These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Interdiction Nullfied Interceptors are not acceptable!!!

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#161 - 2013-09-29 08:55:31 UTC
PotatoOverdose wrote:
baltec1 wrote:


Like everything there is always one moron who can mess it up. For example the waterproof Iphone update.


Again, you're just repeating the same exact ad hoc fallacy.

Person A: "No cloaky nullified T3 dies to gatecamps."
Person B: "Those cloaky nullified T3's died to a gatecamp."
Person A: "Then they were morons."


Still doesnt change the fact that these ships are impossible to catch in most peoples hands. These two subsystems should never have been allowed on the same ship.
Aeana K
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#162 - 2013-09-29 08:59:48 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:


[......] It is simply a change to make nullsec travel safer.


True. But nullsec is way too safe for its residens, with all these bubble traps. This change makes null a bit more harder for them.

It is amazing that you do not want to make null easier for non-nulls, but you want it to be still as much easy as possible for you...

Null sec should be the same dangerous for nulls and non-nulls in my opinion. And this change is in that direction.
PotatoOverdose
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#163 - 2013-09-29 09:01:46 UTC  |  Edited by: PotatoOverdose
baltec1 wrote:


Still doesnt change the fact that these ships are impossible to catch in most peoples hands. These two subsystems should never have been allowed on the same ship.

I see no facts presented by you at all, only unsupported generalizations and repeated use of fallacies.

Remote sebo'd ships catch nullified T3's, that is a fact not in dispute.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#164 - 2013-09-29 09:07:52 UTC
PotatoOverdose wrote:
baltec1 wrote:


Still doesnt change the fact that these ships are impossible to catch in most peoples hands. These two subsystems should never have been allowed on the same ship.

I see no facts presented by you at all, only unsupported generalizations and repeated use of fallacies.

Remote sebo'd ships catch nullified T3's, that is fact not in dispute.


They only reason sebo ships lock them is because you are preying on highsec bears. They move before the cooldown is finished ontheir cloak or do not hit their cloak quickly enough.

As I said, this game should not be balanced around bad players. If it was then things like boomerang would not have been nerfed.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#165 - 2013-09-29 09:10:06 UTC
Aeana K wrote:
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:


[......] It is simply a change to make nullsec travel safer.


True. But nullsec is way too safe for its residens, with all these bubble traps. This change makes null a bit more harder for them.

It is amazing that you do not want to make null easier for non-nulls, but you want it to be still as much easy as possible for you...

Null sec should be the same dangerous for nulls and non-nulls in my opinion. And this change is in that direction.


We infact think this change is going to make null too safe for some people.
PotatoOverdose
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#166 - 2013-09-29 09:12:38 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
PotatoOverdose wrote:
baltec1 wrote:


Still doesnt change the fact that these ships are impossible to catch in most peoples hands. These two subsystems should never have been allowed on the same ship.

I see no facts presented by you at all, only unsupported generalizations and repeated use of fallacies.

Remote sebo'd ships catch nullified T3's, that is fact not in dispute.


They only reason sebo ships lock them is because you are preying on highsec bears. They move before the cooldown is finished ontheir cloak or do not hit their cloak quickly enough.

As I said, this game should not be balanced around bad players. If it was then things like boomerang would not have been nerfed.


Again, with the same exact ad hoc fallacy. Do you really have no better arguments to present?

Person A: "No cloaky nullified T3 dies to gatecamps."
Person B: "Those cloaky nullified T3's died to a gatecamp."
Person A: "Then they were highsec bears/bad players."

Present facts or quit your moaning.
TharOkha
0asis Group
#167 - 2013-09-29 09:15:34 UTC  |  Edited by: TharOkha
PotatoOverdose wrote:
QQ we can't make our systems safe with bubbles alone. Cry some more.

For some reason cloaky nullified T3's die to remote seboed camps in lowsec often enough. Maybe because the locals adapted?


This is an excelent point. Sorry baltec but your statements are just vague. Your "uncatcheable skilled T3s pilots" are catcheable. There are already tools for that. I saw many t3s that have been killed in lowsec gatecamps. They are using trash around the gates (like wrecks, cans, probes or simply orbiting drones) so cloaky ships cannot cloak during align. They are using smartbombs to decloak aligning ship or they are using remote sensor boosted ships so they can lock ships almost instantly (although i agree that skilled t3 pilot can get through resebo gatecamps ). And guess what. They cannot use bubbles. And if you have trouble to catch t3 pilots with excelent flying skills then you just need gatecamp with excelent pilots and better gatecamp setup also. Not just sloppy pilots and buble with "Turn ON" button.

baltec1 wrote:
As I said, this game should not be balanced around bad players. If it was then things like boomerang would not have been nerfed.


I agree. Just because you are bad at catching t3s there is no valid point to nerf nullifies. Like trash around gates. Even T3 pilots with godlike skills cannot cloak near trash = you can catch them. The tools are already ingame. You just dont use them.

CODE. Venture hunt contest in a nutshell
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#168 - 2013-09-29 09:21:37 UTC
PotatoOverdose wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
PotatoOverdose wrote:
baltec1 wrote:


Still doesnt change the fact that these ships are impossible to catch in most peoples hands. These two subsystems should never have been allowed on the same ship.

I see no facts presented by you at all, only unsupported generalizations and repeated use of fallacies.

Remote sebo'd ships catch nullified T3's, that is fact not in dispute.


They only reason sebo ships lock them is because you are preying on highsec bears. They move before the cooldown is finished ontheir cloak or do not hit their cloak quickly enough.

As I said, this game should not be balanced around bad players. If it was then things like boomerang would not have been nerfed.


Again, with the same exact ad hoc fallacy. Do you really have no better arguments to present?

Person A: "No cloaky nullified T3 dies to gatecamps."
Person B: "Those cloaky nullified T3's died to a gatecamp."
Person A: "Then they were highsec bears/bad players."

Present facts or quit your moaning.


I just described how you are catching them.

There is a reason why just about every gatecamp/roam/fleet ignores T3s that land on a gate or jump through. Why do you think big fleets always sent their T3 bonus ships into system first dispite there being muliple full fleets on the gate?

Its because the enemy couldn't stop them.
PotatoOverdose
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#169 - 2013-09-29 09:27:29 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

I just described how you are catching them.

There is a reason why just about every gatecamp/roam/fleet ignores T3s that land on a gate or jump through. Why do you think big fleets always sent their T3 bonus ships into system first dispite there being muliple full fleets on the gate?

Its because the enemy couldn't stop them.

Just because your gatecamps ignore T3's does not mean all gatecamps ignore T3's. That's called a fallacy of composition.

Cloaky nullified T3's get caught by remote sebo'd camps. Fact. Refute it without resorting to logical fallacies, please.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#170 - 2013-09-29 09:41:35 UTC
PotatoOverdose wrote:
baltec1 wrote:

I just described how you are catching them.

There is a reason why just about every gatecamp/roam/fleet ignores T3s that land on a gate or jump through. Why do you think big fleets always sent their T3 bonus ships into system first dispite there being muliple full fleets on the gate?

Its because the enemy couldn't stop them.

Just because your gatecamps ignore T3's does not mean all gatecamps ignore T3's. That's called a fallacy of composition.

Cloaky nullified T3's get caught by remote sebo'd camps. Fact. Refute it without resorting to logical fallacies, please.


And I have told you how those sebo camps are doing it.

Your entire argument revolves around bad players being terrible at flying T3s therefore its fine. You ignore the fact that these are the only ships that are invincible when flown right and demand I post evidence that is impossible to collect while providing none yourself. This seems to be a new recuring tactic of the bears desperate to keep the game imbalances that benefit them.

In every war we have fought in the last year I cannot recall losing a single T3 booster to a camp.
PotatoOverdose
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#171 - 2013-09-29 09:51:34 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
PotatoOverdose wrote:
baltec1 wrote:

I just described how you are catching them.

There is a reason why just about every gatecamp/roam/fleet ignores T3s that land on a gate or jump through. Why do you think big fleets always sent their T3 bonus ships into system first dispite there being muliple full fleets on the gate?

Its because the enemy couldn't stop them.

Just because your gatecamps ignore T3's does not mean all gatecamps ignore T3's. That's called a fallacy of composition.

Cloaky nullified T3's get caught by remote sebo'd camps. Fact. Refute it without resorting to logical fallacies, please.


And I have told you how those sebo camps are doing it.

Your entire argument revolves around bad players being terrible at flying T3s therefore its fine. You ignore the fact that these are the only ships that are invincible when flown right and demand I post evidence that is impossible to collect while providing none yourself. This seems to be a new recuring tactic of the bears desperate to keep the game imbalances that benefit them.

In every war we have fought in the last year I cannot recall losing a single T3 booster to a camp.

No, you have told me that all T3's that get caught are bad, an ad hoc fallacy.

I could just as easily say the pilots you fly with are terrible at gatecamping.

You have provided no facts to support your position whatsoever, only conjecture and opinion. My evidence? All of the t3's that die to remote seboed camps, something that is not in dispute.

