These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

CCP, to Bring Balance, Nerf AC's (or Remove Blasters).

Author
Nimrod Nemesis
Doomheim
#221 - 2011-11-14 19:44:25 UTC
Roosterton wrote:

Armageddon: 1200 base DPS, can apply it fully to 30+km


You implied TWO things here.

1. 1200 dps unheated.

2. 30km or better optimal range.

There are TWO cystals with a 30km optimal on the geddon fit you listed. One of them is scorch. I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't mean IN-Standard instead, because that would be even more retarted.

Now, if you want to claim you meant IN MF, fine, but then you were bullshitting the optimal range figure and fuding dps slightly. If you want to claim you were not bullshitting optimal, you goofed hard on that "base," dps figure. There is not a single scenario here where you didn't both screw up the numbers and range to make your argument look good.

Roosterton wrote:

I got the optimal range from the top of my head, which is why it's "30+," and not "45+." I like how you completely missed a mistake when it's to your argument's detriment to point it out. Blink


Wait, didn't you just try to claim that you were using IN MF? Where the hell are you getting 30 to 45km optimal range with that?

Roosterton wrote:

Let me post the quote for you again:

Nimrod Nemesis wrote:
Roosterton wrote:

1172 DPS is attainable with IN MF. I said 1200 in my first post because I didn't have the numbers off the top of my head.



You said "base dps," which is a far-cry from "attainable," sir. I think you, on that high horse, should be able to see where i'm coming from then? Your language was deliberately misleading or simply off by an unacceptable margin that called for critique.


So, you're taking a stand that this was IN MF, in which case your 30km+ optimal is absolutely misleading. Thank you for clearing that up.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Top Belt for Fun
#222 - 2011-11-14 19:50:26 UTC
Nimrod Nemesis wrote:

So, you're taking a stand that this was IN MF, in which case your 30km+ optimal is absolutely misleading. Thank you for clearing that up.



Heh, hilariously if he's being "misleading" then almost the entirety of the "nerf Minmatar" crowd are too. Also, I'm not taking a side until the hybrid boost settles in because best case premature nerfing would end up end up making the wrong nerf for the wrong reasons.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.

Nimrod Nemesis
Doomheim
#223 - 2011-11-14 19:55:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Nimrod Nemesis
Liang Nuren wrote:

Heh, hilariously if he's being "misleading" then almost the entirety of the "nerf Minmatar" crowd are too.


It's easier to critique bogus numbers though and Rooster has provided me with enough material (in one sentence, no less) to make it both fun and easy. The angsty replies are just icing on the cake.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Top Belt for Fun
#224 - 2011-11-14 19:58:57 UTC
Nimrod Nemesis wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:

Heh, hilariously if he's being "misleading" then almost the entirety of the "nerf Minmatar" crowd are too.


It's easier to critique bogus numbers though and Rooster has provided me with enough material (in one sentence, no less) to make it both fun and easy. The angsty replies are just icing on the cake.


I expect to see you lined up roasting the Nerf Minmatar crowd for the same fallacy then. The numbers are just as easy to critique and they have angsty replies by the score.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.

Roosterton
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#225 - 2011-11-14 20:10:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Roosterton
Quote:
You implied TWO things here.

1. 1200 dps unheated.

2. 30km or better optimal range.

There are TWO cystals with a 30km optimal on the geddon fit you listed. One of them is scorch. I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't mean IN-Standard instead, because that would be even more retarted.

Now, if you want to claim you meant IN MF, fine, but then you were bullshitting the optimal range figure and fuding dps slightly. If you want to claim you were not bullshitting optimal, you goofed hard on that "base," dps figure. There is not a single scenario here where you didn't both screw up the numbers and range to make your argument look good.


Jesus Christ, why are you still carrying on with this? I already admitted that I had the wrong crystals loaded in this case. It still doesn't change the point of my post though, and this mistake alone is hardly enough to dismiss the whole thing as "way off."

Quote:
Wait, didn't you just try to claim that you were using IN MF? Where the hell are you getting 30 to 45km optimal range with that?


What? No. Optimal with IN MF is 15, optimal with scorch is 30-45km. My point is that, if I had checked eft for scorch optimal range, I would have said 45 rather than 30. (Another point in support of Amarr, btw. Even at 30km, a Geddon with scorch still applies more DPS than the Tempest with barrage. Forget 45km.)

Quote:
So, you're taking a stand that this was IN MF, in which case your 30km+ optimal is absolutely misleading. Thank you for clearing that up.


Something I've admitted numerous times. At least I have the balls to admit such things, while you're still dodging around the fact that you claimed 1172 DPS with IN MF is unreasonable.

I get the feeling the only reason you're still pressing me about having the wrong crystals on EFT is because you're too lacking in self confidence and security to man up and admit your innocent reading mistake. It really says something about you. Another point in support of this hypothesis is the fact that you're posting on an alt, although 90% of forum posters here are.

Also, Liang, it's unacceptable that I have more likes than you. Straight
Nimrod Nemesis
Doomheim
#226 - 2011-11-14 20:24:05 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:

I expect to see you lined up roasting the Nerf Minmatar crowd for the same fallacy then. The numbers are just as easy to critique and they have angsty replies by the score.


I'd love to, but Rooster is bent on keeping me busy here full-time.
Nimrod Nemesis
Doomheim
#227 - 2011-11-14 20:33:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Nimrod Nemesis
Roosterton wrote:
Jesus Christ, why are you still carrying on with this? I already admitted that I had the wrong crystals loaded in this case. It still doesn't change the point of my post though, and this mistake alone is hardly enough to dismiss the whole thing as "way off."


It simply invalidates both your original claim and then the back-peddal assertion you meant IN MF. The only reason i'm "still carrying on," the argument is because you simply cannot stop posting lame excuses.

Roosterton wrote:

What? No. Optimal with IN MF is 15, optimal with scorch is 30-45km. My point is that, if I had checked eft for scorch optimal range, I would have said 45 rather than 30.


So you're ready to admit you used sorch optimal and applied (overestimated) IN MF dps. Glad we cleared that up.

Roosterton wrote:

Something I've admitted numerous times. At least I have the balls to admit such things, while you're still dodging around the fact that you claimed 1172 DPS with IN MF is unreasonable.


And curiously, you're still posting excuses. I was crystal clear about "base," dps being unreasonable. It's abundantly obvious I was talking about your numbers with 30km optimal and unheated dps. But, please keep trying with the petulant critcism back-lash.

Roosterton wrote:

I get the feeling the only reason you're still pressing me about having the wrong crystals on EFT is because you're too lacking in self confidence and security to man up and admit your innocent reading mistake. It really says something about you. Another point in support of this hypothesis is the fact that you're posting on an alt, although 90% of forum posters here are.


Oh, how dare I call you on using the highest optimal ammo range numbers with o/h dps from short-range ammo referred to as "base," and with a fit you'd already posted. That was so cruel of me. I must be projecting some deep psycological issues. On an alt no less!

Hahah, you're adoreable.
Roosterton
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#228 - 2011-11-14 21:24:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Roosterton
How is admitting that I messed up an "excuse?" All I'm saying is that this alone is hardly enough to call my statistics "way off."

Quote:
So you're ready to admit you used sorch optimal and applied (overestimated) IN MF dps. Glad we cleared that up.


I've only been saying this since YESTERDAY ******* MORNING.

Quote:
And curiously, you're still posting excuses. I was crystal clear about "base," dps being unreasonable. It's abundantly obvious I was talking about your numbers with 30km optimal and unheated dps. But, please keep trying with the petulant critcism back-lash.


