These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

Best way to make HACs mighty again? remove rigs from tech 3 ships
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Aiifa
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2012-09-19 16:13:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Aiifa
work in progress

In anticipation of more bumbling and overzealous rebalancing, I look to the still pretty viable and innocent Assault Cruisers with a mixture of fondness and fear.

Strategic Cruisers were meant to be Jacks of all Trades and masters of none. Sadly, the huge price and crazy subsystem bonuses (particularly defensive ones) made throwing isk at them to give them battleship tanks viable; and greater turret slots than their HAC counterparts giving them almost battleship damage making most other ship choices unappealing.

The skillpoint loss is a disincentive, but it's not a damn balancing mechanic. You nutters.

HACs can still do unique things. Zealots, vagas and diemosts are quite nimble, ishtars are pve queens, sacrileges make superb station game boats or so I hear. But their niches have been impinged upon by the pocket battleships that strats have become.

And I argue that most of what makes strats so painfully ubiquitous and mudflatedly essential is the rigs stacking with the tanks. Or the powergrids.

Removing rigs from strats would remove trimarks from already base armour hp bonused legions and protes, while still giving them sizeable tanks if needed. It would also make 100mn ab strats much harder to fit, in line with other cruisers.

And what's more, it would mean that one tech3 could really fit multiple roles, as tech3s were originally meant to. The specificity and permanence of rigs, once removed, could mean that a loki really could carry around the equipment required to switch from AHAC mode with long range webs to ratting mode with a killer xlasb tank.
Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#2 - 2012-09-19 16:56:50 UTC
Aiifa wrote:
work in progress

In anticipation of more bumbling and overzealous rebalancing, I look to the still pretty viable and innocent Assault Cruisers with a mixture of fondness and fear.

Strategic Cruisers were meant to be Jacks of all Trades and masters of none. Sadly, the huge price and crazy subsystem bonuses (particularly defensive ones) made throwing isk at them to give them battleship tanks; and greater turret slots than their HAC counterparts giving them almost battleship damage.

The skillpoint loss is a disincentive, but it's not a damn balancing mechanic. You nutters.

HACs can still do unique things. Zealots, vagas and diemosts are quite nimble, ishtars are pve queens, sacrileges make superb station game boats or so I hear. But their niches have been impinged upon by the pocket battleships that strats have become.

And I argue that most of what makes strats so painfully ubiquitous and mudflatedly essential is the rigs stacking with the tanks. Or the powergrids.

Removing rigs from strats would remove trimarks from already base armour hp bonused legions and protes, while still giving them sizeable tanks if needed. It would also make 100mn ab strats much harder to fit, in line with other cruisers.

And what's more, it would mean that one tech3 could really fit multiple roles, as tech3s were originally meant to. The specificity and permanence of rigs, once removed, could mean that a loki really could carry around the equipment required to switch from AHAC mode with long range webs to ratting mode with a killer xlasb tank.

Ok, straight off, any ship without rigs will enver be used in pvp, and without rigs, you doulnt even use tengus for sleepers without either twice the fleet, or twice the logi.

and since you now require shittons of players to complete sleepers, anything outside of a C5 or C6 after this change would become pointles to do, and a C5/6 would be so little payout per member that very few would try and live there. not to mention that with T3's now becoming less-favorable then a cruiser, but still annoying as crap to build, WH would ebcome less profitable then lowsec, and everyone would leave.

So no, changing a few small stats here and there, eys, but removing rigs? that would make a ship that takes a ton fo time to gt "decent" skills for, and a ton of resources to produce, a ****** ship that you have to fit with so much tnak in the mids/lows that it no longer has DPS and will never see the light of undock again (hell, alot of people would prolly just reprocess and build something else).
Vaal Hadren
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#3 - 2012-09-19 16:57:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaal Hadren
Heathen!

It's not a bad suggestion at all tbh, which is why i'm respectfully opposed and a little concerned. It's actually a very sane proposal although it would considerably 'nerf' TIII's (the tears will flow). [Edit: LOL - See Above xD ]

But it would justify TII Cruisers as you said without the compounding problems that a buff hammer may (and probably will) introduce.

As a compromise, how about increasing the calibration for TII ships (instead)?

