These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

[Proposal] Add stacking penalty to cargo expansion
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kaelie Onren
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#21 - 2012-06-29 00:04:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaelie Onren
Read again definitiion of adhominem in Wikipedia glitter.
I'm sure it says something about basing your arguement on the weakness of your opponents character, normally unfounded or unjustified claims.

You said I didn't read your wall of post, or implied I don't play eve. I did. I do. (the attack on character part) You are mistaken. You made an assumption that I didn't read because you assumed I didn't catch the point of your stacking penalty nerf. Or something. (the unfounded part, as you cannot possibly tell if I read or not ) Irregardless, you made adhominem arguement. QED.

So why don't you stop sounding like an angry child ( note the phrasing ) and try to convince us who did not understand your proposal fully. I mean, you do want support right? And you believe that we are mostly reasonable logical thinkers right?
It's not the readers fault if we are not as smart as you and cannot decipher all the side effects of your game rebalancing. Or whether or not you actually have put some proper thought behind it.

So please convince us that you have considered:
- that this may make indies actually combat capable ships or beginner mining ships?, an if so, does it completely obsolete frigate mining ships? You've heard of the battle badger? Does this make all indies battle badgers and battlebadgers viable combat ships?
- have you considered the lowered SP need to fly bigger hold indies? You removed the SP scaling dependency on Hull Upgrades.
- have you considered the CPU and Grid upgrades needed to to be done to make new useful lows useable? Will that have knock-on effects?
- Will the Orca now have a 50k m3 default hold?
- removing the use of expander make ships faster and bigger hull too. Personally I like this, but this may cause some balance issues too.
- will alpha ganks still be possible?

I don't think anyone is saying your idea is crap. ( so calm the testosterone ) but you can't call for a "rebalance ships" without a bit more proof that you thought it all through, and most importantly, convince us, the readership with the all powerful 'like' button, of it, and being snarky isn't the best strategy for this.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2012-06-30 03:15:53 UTC
Kaelie Onren wrote:
Read again definitiion of adhominem in Wikipedia glitter.
I'm sure it says something about basing your arguement on the weakness of your opponents character, normally unfounded or unjustified claims.

You said I didn't read your wall of post, or implied I don't play eve. I did. I do. (the attack on character part) You are mistaken. You made an assumption that I didn't read because you assumed I didn't catch the point of your stacking penalty nerf. Or something. (the unfounded part, as you cannot possibly tell if I read or not ) Irregardless, you made adhominem arguement. QED.
I wasn't talking about any difference of opinion you and I may have over whether or not my proposal is a good idea; on the contrary, you based your dismissal of my idea on things I never said.

So why don't you stop sounding like an angry child ( note the phrasing ) and try to convince us who did not understand your proposal fully. I mean, you do want support right? And you believe that we are mostly reasonable logical thinkers right?
It's not the readers fault if we are not as smart as you and cannot decipher all the side effects of your game rebalancing. Or whether or not you actually have put some proper thought behind it.

So please convince us that you have considered:
- that this may make indies actually combat capable ships or beginner mining ships?, an if so, does it completely obsolete frigate mining ships? You've heard of the battle badger? Does this make all indies battle badgers and battlebadgers viable combat ships?
I haven't proposed any combat buffs to industrials.
- have you considered the lowered SP need to fly bigger hold indies? You removed the SP scaling dependency on Hull Upgrades.
I haven't proposed any training time adjustments.
- have you considered the CPU and Grid upgrades needed to to be done to make new useful lows useable? Will that have knock-on effects?
This proposal isn't about the EHP of a tanky industrial, it's about giving cargo-fit industrials partial tank.
- Will the Orca now have a 50k m3 default hold?
Maybe. If it still had the same max cargohold size. Howabout 40k m3?
- removing the use of expander make ships faster and bigger hull too. Personally I like this, but this may cause some balance issues too.
An obvious solution is to increase the hit point and velocity reduction of cargo expanders to match. A fortunate side effect is that all industrials will use approximately the same number of cargo expanders, so they will get an even penalty, as opposed to the current system which favors ships with a larger base hold and fewer low slots by giving them less penalty.
- will alpha ganks still be possible?
They are possible on max-tanked industrials, orcas, and freighters. They will never not be possible. I'm also not talking about increasing max EHP anyway. If you're wondering about the change in EHP of cargo ships, then I stress to you that the majority of highsec couriers will not properly tank their industrials even if they are given the potential to do it without severely diminishing their cargohold room. I think giving players the option to tank their industrial a bit is completely reasonable, because it widens the gap between prepared players and unprepared players.