Nope. You said, in direct response to a post that stated that IN MF gets 1172 MF, that it's an unreasonable figure. Had my post said that it gets 1172 DPS with scorch, or had you been responding to the correct post (the one where I did make a mistake) this wouldn't be an issue. You were not crystal clear about "base" dps, you were trying to tell me to my face that an Armageddon does not get 1172 DPS with imperial multifrequency, and now you're trying to claim that you were talking about my other mistake. This is the part where I accuse you of "backpedaling," to use your words.

Quote:
Oh, how dare I call you on using the highest optimal ammo range numbers with o/h dps from short-range ammo referred to as "base," and with a fit you'd already posted. That was so cruel of me. I must be projecting some deep psycological issues. On an alt no less!

Hahah, you're adoreable.


I don't really give a damn that you called me out on it the first time, but it just shows how bad at arguing you are that you keep pressing it on long after it lost any relevance to this discussion, and are using it as an excuse to ignore any other arguments or points that I bring up. Just watch; in your next post, you will make 1-2 lines about how "SO YOU ADMIT YOU WERE WRONG, THEN?" one line about "LOL YOU'RE CUTE," and probably something else accusing me of backpedaling just because you seem to love that word.
Nimrod Nemesis
Doomheim
#229 - 2011-11-14 21:36:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Nimrod Nemesis
Roosterton wrote:
I've only been saying this since YESTERDAY ******* MORNING.


It's amazing what a little lying and some not-so-clever attempts at covering your tracks can generate in such a brief moment in time. I have to hand it to you, this has been too much fun.

Roosterton wrote:

Nope.


I don't know where you're getting that from. Maybe you should look at what I quoted and the places I used quotation marks? Context clues make it blatantly obvious that sentence I keep repeating has been the focus of my posting.

Roosterton wrote:

I don't really give a damn that you called me out on it the first time, but it just shows how bad at arguing you are that you keep pressing it on long after it lost any relevance to this discussion, and are using it as an excuse to ignore any other arguments or points that I bring up. Just watch; in your next post, you will make 1-2 lines about how "SO YOU ADMIT YOU WERE WRONG, THEN?" one line about "LOL YOU'RE CUTE," and probably something else accusing me of backpedaling just because you seem to love that word.


You don't give a damn? Heh. You've got a funny way of showing that. My critique of your bad numbers was relavent, and you could have put everything to rest by opening EFT and editing to accurately reflect the data. What you did instead was try to claim that you had implied a whole lot of things (which you clearly didn't imply) and that you had totally corrected yourself (which you didn't). So, in effect, you gave me free license to run you down over glaringly obvious inconsistency.

I need not accuse you of anything else. The case has been laid out. All I have to do from here is laugh at your increasingly angsty replies. You clearly goofed. You clearly made an attempt to mask that goof with bullshit. You clearly got called on both and now you're quite upset. If you want to get the thread back on track, just stop posting like a teenage girl who was stood up at the prom.
Naomi Knight
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#230 - 2011-11-14 22:26:22 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Nimrod Nemesis wrote:

So, you're taking a stand that this was IN MF, in which case your 30km+ optimal is absolutely misleading. Thank you for clearing that up.



Heh, hilariously if he's being "misleading" then almost the entirety of the "nerf Minmatar" crowd are too. Also, I'm not taking a side until the hybrid boost settles in because best case premature nerfing would end up end up making the wrong nerf for the wrong reasons.

-Liang

not taking side... yea sure def matar to bitter end liang...
Roosterton
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#231 - 2011-11-14 22:48:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Roosterton
Quote:
It's amazing what a little lying and some not-so-clever attempts at covering your tracks can generate in such a brief moment in time. I have to hand it to you, this has been too much fun.


Covering my tracks? What? I've admitted since yesterday that I made a mistake. How is this covering my tracks?

Quote:
I don't know where you're getting that from. Maybe you should look at what I quoted and the places I used quotation marks? Context clues make it blatantly obvious that sentence I keep repeating has been the focus of my posting.