Quote:
And I argue that most of what makes strats so painfully ubiquitous and mudflatedly essential is the rigs stacking with the tanks. Or the powergrids.


Though i would HATE to see them go, it's hard to argue with this ^

[Second Edit]

Actually this has got me thinking. One needn't go so far, a reduction to two or even one rig is an interesting option. I was going to suggest that maybe TIII and TII rig options should be reversed so that it's the TII's that get 3 slots. . . but that would throw things out of proportion with regard to TII frigs (i'm thinking AF's here). *shudders*

Still, this is an interesting approach to the 'problem' (which is not TIII's (Tengu aside and THAT is wholly a subsystems [and HML] issue) but rather the current near-obsolescence of TII Cruisers (particularly HAC's) next to current TIII's and Battlecruisers.
Gypsio III
State War Academy
Caldari State
#4 - 2012-09-19 17:21:56 UTC
Nariya Kentaya wrote:


and since you now require shittons of players to complete sleepers, anything outside of a C5 or C6 after this change would become pointles to do, and a C5/6 would be so little payout per member that very few would try and live there. not to mention that with T3's now becoming less-favorable then a cruiser, but still annoying as crap to build, WH would ebcome less profitable then lowsec, and everyone would leave.


Surely you're joking?
Aiifa
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2012-09-19 17:35:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Aiifa
Nariya Kentaya wrote:
Aiifa wrote:
work in progress

In anticipation of more bumbling and overzealous rebalancing, I look to the still pretty viable and innocent Assault Cruisers with a mixture of fondness and fear.

Strategic Cruisers were meant to be Jacks of all Trades and masters of none. Sadly, the huge price and crazy subsystem bonuses (particularly defensive ones) made throwing isk at them to give them battleship tanks; and greater turret slots than their HAC counterparts giving them almost battleship damage.

The skillpoint loss is a disincentive, but it's not a damn balancing mechanic. You nutters.

HACs can still do unique things. Zealots, vagas and diemosts are quite nimble, ishtars are pve queens, sacrileges make superb station game boats or so I hear. But their niches have been impinged upon by the pocket battleships that strats have become.

And I argue that most of what makes strats so painfully ubiquitous and mudflatedly essential is the rigs stacking with the tanks. Or the powergrids.

Removing rigs from strats would remove trimarks from already base armour hp bonused legions and protes, while still giving them sizeable tanks if needed. It would also make 100mn ab strats much harder to fit, in line with other cruisers.

And what's more, it would mean that one tech3 could really fit multiple roles, as tech3s were originally meant to. The specificity and permanence of rigs, once removed, could mean that a loki really could carry around the equipment required to switch from AHAC mode with long range webs to ratting mode with a killer xlasb tank.

Ok, straight off, any ship without rigs will enver be used in pvp, and without rigs, you doulnt even use tengus for sleepers without either twice the fleet, or twice the logi.

and since you now require shittons of players to complete sleepers, anything outside of a C5 or C6 after this change would become pointles to do, and a C5/6 would be so little payout per member that very few would try and live there. not to mention that with T3's now becoming less-favorable then a cruiser, but still annoying as crap to build, WH would ebcome less profitable then lowsec, and everyone would leave.

So no, changing a few small stats here and there, eys, but removing rigs? that would make a ship that takes a ton fo time to gt "decent" skills for, and a ton of resources to produce, a ****** ship that you have to fit with so much tnak in the mids/lows that it no longer has DPS and will never see the light of undock again (hell, alot of people would prolly just reprocess and build something else).


you sound laughably unimaginative bro. I will happily loot your alliances dead and dying poses when you all failcascade because of your hilarious reliance on tengus.

Rigs would be left on all the other ships in the game. Only the four strategic cruisers would lack Rigs. I feel all tech 3 ships should not have rigs. I often fly ships in pvp that have no rigs, or rigs totally irrelevant to their particular performance in that fight. They're not compulsory. Who said strats would ever be less favourable? There is no other way to get those awesome ewar bonuses with a decent armour tank, for example.

Vaal Hadren wrote:

As a compromise, how about increasing the calibration for TII ships (instead)?


Thankyou for your reasonable response. Seriously. It makes a nice change.

They all get 400 cal which is more than enough. Removing rigs and rig slots altogether from tech 3s is what will make a difference. CCP can reimburse the rig value to the owner character, I don't care.

Your dilutions of my idea are sweet but futile. Take rigs off tech3s. It is so simple it's elegant.
Vaal Hadren
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#6 - 2012-09-19 18:27:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaal Hadren
Quote:
Your dilutions of my idea are sweet but futile. Take rigs off tech3s. It is so simple it's elegant.

Don't be so hasty, dear.

There is a firmly objective objection to removing rigs completely and it is this:

For almost EVERY other rig there is a module equivalent with the overt exception of both flare and rigor rigs for missiles.

These 'augments' are unique to rigs, and, dare I say, vital for dedicated missile ships.

A tracking enhancer, for example, grants 'flare and rigor' (so to speak) for turrets, and a heat sink / gyro / mag stab grant damage and rate of fire for turrets.

But for missiles, module wise, there are only Ballistic Controls.

And before you suggest that I'm a thumb sucking Tengu brat, I fly HAM legions.

Thus, although again, I find your approach refreshingly original, I can't support it, although again I think a look at rigs could indeed play a role in addressing the 'problem'.
Furry Commander
Furry Armada
#7 - 2012-09-19 18:50:25 UTC
I honestly do not think T3s will remain overpowered for long. if the massive (overall) buffs being passed out continue up the chain, i think in time we will see the T2 cruisers start to be able to outshine T3s within their fields of expertise.

Honestly removing rigs from T3s seems a poor idea. rigs are fun and make fitting ships more interesting. i would rather see CCP make the jury rigging skill effect calibration points so there is a point to train level 5, and tweak the rest of the rigs (particularly the drawbacks) to make them less similar.

In addition to that i think CCP should revisit the "standard" rig configurations. as it stands they are very boring. i don't think t3s should have the same rigging potential as a rifter. thats probably a bit off topic though.

TL;DR
leave the rigs on, T2s will be buffed soon enough.
Aiifa
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2012-09-19 19:06:15 UTC
Vaal Hadren wrote:
Quote:
Your dilutions of my idea are sweet but futile. Take rigs off tech3s. It is so simple it's elegant.

Don't be so hasty, dear.

There is a firmly objective objection to removing rigs completely and it is this:

For almost EVERY other rig there is a module equivalent with the overt exception of both flare and rigor rigs for missiles.

These 'augments' are unique to rigs, and, dare I say, vital for dedicated missile ships.

A tracking enhancer, for example, grants 'flare and rigor' (so to speak) for turrets, and a heat sink / gyro / mag stab grant damage and rate of fire for turrets.

But for missiles, module wise, there are only Ballistic Controls.

And before you suggest that I'm a thumb sucking Tengu brat, I fly HAM legions.

Thus, although again, I find your approach refreshingly original, I can't support it, although again I think a look at rigs could indeed play a role in addressing the 'problem'.


Don't be so narrow-minded, presumed roleplayer.

Want the effects of rigor and flare rigs without the rigs? Use Rapid Light Missile Launchers on your tengu. Or Legion!

Furry Commander wrote:

I honestly do not think T3s will remain overpowered for long. if the massive (overall) buffs being passed out continue up the chain, i think in time we will see the T2 cruisers start to be able to outshine T3s within their fields of expertise.

Honestly removing rigs from T3s seems a poor idea. rigs are fun and make fitting ships more interesting. i would rather see CCP make the jury rigging skill effect calibration points so there is a point to train level 5, and tweak the rest of the rigs (particularly the drawbacks) to make them less similar.

In addition to that i think CCP should revisit the "standard" rig configurations. as it stands they are very boring. i don't think t3s should have the same rigging potential as a rifter. thats probably a bit off topic though.

TL;DR
leave the rigs on, T2s will be buffed soon enough.


The whole reason I am making this thread, suggesting that Tech3 ships be made the way they are clearly meant to be, is so heavy-handed "tiercide" style slot addition buffs that are likely to remove the character of t1 ships don't make HACs and recons bloated monstrosities. Waiting for CCP to mudflate the rest of the advanced cruisers is not a solution.

Rigs are indeed fun on other ships. On tech3s, they are obvious or totally exploitable especially when it comes to legions and protea with more base armor than double plated baddons or 100mn tengus moving faster than mwd vagabonds.

If you manufacture, you may need jury rigging 5.

TL;DR re-read OP you clearly missed the point
Loius Woo
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#9 - 2012-09-19 19:31:30 UTC
Instead of being so heavy handed, why not do two things, reduce the calibration of T3's such that they are limited in their rigging capability and give a heavy stacking penalty to Rigs when used in concert with T3 subsystem bonus's?

This way, rigs can still have an impact, but they won't stack so elegantly with T3 subs.

I think just removing rigs from T3 is a bit heavy-handed and doesn't really address the problems that you mention.
Vaal Hadren
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#10 - 2012-09-19 19:55:08 UTC
Aiifa wrote:
Don't be so narrow-minded, presumed roleplayer.

Want the effects of rigor and flare rigs without the rigs? Use Rapid Light Missile Launchers on your tengu. Or Legion!


So, your cure for both a love of character and the relative obsolescence of HAC's is stupidity?

You really haven't thought this through have you? Like, are you aware that Legion is bonused ONLY for HAM's? I even feel dirty having to write that.

I can no longer take you or this arrogantly asserted and whimsical solution seriously.

Pitty, was interesting for a while.
Furry Commander
Furry Armada
#11 - 2012-09-19 20:03:32 UTC
I don't think t3s are that bad... they are a little overpowered, especially the tengu, but the tiericide treatement seems so far to be largely beneficial. there are a few places where they might be too heavy handed or racially ambiguous, but overall the game is improving and ships that were sorely outclassed by virtually everything else are being elevated to match exsisting trends.

when designing and altering a game, the best approach is to try and make everything cool/fu/better without going overboard. heavy handed nerfs and dramatic changes on the level you are proposing is really not the best or most graceful option, not to mention in this case, kind of pointless given the other changes already taking place. maybe rigs on T3s do need to be looked at, but just removing them before we see the actual effects of the changes being made currently is bad design practice.
Ganthrithor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#12 - 2012-09-19 20:03:44 UTC
Yes lets make every ship class bad. There's nothing wrong with most T3 cruisers (covert / nullified boosters are pretty dumb though).
Alx Warlord
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#13 - 2012-09-19 20:14:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Alx Warlord
"Show me in the doll where the T3 touched you..."

come on, T3 are the highest technological advanced ship in New Eden, and you want to Nerf it to a T1 cruiser level? It makes no sense... You probably Fly HAC and want to get personal benefits on nerfing the T3 that makes so manny love EVE....

SO, You should be fighting to increase the HAC bonuses and quality... in a manner that if you spend the same amount of isk of a T3 you should have a better for ship for damage dealing....

Hmm also I think that CCP will ballance things soon....so wait for the time to come, and you can be the first to comment to the devs your opinion about the ballance of HACS

Please read these!

New POS system New SOV system
Aiifa
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2012-09-19 20:32:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Aiifa
Loius Woo wrote:
Instead of being so heavy handed, why not do two things, reduce the calibration of T3's such that they are limited in their rigging capability and give a heavy stacking penalty to Rigs when used in concert with T3 subsystem bonus's?

This way, rigs can still have an impact, but they won't stack so elegantly with T3 subs.

I think just removing rigs from T3 is a bit heavy-handed and doesn't really address the problems that you mention.


It addresses all of the problems I mentioned. Your proposed compromise only solves the stacking issues.

To re-iterate OP, tech3s were intended as go-anywhere jack of all trades. I don't want trimarks on my pve legion. Removing rigs is a more elegant solution.

Vaal Hadren wrote:

So, your cure for both a love of character and the relative obsolescence of HAC's is stupidity?

You really haven't thought this through have you? Like, are you aware that Legion is bonused ONLY for HAM's? I even feel dirty having to write that.

I can no longer take you or this arrogantly asserted and whimsical solution seriously.

Pitty, was interesting for a while.


Subsystem Skill Bonus:
5% bonus to heavy assault missile damage per level
5% bonus to missile launcher rate of fire per level

Who's stupid now? You were the one who called me "dear". Don't get so stressed out.

Furry Commander wrote:
I don't think t3s are that bad... they are a little overpowered, especially the tengu, but the tiericide treatement seems so far to be largely beneficial. there are a few places where they might be too heavy handed or racially ambiguous, but overall the game is improving and ships that were sorely outclassed by virtually everything else are being elevated to match exsisting trends.

when designing and altering a game, the best approach is to try and make everything cool/fu/better without going overboard. heavy handed nerfs and dramatic changes on the level you are proposing is really not the best or most graceful option, not to mention in this case, kind of pointless given the other changes already taking place. maybe rigs on T3s do need to be looked at, but just removing them before we see the actual effects of the changes being made currently is bad design practice.


Tech3s are great! Finally, I can play sneaky sneaky ewar boat without having to shield nano! They just don't really need the rigs to be a cool new class. And to be a cool new class which they already are, they don't need 150kehp tanks or 100mn ab fits.

Ships don't need to be elevated. Perfectly interesting and fun ships are being destroyed by these buffs. No-one will ever know this bliss of the unexpected bellicose, or the underestimated thorax. Or the ignored atron. I don't want these things to happen to the HACs.

"the best approach is NOT to try and make everything cool/fu/better" FTFY

and my OP makes a case for removing rigs from tech3s not being at all heavy handed, please address my argument.

Ganthrithor wrote:

strawman argument from extremes


get out, racist.

Alx Warlord wrote:

"Show me in the doll where the T3 touched you..."

come on, T3 are the highest technological advanced ship in New Eden, and you want to Nerf it to a T1 cruiser level? It makes no sense... You probably Fly HAC and want to get personal benefits on nerfing the T3 that makes so manny love EVE....

SO, You should be fighting to increase the HAC bonuses and quality... in a manner that if you spend the same amount of isk of a T3 you should have a better for ship for damage dealing....


I love my tech3 ships. Fly them all the time. It's eve on easy mode. You too are making a dumb argument from extremes. I want to nerf back to how it was intended. They won't fit rigs, but they can still be extremely awesome and do pretty much the same damage in most situations.

T1 ships will be different. They can fit rigs, but they are cheap and have correspondingly less performance.

Read the OP. Don't bloat and buff when you can keep the game balanced.

ISK isn't a balancing mechanic.
Astroniomix
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#15 - 2012-09-19 20:40:12 UTC
Aiifa wrote:
trimarks on my pve legion.

Being stupid isn't a good excuse to nerf t3s into the ground.
Furry Commander
Furry Armada
#16 - 2012-09-19 20:53:07 UTC
bouncing about ripping features from ships willy nilly is heavy handed... period

T3s have rigs as a feature. removing them because someone figured out a few specific fits or tricks that result in large buffers or high speeds happens classifies as heavy handed

I am not saying the idea that rigs on t3s being changed or altered is bad, just that removing them altogether is too much and most importantly does not fit with the way this game is being developed and evolved.

removing them is a nerf
everything else is getting buffed in some shape or form
removing them is not the only potential way to make an alteration and is to unfocused of a change
bashing one idea into the ground will just weaken your stance

propose some alternatives
make it mesh with current design agenda
take some time to really think about what people are telling you, even if they come off as a bit nasty this isn't a competition its a brain storming session.
Ganthrithor
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#17 - 2012-09-19 21:17:35 UTC
Seriously, T3s aren't overpowered. They're generally good generalist ships but are usually inferior to HACs / Recons when it comes to the T2-specific attributes (for example, web range on a bonused Loki is inferior to the Huginn/Rapier, point range on a Proteus is the same, damage output from pure DPS fits is usually close to HAC fits, but they usually trade the pure mobility of a HAC for a bigger tank.

v0v I don't think they're particularly overpowered, especially given the massive cost increase of T3s over T2s (Yes, someone will cry that "cost-effectiveness means nothing!" but, really though, they're wrong. How many people are actually willing to shell out 6-700M for marginally better performance in some areas compared to a 200M isk HAC? Not that many).
Furry Commander
Furry Armada
#18 - 2012-09-19 21:27:45 UTC
Ganthrithor wrote:
Seriously, T3s aren't overpowered. They're generally good generalist ships but are usually inferior to HACs / Recons when it comes to the T2-specific attributes (for example, web range on a bonused Loki is inferior to the Huginn/Rapier, point range on a Proteus is the same, damage output from pure DPS fits is usually close to HAC fits, but they usually trade the pure mobility of a HAC for a bigger tank.