All I see in your posts is yet another QQ to get CCP to help you protect your space and your bears. QQ all you want, bubbles alone will not make your systems safe.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#172 - 2013-09-29 09:59:32 UTC
PotatoOverdose wrote:

All I see in your posts is yet another QQ to get CCP to help you protect your space and your bears. QQ all you want, bubbles alone will not make your systems safe.


Fun fact: We benefit from these uncatchable ships and if they get nerfed it would hurt us.

Unlike you however we will push to get imbalances fixed even if it hurts us for the greater good of the game.
TharOkha
0asis Group
#173 - 2013-09-29 10:02:55 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

Your entire argument revolves around bad players being terrible at flying T3s therefore its fine.


Did you read my post or are you just ignoring the fact that i already wrote how to catch skilled t3 pilots?

CODE. Venture hunt contest in a nutshell
PotatoOverdose
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#174 - 2013-09-29 10:06:04 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
PotatoOverdose wrote:

All I see in your posts is yet another QQ to get CCP to help you protect your space and your bears. QQ all you want, bubbles alone will not make your systems safe.


Fun fact: We benefit from these uncatchable ships and if they get nerfed it would hurt us.

Unlike you however we will push to get imbalances fixed even if it hurts us for the greater good of the game.

Just like you lot pushed to get bombers nerfed a year or two ago? Lol How'd that work out for ya? Cool

But I'm sure CCP will see you for the magnanimous pilots you are, and will award you seven guardian-vexors for your service to the public good.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#175 - 2013-09-29 10:11:36 UTC
PotatoOverdose wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
PotatoOverdose wrote:

All I see in your posts is yet another QQ to get CCP to help you protect your space and your bears. QQ all you want, bubbles alone will not make your systems safe.


Fun fact: We benefit from these uncatchable ships and if they get nerfed it would hurt us.

Unlike you however we will push to get imbalances fixed even if it hurts us for the greater good of the game.

Just like you lot pushed to get bombers nerfed a year or two ago? Lol How'd that work out for ya? Cool

But I'm sure CCP will see you for the magnanimous pilots you are, and will award you seven guardian-vexors for your service to the public good.


We have never pushed for bombers to be nerfed. Hell, we just burned down delve and fountain with them. The fountain war was dubbed the bomber war.
Solstice Project's Alt
Doomheim
#176 - 2013-09-29 11:53:03 UTC
The only thing this thread achieves is to make you look like whining cowards ...

Buy Solstice Project for PLEX4GOOD ! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=301266 (this alt-character will get deleted once the sale is done, on 6th of december)
Gogela
Epic Ganking Time
CODE.
#177 - 2013-09-29 11:55:48 UTC
TharOkha wrote:
Gogela wrote:
Blockade runners can't be caught in lowsec.

P


Check out the Rancer and Negative Ten KB and you will find that BRs are not so "uncatchable".

You shut your whore mouth. They are impossible to catch if a pod has the very basic fundamental skills of flying a blockade runner. If you loose one you are an idiot.

Signatures should be used responsibly...
Solstice Project's Alt
Doomheim
#178 - 2013-09-29 11:56:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Solstice Project's Alt
Gogela wrote:
TharOkha wrote:
Gogela wrote:
Blockade runners can't be caught in lowsec.

P


Check out the Rancer and Negative Ten KB and you will find that BRs are not so "uncatchable".

You shut your ***** mouth. They are impossible to catch if a pod has the very basic fundamental skills of flying a blockade runner. If you loose one you are an idiot.
You are totally embarrassing yourself right now ...
... and i doubt your words.

Maybe you just lack the skills. I sense some serious madness in you. "You shut your ***** mouth" ...

Also: lose

Buy Solstice Project for PLEX4GOOD ! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=301266 (this alt-character will get deleted once the sale is done, on 6th of december)
Kitty Bear
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#179 - 2013-09-29 12:07:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Kitty Bear
TharOkha wrote:
baltec1 wrote:

Your entire argument revolves around bad players being terrible at flying T3s therefore its fine.


Did you read my post or are you just ignoring the fact that i already wrote how to catch skilled t3 pilots?


like a number of nulsec posters, he only ever uses tiers 2-4 of the argument pyramid
ie ad hominem through to contradiction

for some allegedly intelligent people they appear to have remarkably poor debating skills, though it is possible some of them do it deliberately to avoid the forum rules regarding direct trolling & personal attacks (tier 1 of the argument pyramid) ... but either way you are being trolled

your best and easiest course of action
click their name just below the avatar
click hide posts

and say hello to a happier, more troll free forum.
Liam Inkuras
Furnace
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
#180 - 2013-09-29 12:08:43 UTC
Hey, at least we get pretty new bubble effects to laugh at while we pass through them

I wear my goggles at night.

Any spelling/grammatical errors come complimentary with my typing on a phone