*You quoted the post where I said you can 1172 DPS with IN MF is attainable.
*You then said "base dps" is a far cry from "attainable," which I can only assume means you don't accept 1172 DPS with MF as base DPS. If you meant anything apart from this, you badly worded your post, end of story.

Quote:
You don't give a damn? Heh. You've got a funny way of showing that. My critique of your bad numbers was relavent, and you could have put everything to rest by opening EFT and editing to accurately reflect the data. What you did instead was try to claim that you had implied a whole lot of things (which you clearly didn't imply) and that you had totally corrected yourself (which you didn't). So, in effect, you gave me free license to run you down over glaringly obvious inconsistency.


You're right, it was relevant the first time around. Then I admitted my mistake and said that this alone is not enough to dismiss all the comparisons as "way off," and you, in response to this, keep spouting off the same line over and over again as if it will change anything. Unless you've found another inaccuracy with any of my comparisons?

And please, link me quotes which prove I was trying to imply anything with my statistics. I'd love to see what you conjure up from your disfigured misinterpretations.

Quote:
I need not accuse you of anything else. The case has been laid out. All I have to do from here is laugh at your increasingly angsty replies. You clearly goofed. You clearly made an attempt to mask that goof with bullshit. You clearly got called on both and now you're quite upset. If you want to get the thread back on track, just stop posting like a teenage girl who was stood up at the prom.


Again, since when did I try to claim anything other than either
A) I had the wrong crystals in EFT
B) You tried telling me that 1172 DPS with MF is attainable

Both of these are true, neither of them is bullshit.

Quote:
If you want to get the thread back on track, just stop posting like a teenage girl who was stood up at the prom.


I already told you to make a deal; I made a mistake with having the wrong crystals in EFT, you made a mistake when you called me out on something which wasn't a mistake at all. Of course, you keep trying to deny that second one, so I'm not stopping until you stop. Neither one of them makes a bit of difference in the grand scheme of things, but hey, you seem to think that they do, so it's your choice.
Nimrod Nemesis
Doomheim
#232 - 2011-11-14 22:58:01 UTC
Roosterton wrote:

Covering my tracks? What? I've admitted since yesterday that I made a mistake. How is this covering my tracks?


And yet, here you are.

Roosterton wrote:

*You quoted the post where I said you can 1172 DPS with IN MF is attainable.
*You then said "base dps" is a far cry from "attainable," which I can only assume means you don't accept 1172 DPS with MF as base DPS. If you meant anything apart from this, you badly worded your post, end of story.


You've already visited this quote and it's plain as day that I was alluding to the 1200dps cold @ 30km figure you first suggested. End of story, indeed.

Roosterton wrote:

You're right, it was relevant the first time around. Then I admitted my mistake and said that this alone is not enough to dismiss all the comparisons as "way off," and you, in response to this, keep spouting off the same line over and over again as if it will change anything. Unless you've found another inaccuracy with any of my comparisons?


I don't have to find any new inaccuracies when you continue to dispense with this churlish ranting.

Roosterton wrote:

I already told you to make a deal; I made a mistake with having the wrong crystals in EFT, you made a mistake when you called me out on something which wasn't a mistake at all. Of course, you keep trying to deny that second one, so I'm not stopping until you stop. Neither one of them makes a bit of difference in the grand scheme of things, but hey, you seem to think that they do, so it's your choice.


Keep going sweetheart. This never gets old for me.
Roosterton
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#233 - 2011-11-14 23:01:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Roosterton
Quote:
You've already visited this quote and it's plain as day that I was alluding to the 1200dps cold @ 30km figure you first suggested. End of story, indeed.


