how catalyst heroes have been podded enough to leave in the last 2-3 weeks
Come the next aggression mechanics change, it'll get incredibly fun, my BPOs are already crunching wartoys. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6011
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 21:19:00 -
[449] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:There are additional factors to that, such as the hulk having skill requirements that made the covetor passed over in short order. GǪwhich kind of contradicts that the difference is so small as to make the Hulk not worth-while as an upgrade.
Quote:Besides, popularity was never the point. You choose to wander off to make an argument about popularity and ignore what you do not want to address. No, the argument was about relative effectiveness, and your claim that the Hulk wasn't really worth it is being contradicted by the numbers. The numbers themselves are not in question (although you tried to do that too) GÇö they are a counter-argument to your claim.
Quote:That does not always lead to "good design". You choose to ignore the basic economic arguments for a ship balancing debate. You mean cost GÇö that thing that isn't a factor in balance?
Whitehound wrote:Be fair. ISK prices are a balancing factor. CCP has made changes to the balance by adjusting the bill of materials as well as to the source of materials a few times. They cannot adjust the price itself. How could they? No. Cost is not a balancing factor as was shown very early in the thread. Cost is a result of supply and demand; it does not dictate performance GÇö if anything, it's the other way around because of how much in demand a high-performing ship is. However, due to that design principle of marginal improvement at ever increasing costs, the value you get for a higher price is somewhere between nil and completely unpredictable.
Put another way: just because a Hulk costs a lot doesn't mean it has to be made to perform better GÇö instead, the reason it costs a lot is because it already does perform better. If you don't think it's worth the cost, don't use it, and soon the price will match what you think its performance is. Problem solved. 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¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Whitehound
27
|
Posted - 2012.04.11 21:27:00 -
[450] - Quote
Tippia wrote:No. Cost is not a balancing factor as was shown very early in the thread. Cost is a result of supply and demand; it does not dictate performance GÇö if anything, it's the other way around because of how much in demand a high-performing ship is. However, due to that design principle of marginal improvement at ever increasing costs, the value you get for a higher price is somewhere between nil and completely unpredictable.
Put another way: just because a Hulk costs a lot doesn't mean it has to be made to perform better GÇö instead, the reason it costs a lot is because it already does perform better. If you don't think it's worth the cost, don't use it, and soon the price will match what you think its performance is. Problem solved. Yes, cost is a balancing factor. CCP did change the bill of materials in the past and did change production processes as well as the sources. They cannot balance the price because of the free market. CCP knows this just like you do. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 39 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |