These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Why do people fly BS?

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#241 - 2014-01-03 12:16:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Infinity Ziona wrote:
I'm sorry but if you're not getting it by now I don't think you ever will Tippia...
Oh, I got it from the very start: you are making faulty generalisation from your very narrow set of use-cases and you refuse to accept that your examples are not actually generalisable.

Anyone who attempts to expand the set and show the numerous uses battleships have gets labelled as bringing up irrelevant (read: inconvenient) facts because it's not something you, personally, do. Anyone who succeeds in use-cases where you fail get labelled as incompetent… somehow.

The facts remain: your generalisations are false; your claims are factually incorrect and/or ridiculously cherry-picked and you petulantly refuse to answer simple questions or support those claims; you keep moving the goal posts when you're (consistently and inevitably) proven wrong. It's fallacy city pretty much every time you post.
Arkady Romanov
Whole Squid
#242 - 2014-01-03 12:19:30 UTC
Tippia wrote:
headshot


~Did you ever know that you're my hero?
~You're everything I wish I could be.
~I could fly higher than an eagle,
~'cause you are the wind beneath my wings.

Whole Squid: Get Inked.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#243 - 2014-01-03 12:26:13 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
I'm sorry but if you're not getting it by now I don't think you ever will Tippia...
Oh, I got it from the very start: you are making faulty generalisation from your very narrow set of use-cases and you refuse to accept that your examples are not actually generalisable.

Anyone who attempts to expand the set and show the numerous uses battleships have gets labelled as bringing up irrelevant (read: inconvenient) facts because it's not something you, personally, do. Anyone who succeeds in use-cases where you fail get labelled as incompetent… somehow.

The facts remain: your generalisations are false; your claims are factually incorrect and/or ridiculously cherry-picked and you petulantly refuse to answer simple questions or support those claims; you keep moving the goal posts when you're (consistently and inevitably) proven wrong. It's fallacy city pretty much every time you post.

No, try again.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#244 - 2014-01-03 12:27:21 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
But nobody uses them that way. Restricting yourself in such a manner is what's pointless.

If your point was that battleships aren't good 1v1, then yeah you might have something there. But instead you made an unjustifiable extrapolation that battleships are terrible in general. They aren't.

1v1 is only one metric of a ship's abilities.

Gee, I wonder why he's ignoring this post.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#245 - 2014-01-03 12:27:28 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
No, try again.
Since I got it right the first time, it would just yield the same result.
Tasiv Deka
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#246 - 2014-01-03 14:34:13 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
I'm sorry but if you're not getting it by now I don't think you ever will Tippia...
Oh, I got it from the very start: you are making faulty generalisation from your very narrow set of use-cases and you refuse to accept that your examples are not actually generalisable.

Anyone who attempts to expand the set and show the numerous uses battleships have gets labelled as bringing up irrelevant (read: inconvenient) facts because it's not something you, personally, do. Anyone who succeeds in use-cases where you fail get labelled as incompetent… somehow.

The facts remain: your generalisations are false; your claims are factually incorrect and/or ridiculously cherry-picked and you petulantly refuse to answer simple questions or support those claims; you keep moving the goal posts when you're (consistently and inevitably) proven wrong. It's fallacy city pretty much every time you post.

No, try again.


Wow lost so bad you arent even going to try and argue... well to be honest that may be best however if you are going down that route go all the way and shut up completely.

Oh, Do go on... no seriously ive got nothing better to do then listen to all the petty arguments and feeble trolling attempts... 

The sad thing is i'm not sure if i'm telling the truth.
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#247 - 2014-01-03 15:00:09 UTC
Well this was fun.

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Ptraci
3 R Corporation
#248 - 2014-01-03 15:06:22 UTC
Malcanis wrote:

Now let's say that Thorax encountered an Armageddon. I would venture to say that the Thorax would do well to get the hell out of the grid as fast as it could.


Having been in a battleship fleet (Apocs) that took on a much, much larger (about 4 to 1) Thorax fleet last month and won, and after collecting 6 killmails from that engagement alone, all thoraxes, I think I can concur . They pop pretty darned fast :)
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#249 - 2014-01-03 15:30:28 UTC
Tasiv Deka wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
I'm sorry but if you're not getting it by now I don't think you ever will Tippia...
Oh, I got it from the very start: you are making faulty generalisation from your very narrow set of use-cases and you refuse to accept that your examples are not actually generalisable.

Anyone who attempts to expand the set and show the numerous uses battleships have gets labelled as bringing up irrelevant (read: inconvenient) facts because it's not something you, personally, do. Anyone who succeeds in use-cases where you fail get labelled as incompetent… somehow.