If you're allowed to get away with claiming that crap from your badly worded statement, then I'm allowed to get away with claiming that I meant it (the Armageddon) gets 1200 dps cold and can apply its dps (not necessarily with IN MF, and not necessarily 1200) out to 30km, in which case neither of us made a mistake. Lol

After all, I said "1200 base DPS (implying a close range, normally used ammo type such as IN MF) and can apply it out to 30km" -> "it" in this case just referring to DPS, not necessarily the 1200 part.

Is it a far stretch? Perhaps. Is it just as reasonable as what you're claiming? Yes.

Your crappy post was anything but "clear." Stop backpedaling.

Quote:
I don't have to find any new inaccuracies when you continue to dispense with this churlish ranting.


So, I'll take it that the rest of my post is 100% correct? Glad you finally admitted it. Seems DarkAegix also admitted it, given that he's gone completely silent.

Quote:
Keep going sweetheart. This never gets old for me.


Realize that you're wrong -> "insert condescending and obnoxious line here"
Nimrod Nemesis
Doomheim
#234 - 2011-11-14 23:29:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Nimrod Nemesis
Roosterton wrote:

If you're allowed to get away with claiming that crap from your badly worded statement, then I'm allowed to get away with claiming that I meant it (the Armageddon) gets 1200 dps cold and can apply its dps (not necessarily with IN MF, and not necessarily 1200) out to 30km, in which case neither of us made a mistake. Lol


What did I get away with? I've spent every post since the very first harping on just one sentence. I never had to go any further than that because you've just kept the ball rolling.

Roosterton wrote:

So, I'll take it that the rest of my post is 100% correct? Glad you finally admitted it. Seems DarkAegix also admitted it, given that he's gone completely silent.


Another shameless attempt at a re-direct. Who needs the rest of your post when you can't even be honest about one sentence I highlighted?

What do I have to be wrong about? You've already admitted there were inaccuracies in what you posted. You just chose to come up with plausibly deniable reasons for why you were inaccurate rather than honestly state you mis-represented facts.

Far be it from me to point out you were being deliberately misleading, but those numbers speak for themselves. That's the point. Now, bring me another round of this "come at me bro," stuff so we can keep this going.
Roosterton
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#235 - 2011-11-14 23:32:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Roosterton
Nimrod Nemesis wrote:
Roosterton wrote:

If you're allowed to get away with claiming that crap from your badly worded statement, then I'm allowed to get away with claiming that I meant it (the Armageddon) gets 1200 dps cold and can apply its dps (not necessarily with IN MF, and not necessarily 1200) out to 30km, in which case neither of us made a mistake. Lol


What did I get away with? I've spent every post since the very first harping on just one sentence. I never had to go any further than that because you've just kept the ball rolling.


You're trying to "get away" with the notion that you were not actually talking about IN MF, despite the fact that you quoted a post where I said that you can get 1172 DPS with IN MF. Don't play dumb. Unless you really are that dumb?

Quote:
Another shameless attempt at a re-direct. Who needs the rest of your post when you can't even be honest about one sentence I highlighted?

What do I have to be wrong about? You've already admitted there were inaccuracies in what you posted, you just chose to come up with plausibly deniable reasons for why you were inaccurate rather than honestly state you mis-represented facts.


I am being honest about it, what do you think "I made a mistake" means? I'm just also expecting you to be honest about your equally harmless mistake. Of course, you care too much about your e-honor to be honest about that.

If you don't care to point out any other inaccuracies, then I take it everything else in my post is correct. After all, we started all this when I asked you "what inaccuracies are there in my post?"

Quote:
Far be it from me to point out you were being deliberately misleading, but those numbers speak for themselves. That's the point. Now, bring me another round of this "come at me bro," stuff so we can keep this going.


Too late, I responded before you edited this gem in.
Nimrod Nemesis
Doomheim
#236 - 2011-11-14 23:37:15 UTC
Roosterton wrote:

You're trying to "get away" with the notion that you were not actually talking about IN MF, despite the fact that you quoted a post where I said that you can get 1172 DPS with IN MF. Don't play dumb. Unless you really are that dumb?