v0v I don't think they're particularly overpowered, especially given the massive cost increase of T3s over T2s (Yes, someone will cry that "cost-effectiveness means nothing!" but, really though, they're wrong. How many people are actually willing to shell out 6-700M for marginally better performance in some areas compared to a 200M isk HAC? Not that many).



this is more or less true, its just a few specific fits really that skew the concept, and the tengu is just a bit to good and the legion and proteus could use a little tweaking i think. I do think that T2 cruisers could use a slight buff, but nothing as significant as the T1s which sorely needed something. with all the changes in ships, i think T3s will need to be re-evaluated, but not on the level that a lot of people seem to think in this thread. I do think having some sort of ability to switch rigs without destroying them would be cool on T3s would be a good idea though since they are so modular.
Astroniomix
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#19 - 2012-09-19 21:45:25 UTC
Furry Commander wrote:
Ganthrithor wrote:
Seriously, T3s aren't overpowered. They're generally good generalist ships but are usually inferior to HACs / Recons when it comes to the T2-specific attributes (for example, web range on a bonused Loki is inferior to the Huginn/Rapier, point range on a Proteus is the same, damage output from pure DPS fits is usually close to HAC fits, but they usually trade the pure mobility of a HAC for a bigger tank.

v0v I don't think they're particularly overpowered, especially given the massive cost increase of T3s over T2s (Yes, someone will cry that "cost-effectiveness means nothing!" but, really though, they're wrong. How many people are actually willing to shell out 6-700M for marginally better performance in some areas compared to a 200M isk HAC? Not that many).



this is more or less true, its just a few specific fits really that skew the concept, and the tengu is just a bit to good and the legion and proteus could use a little tweaking i think. I do think that T2 cruisers could use a slight buff, but nothing as significant as the T1s which sorely needed something. with all the changes in ships, i think T3s will need to be re-evaluated, but not on the level that a lot of people seem to think in this thread. I do think having some sort of ability to switch rigs without destroying them would be cool on T3s would be a good idea though since they are so modular.

Tengu will proably be brought more in line with the others once the Heavy Missile nerf hits.
Sigras
Conglomo
#20 - 2012-09-19 22:24:04 UTC
Ganthrithor wrote:
Seriously, T3s aren't overpowered. They're generally good generalist ships but are usually inferior to HACs / Recons when it comes to the T2-specific attributes (for example, web range on a bonused Loki is inferior to the Huginn/Rapier, point range on a Proteus is the same, damage output from pure DPS fits is usually close to HAC fits, but they usually trade the pure mobility of a HAC for a bigger tank.


Really? I cant think of anything the deimos does that the proteus doesnt do better . . . same with the cerb/tengu vaga/loki muninn/loki and zealot/legion not sure about the sac/legion but my gut tells me that the legion would wipe the floor with it.

I agree that the recon variants are balanced against their T2 counterparts, but the HAC version is definitely not; It is true that you can swap mobility for tank, but you have SO much extra tank on a T3, that you can drop 1-2 tank mods in most cases and get just as much if not more speed while maintaining a slight tank advantage.

Ganthrithor wrote:
v0v I don't think they're particularly overpowered, especially given the massive cost increase of T3s over T2s (Yes, someone will cry that "cost-effectiveness means nothing!" but, really though, they're wrong. How many people are actually willing to shell out 6-700M for marginally better performance in some areas compared to a 200M isk HAC? Not that many).

You, looking at the massive goon wallet, should be able to tell better than I. Cost effectiveness is something to balance around when everyone is poor, but when a few groups get obscenely rich, that balance factor goes out the window

For example. I would not spend $1,200.00 on a GTX 690 when a $700 GTX 680 runs 98.17% as fast, but if I were Bill Gates, why not? theyre both basically free anyway.
123Next pageLast page