I don't think anyone is saying your idea is crap. ( so calm the testosterone ) but you can't call for a "rebalance ships" without a bit more proof that you thought it all through, and most importantly, convince us, the readership with the all powerful 'like' button, of it, and being snarky isn't the best strategy for this.

You're the one who's got your panties in a bunch over a few phrasing choices I have made. I'm simply distraught that you would insist so strongly on debunking my ideas without reading my post. I still have no evidence that you did read my post, because all of your posts so far on this thread have demonstrated to the contrary.

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."
Kaelie Onren
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#23 - 2012-06-30 05:23:30 UTC
Your last paragraph is classic ad hominem arguement.
There is not panties in a bunch. I thought my posts were very on the level and calling you for your attitude in posting. If you read my responses and read yours I think you would agree I'm not the one worked up about anything. ( while you resorted to cynical remarks to all who seemed opposed to you. You cannot have proof of anyone reading so you should not make any arguement attacking counter arguements based on that unprovable assumption. QED.

I'm just pointing that out, that's all.

To the points:
You didn't propose combat buffs, nor did I say you did. But you do realize that giving extra free low slots means that a person could fit some combat mods, like gyros.
Same goes for the speed buff. The effect is coming from the loss of penalties from expanders and increase via instabs and nanos.

Training time: You seem to have forgotten that if you don't need cargo expanders to get "big enough" cargo hold, then you effectively just lowered the training time to use a indie. ( notice how I didn't make some comment about how you missed that because of some adhominem personal jibe. )

I think if you are going to make orcas have close to their max capacity without expanders that will imbalance the use of the ship and may require a tweaking of its other holds.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#24 - 2012-06-30 05:42:58 UTC
Kaelie Onren wrote:
Your last paragraph is classic ad hominem arguement.
There is not panties in a bunch. I thought my posts were very on the level and calling you for your attitude in posting. If you read my responses and read yours I think you would agree I'm not the one worked up about anything. ( while you resorted to cynical remarks to all who seemed opposed to you. You cannot have proof of anyone reading so you should not make any arguement attacking counter arguements based on that unprovable assumption. QED.

I'm just pointing that out, that's all.

To the points:
You didn't propose combat buffs, nor did I say you did. But you do realize that giving extra free low slots means that a person could fit some combat mods, like gyros.
Same goes for the speed buff. The effect is coming from the loss of penalties from expanders and increase via instabs and nanos.
I'm not saying anything about adding low slots. I'm talking about freeing up low slots. A combat industrial wouldn't have cargo mods unless you just don't need that extra combat edge.

Training time: You seem to have forgotten that if you don't need cargo expanders to get "big enough" cargo hold, then you effectively just lowered the training time to use a indie. ( notice how I didn't make some comment about how you missed that because of some adhominem personal jibe. )
With my proposal, a cargo-fit industrial will have LESS cargo expanders, not NONE. But the skill requirements for them are virtually insignificant anyway. I didn't mention it because it didn't need to be mentioned.

I think if you are going to make orcas have close to their max capacity without expanders that will imbalance the use of the ship and may require a tweaking of its other holds.
If you think my proposal would have that effect, you either didn't read it carefully, didn't do your math (estimation would serve you well here) or both.

I'm not making ad hominems against you, you're simply unable to face the reality of how poorly you have thought out your posts. But every time I point it out to you, you just make yet another poorly thought out post trying desperately to prove to me how wrong I am. Why don't you just accept you might be wrong? I'm fully capable of accepting I'm wrong sometimes (rather often, really), and you would see that if you look through my posting history.

This is Assembly Hall, not a daycare. Lets bring this discussion back into mature game-related topics, shall we?

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."
Kaelie Onren
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#25 - 2012-07-01 04:56:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaelie Onren
Reaver Glitters wrote:

I'm not making ad hominems against you, you're simply unable to face the reality of how poorly you have thought out your posts. But every time I point it out to you, you just make yet another poorly thought out post trying desperately to prove to me how wrong I am. Why don't you just accept you might be wrong? I'm fully capable of accepting I'm wrong sometimes (rather often, really), and you would see that if you look through my posting history.

This is Assembly Hall, not a daycare. Lets bring this discussion back into mature game-related topics, shall we?


Thanks for illustrating another textbook example of adhominem.
Note that your last post added nothing to the arguement, except make attacks against me.
I'm beginning to think you either don't realize its your own credibility you are undermining here while also completely derailing this discussion from your proposal at hand. This will be the last you hear from me on this as my contribution to the topic is done. I'm happy to continue to battle wits with those who are unarmed but not in this forum.

EDIT: the extra free slots I mention is the extra free lows that indies get To use due to your proposal of making less expanders necessary for the same cargo capacity; *not* adding new ones as u assumed.
Viktor Fyretracker
Emminent Terraforming
#26 - 2012-07-01 05:02:59 UTC
I do not really see an issue with cargo expansion as is. Badgers have the smaller holds at times but they do have the benefit of leading to the best freighter.

EVE is like swimming on a beach in shark infested waters,  There is however a catch...  The EVE Beach you also have to wonder which fellow swimmer will try and eat you before the sharks.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2012-07-01 06:30:40 UTC
Kaelie Onren wrote:
Note that your last post added nothing to the arguement, except make attacks against me.

You missed the bold print then.

Viktor Fyretracker wrote:
I do not really see an issue with cargo expansion as is. Badgers have the smaller holds at times but they do have the benefit of leading to the best freighter.

I think a more important example of the need for larger base cargoholds is battlecruisers having the same cargohold size as destroyers. Their ammo is larger, but they don't have nearly as much room for it--currently, battlecruisers and battleships often devote nearly their entire cargohold to ammo, and thus don't have enough room to carry other items unless they don't plan to be out long.

Now it would not be prudent to increase their base cargohold capacity without adding a stacking penalty, because some of them have a lot of low slots, and as I have demonstrated with the armageddon example, even with the small base value at current, these ships are capable of having near-industrial size cargoholds with maximum expanders on.

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."
Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#28 - 2012-07-01 13:14:52 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Kaelie Onren wrote:
Note that your last post added nothing to the arguement, except make attacks against me.

You missed the bold print then.

Viktor Fyretracker wrote:
I do not really see an issue with cargo expansion as is. Badgers have the smaller holds at times but they do have the benefit of leading to the best freighter.

I think a more important example of the need for larger base cargoholds is battlecruisers having the same cargohold size as destroyers. Their ammo is larger, but they don't have nearly as much room for it--currently, battlecruisers and battleships often devote nearly their entire cargohold to ammo, and thus don't have enough room to carry other items unless they don't plan to be out long.

Now it would not be prudent to increase their base cargohold capacity without adding a stacking penalty, because some of them have a lot of low slots, and as I have demonstrated with the armageddon example, even with the small base value at current, these ships are capable of having near-industrial size cargoholds with maximum expanders on.

Theres actually a reason for this. Dessies have 8 rapidly firing guns, and can go through ammo really fast. In the long run (generally PvE because dessies don't usually live very long otherwise) a destroyer will use more ammo m3-wise than a BS.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#29 - 2012-07-01 13:27:53 UTC
Corina Jarr wrote:
Theres actually a reason for this. Dessies have 8 rapidly firing guns, and can go through ammo really fast. In the long run (generally PvE because dessies don't usually live very long otherwise) a destroyer will use more ammo m3-wise than a BS.

Incorrect. Small ammo takes up far less space, and thus even though a destroyer fires faster, it still uses up ammo space much slower. A thrasher can fire 200mm autocannons for 15 hours while a maelstrom can fire 800mm autocannons for only 3 hours. But with 150% more base cargohold space, it would be able to hold enough ammo to fire for 7.5 hours.

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."
Previous page12