You already quoted me on this, and feel free to do it again. I was alluding to the same post i've now quoted from you at least four times.

Roosterton wrote:
I am being honest about it, what do you think "I made a mistake" means? I'm just also expecting you to be honest about your equally harmless mistake. Of course, you care too much about your e-honor to be honest about that.


Oh of course, this is about my e-honor. It's not as though i've been very explicit about how your "harmless mistake," was grossly misleading and very much outside the realm of hapless typos.
Roosterton
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#237 - 2011-11-14 23:39:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Roosterton
Quote:
Oh of course, this is about my e-honor. It's not as though i've been very explicit about how your "harmless mistake," was grossly misleading and very much outside the realm of hapless typos.


Oh the horror! It's grossly misleading! Rather than doing 1200 DPS to 30km, the Geddon does 1200 DPS to 15km and 1000 DPS to 45km! See this? This throws my entire post off! There's no way this guy is trustworthy now!!!

Roll

Again: Post me some other inaccuracy with my numbers, and I might shut up and leave this thread. Until then, your argument holds no water.
Nimrod Nemesis
Doomheim
#238 - 2011-11-14 23:43:51 UTC
Roosterton wrote:

Oh the horror! It's grossly misleading! Rather than doing 1200 DPS to 30km, the Geddon does 1200 DPS to 15km and 1000 DPS to 45km! See this? This throws my entire post off! There's no way this guy is trustworthy now!!!


Yes, by your own admission you doubled the optimal of IN MF in your post. If giving a weapon system DOUBLE it's optimal in a comparison isn't grossly misleading, I don't know what is.

Considering your premise was to show objective balance, it certainly does call your credibility into quesiton.
m0cking bird
Doomheim
#239 - 2011-11-15 01:38:51 UTC
There is nothing wrong with Gallente ships. It is in fact a turret issue. Most pilots will choose a armour-Harbinger over a armour-Hurricane or Shield-stabber fleet issue over a plated-stabber fleet issue.

I have a bro that likes the shield-Omen navy issue over the armour Omen navy issue. Their are ships that have the speed and damage required to do what many want Gallente to do, but are not flown. It is very simple. Skirmishing is preferred in today's game over closing range. There are more option, hence more survivable. No matter where you go with this discussion it will always come back to this FACT. Serpentis ships are able to do most of what pilots want Gallente to become. They're not used much above frigate hulls...

Something has to be done to the overall hit-points of all ships and a general boost to close range pvp.

I'm for reducing battle-cruiser ehp for example and by 20 - 35%. That will limit the amount of time it takes for a battle-cruiser to bring down another battle-cruiser. That is a very good boost to small and solo pvp. Something. Gallente are suppose to good @ and every says (: /) they like to do.

Increasing web and scram, while decreasing disruptor range is also a boost to armour and most close range ships. Otherwise, most of you will never have any interest in close range ships for the most part. Like it already is. Making them fast alone will change nothing. Even with a slight increase in relative damage.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Top Belt for Fun
#240 - 2011-11-15 01:50:25 UTC
Naomi Knight wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
Nimrod Nemesis wrote:

So, you're taking a stand that this was IN MF, in which case your 30km+ optimal is absolutely misleading. Thank you for clearing that up.



Heh, hilariously if he's being "misleading" then almost the entirety of the "nerf Minmatar" crowd are too. Also, I'm not taking a side until the hybrid boost settles in because best case premature nerfing would end up end up making the wrong nerf for the wrong reasons.

-Liang

not taking side... yea sure def matar to bitter end liang...


I don't really care if we appropriately nerf projectiles. The problem is that I haven't seen the Hybrid boost hit TQ and I'm utterly unconvinced that Projectiles are hands down superior to lasers. If they are, its really really slight and probably not worth nerfing projectiles over or is rooted in something like the Omen sucking (which is an Omen problem).

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.