The facts remain: your generalisations are false; your claims are factually incorrect and/or ridiculously cherry-picked and you petulantly refuse to answer simple questions or support those claims; you keep moving the goal posts when you're (consistently and inevitably) proven wrong. It's fallacy city pretty much every time you post.

No, try again.


Wow lost so bad you arent even going to try and argue... well to be honest that may be best however if you are going down that route go all the way and shut up completely.

Actually I got stuck with babysitting my niece, had to watch Oz the Great and Powerful.

What's to argue? Tippia made a post full of opinion and snarky comment. Its not the first time nor will it be the last.

If they ever have something real to say, like what I provided, data, examples, fits, actual experience pvp'ing in and against battleships outside of a blob they can post that.

Until then its just opinion, snarky comments and a lot of stupid... not much for me to reply to.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#250 - 2014-01-03 15:39:42 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
But nobody uses them that way. Restricting yourself in such a manner is what's pointless.

If your point was that battleships aren't good 1v1, then yeah you might have something there. But instead you made an unjustifiable extrapolation that battleships are terrible in general. They aren't.

1v1 is only one metric of a ship's abilities.

Gee, I wonder why he's ignoring this post.

No they are terrible.

I gave a pretty good explanation why they are terrible too. Diminishing returns on fitted modules. In short fit a sebo to a frig it'll give you 600mm boost. Fit one to a cruiser it'll give you 400mm. Fit one to a battleship it'll give you 50mm. Same module.

You can fly around null fine in an Ishtar with a cloak, still get a decent lock time, try it in a battleship, you'll get 50 second lock times on frigs.

BS hulls are already stupidly nerfed for no real reason anyone here can seem to explain and they're further nerfed when fitting mods.

For all you little girly small ship people, how would you like it if you fit an officer mod to your little girly ship and because it was the ship you like to fly it somehow turned itself into a civilian module. Thats what happens whenever you fit a mod to a battleship that gives a ratio boost on a super nerfed attribute.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Arduemont
Rotten Legion
#251 - 2014-01-03 16:02:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Arduemont
Infinity Ziona wrote:

No they are terrible.


I think perhaps you should stop posting. You have literally an entire thread of people facepalming over each of your posts. Saying that you can't solo roam around nullsec and catch frigates in a battleship is like saying you can't screw lightbulbs in with a Pneumatic drill.

No you can't. But you can't drill holes in the pavement with your hand either. It's a false economy. To paraphrase Einstein 'If you judge a Battleship by its ability to lock frigates, it will live its whole life believing that it is terrible.'

"In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." www.stateofwar.co.nf
Eram Fidard
Doomheim
#252 - 2014-01-03 16:08:06 UTC
Tippia wrote:

The facts remain: your generalisations are false; your claims are factually incorrect and/or ridiculously cherry-picked and you petulantly refuse to answer simple questions or support those claims; you keep moving the goal posts when you're (consistently and inevitably) proven wrong. It's fallacy city pretty much every time you post.


You're essentially describing nearly every Infinity Ziona post ever made.

Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages.
Eram Fidard
Doomheim
#253 - 2014-01-03 16:10:10 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
But nobody uses them that way. Restricting yourself in such a manner is what's pointless.

If your point was that battleships aren't good 1v1, then yeah you might have something there. But instead you made an unjustifiable extrapolation that battleships are terrible in general. They aren't.

1v1 is only one metric of a ship's abilities.

Gee, I wonder why he's ignoring this post.

No they are terrible.

I gave a pretty good explanation why they are terrible too. Diminishing returns on fitted modules. In short fit a sebo to a frig it'll give you 600mm boost. Fit one to a cruiser it'll give you 400mm. Fit one to a battleship it'll give you 50mm. Same module.

You can fly around null fine in an Ishtar with a cloak, still get a decent lock time, try it in a battleship, you'll get 50 second lock times on frigs.

BS hulls are already stupidly nerfed for no real reason anyone here can seem to explain and they're further nerfed when fitting mods.

For all you little girly small ship people, how would you like it if you fit an officer mod to your little girly ship and because it was the ship you like to fly it somehow turned itself into a civilian module. Thats what happens whenever you fit a mod to a battleship that gives a ratio boost on a super nerfed attribute.




Hey look! It's the logical fallacy monster again, right on time for another Ziona post!

"I can't find a way to use a battleship so therefore there are no ways to use battleships"

Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages.
Eram Fidard
Doomheim
#254 - 2014-01-03 16:11:33 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:

No, try again.



I'm right, because.....because.....because....... IM RIHGTDAnmtiejnhdhsHDJHDSGJLKHJSAJLKHSJL

Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#255 - 2014-01-03 16:17:07 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
But nobody uses them that way. Restricting yourself in such a manner is what's pointless.

If your point was that battleships aren't good 1v1, then yeah you might have something there. But instead you made an unjustifiable extrapolation that battleships are terrible in general. They aren't.

1v1 is only one metric of a ship's abilities.

Gee, I wonder why he's ignoring this post.

No they are terrible.

I gave a pretty good explanation why they are terrible too. Diminishing returns on fitted modules. In short fit a sebo to a frig it'll give you 600mm boost. Fit one to a cruiser it'll give you 400mm. Fit one to a battleship it'll give you 50mm. Same module.


Same module, different ships. or do you think a 1mn afterburner is supposed to give the exact same boost to a titan as it does a rifter lol?

Battleships have worse resolution as a balance feature. if a BS could lock as fast as easily as a frig, everyone would be flying 1400 mm sensor booster target painter Maelstroms and machariels 100 km off gates an popping everyone.

Quote:

You can fly around null fine in an Ishtar with a cloak, still get a decent lock time, try it in a battleship, you'll get 50 second lock times on frigs.


In EVE, small ships have an easier time moving around and locking things, the bigger the ship, the more support it needs.

Quote:

BS hulls are already stupidly nerfed for no real reason anyone here can seem to explain and they're further nerfed when fitting mods.

For all you little girly small ship people, how would you like it if you fit an officer mod to your little girly ship and because it was the ship you like to fly it somehow turned itself into a civilian module. Thats what happens whenever you fit a mod to a battleship that gives a ratio boost on a super nerfed attribute.



I bolded the part that proves my earlier assertion about you Infinity. You like to fly battleships, and because you like to fly BS' you want them to be able to do everything you want them to do. This want of yours makes you short sighted to the reasons why you can't have what you want, because while it would be great for you, it would be bad for the game.

You do this all the time:

-You did it with timers. Timers exist for a reason but after you were unable to kill a poco or something, you went on a rant about timers.

-In the F&! forum you went on a rant against local because people were able to escape you because they saw you coming.

-When you raided Tribe space but neglected to bring an alt you demanded CCP make it possible for you to dock in hostile sov space (and , incredible, took credit for the mobile depot when it came out, despite the fact that it had nothing to do with you lol).

I could go on and on, but you have a serious personality issue that seems to prevent you from seeing beyond your own narrow perspective. it has the effect of turning an otherwise smart and active player (you at least have the balls to go and try things) into someone how ends up with indefensible and silly arguments on the forums.
Eram Fidard
Doomheim
#256 - 2014-01-03 16:18:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Eram Fidard
According to Ziona:

-Large (BS-sized) modules do not exist
-Micro jump drive isn't even a thing
-Battleships should have interceptor lock times to be viable
-Dominix? Megathron? Maelstrom? Typhoon? Vindicator? Machariel? Rattlesnake? Nightmare? Armageddon? Abaddon? Bhaalgorn? Nah, those don't exist, and if they did, people wouldn't use them because they are terrible


It's the exact same thread as your "hay guise I getz 1b/hr ninja running ur 0.0"

1. Ziona makes patently, and proven false statements to mislead
2. Ziona gets called out on it
3. Ziona repeats patently, and proven false statements thinking we won't notice.
4. Argument complete.

Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages.
Eram Fidard
Doomheim
#257 - 2014-01-03 16:23:45 UTC
There is one redeeming factor about Ziona's posting.

If he/she is just a troll, it's a pretty damned good one.

Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#258 - 2014-01-03 16:50:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Infinity Ziona wrote:
I gave a pretty good explanation why they are terrible too. Diminishing returns on fitted modules.
By that standard, all ships are terrible, since all ships yield the same diminishing returns.

…since, you know, it's not actually a characteristic of the ships but of the modules. So claiming that battleships are terrible because of a universal mechanic that has absolutely nothing to do with battleships is disingenuous at best; outright idiotic and ignorant at worst.

Quote:
In short fit a sebo to a frig it'll give you 600mm boost. Fit one to a cruiser it'll give you 400mm. Fit one to a battleship it'll give you 50mm. Same module.
The same module will give you the same lock-speed increase against same-size targets. That is, after all, the only measure that makes sense — absolute increases tell us nothing due to the inverse nature of the sigres formula and the inverse hypotenuse sine nature of signature radii.

Quote:
BS hulls are already stupidly nerfed
Really? In what way? And how and when did this happen?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#259 - 2014-01-03 17:32:23 UTC
Well the last few pages have been just awful.

The only thing we all got out of them is that infinity is godawful at battleships and has no idea how to use or fit them.
Eram Fidard
Doomheim
#260 - 2014-01-03 17:45:27 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
The only thing we all got out of them is that infinity is godawful at battleships and has no idea how to use or fit them.


You forgot the mandatory logical fallacy "so therefore BS are terrible"

Poster is not to be held responsible for damages to keyboards and/or noses caused by hot beverages.