These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

A Message Regarding "Hyperdunking"

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Concord Guy's Cousin
Doomheim
#1161 - 2015-02-12 13:40:45 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
I never thought I'd say this, but I miss Dinsdale. At least he was actually inventive and fun to read, not a total bore shoveling doggerel at everyone.
Dinsdale occasionally produced quality trolls and tinfoilhattery, the current crop of wannabes are trying to make up with quantity that which they lack in quality.

ISD LackOfFaith ~ "Your Catalyst was a hamster, and your Retriever smelt of elderberries"

NPC Forum Alt, because reasons.
Valterra Craven
#1162 - 2015-02-12 14:20:03 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


Translation:

"You lot exposed that I was trying to dictate changes based on a position of total ignorance, so now being deliberately obtuse is all I have left."

I never thought I'd say this, but I miss Dinsdale. At least he was actually inventive and fun to read, not a total bore shoveling doggerel at everyone.


Translation: you guys would rather name call and tear people up rather than make actual arguments.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1163 - 2015-02-12 14:20:45 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


Translation:

"You lot exposed that I was trying to dictate changes based on a position of total ignorance, so now being deliberately obtuse is all I have left."

I never thought I'd say this, but I miss Dinsdale. At least he was actually inventive and fun to read, not a total bore shoveling doggerel at everyone.


Translation: you guys would rather name call and tear people up rather than make actual arguments.


Actually, it's more like we're openly mocking you, since actually making arguments just resulted in you ignoring them repeatedly, while trolling away with the same old narrative.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Valterra Craven
#1164 - 2015-02-12 14:22:24 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Actually, it's more like we're openly mocking you, since actually making arguments just resulted in you ignoring them repeatedly, while trolling away with the same old narrative.


Well, at least you can admit that you're a douchewaffle, since I actually responded to every single argument you guys made pointing out their flaws. But I can understand how'd you rather whitewash history than actually accomplish anything.
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1165 - 2015-02-12 14:23:52 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

Actually, it's more like we're openly mocking you, since actually making arguments just resulted in you ignoring them repeatedly, while trolling away with the same old narrative.


Well, at least you can admit that you're a douchewaffle, since I actually responded to every single argument you guys made pointing out their flaws. But I can understand how'd you rather whitewash history than actually accomplish anything.

Spewing logical fallacies is not pointing out a flaw.

"Playing an MMO by yourself is like masturbating in the middle of an orgy." -Jonah Gravenstein
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1166 - 2015-02-12 14:23:53 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:

Well, at least you can admit that you're a douchewaffle, since I actually responded to every single argument you guys made pointing out their flaws.


On the literal previous page, you outright admitted that you're just trolling and that you have no clue what you're talking about.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Valterra Craven
#1167 - 2015-02-12 14:25:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
My point is that the freighter doesn't need to be 100% invulnerable for this mechanic to be game breaking. If the goal is to reduce the risk of getting blown up to near zero or actually zero, and the goal is achieved, then by the very nature of the parameters that the way the game is laid out that ability would be game breaking.

You keep trying to force this, but that's not how it works. If freighters that can stay safe is game breaking, then what of:

  • Cloaking devices?
  • Warp core stabilizers?
  • Interdiction nullificattion?
  • Instant alignment?
  • Local intel?
  • D-scan?
  • Combat probes?
  • Jump drives?
  • Tactical bookmarks (instant docks/undocks etc)?
  • And indeed, player communication

All of these mechanics, used properly and/or in some combination allow pilots to attain a very high degree of safety and in most cases, near-as-dammit 100% in quite literally any area of space.

To argue that safe freighters are game breaking is to argue all of the above are game breaking, too. Shockingly enough, I don't think anyone's going to support the removal of ALL of those features.


Because NO ONE has made a complaint about anything on that list when being used improperly being game breaking? Or do the reams of threads on afk cloaking in NULL pass you by, or the reams of threads about how people were farming Faction Warfare with WCS on? Or the fact that people have complained endlessly about ceptors being overpowered with nullification, or the reams of thread about how broken local is, or the fact that they just nerfed the ever living hell out of jump drives... right...
Valterra Craven
#1168 - 2015-02-12 14:26:11 UTC
Hiasa Kite wrote:

Spewing logical fallacies is not pointing out a flaw.


Sure, if I had done that, but considering I didn't....
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1169 - 2015-02-12 14:27:16 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Hiasa Kite wrote:

Spewing logical fallacies is not pointing out a flaw.


Sure, if I had done that, but considering I didn't....


No, you did. He might not have used a strong enough plural, though, since you've probably snagged the record for the forums.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Valterra Craven
#1170 - 2015-02-12 14:27:55 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


On the literal previous page, you outright admitted that you're just trolling and that you have no clue what you're talking about.


On the literal previous page I outright admitted to a debate tactic by which you forced me to use because of your asshattery.
Valterra Craven
#1171 - 2015-02-12 14:28:42 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

No, you did. He might not have used a strong enough plural, though, since you've probably snagged the record for the forums.


Just because you say something doesn't make it true.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1172 - 2015-02-12 14:30:14 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


On the literal previous page, you outright admitted that you're just trolling and that you have no clue what you're talking about.


On the literal previous page I outright admitted to a debate tactic by which you forced me to use because of your asshattery.


No, you're simply being obtuse because you lack any knowledge about the subject you've chosen to soapbox about.

You're arguing out of a position of pure ignorance, simple as that.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Valterra Craven
#1173 - 2015-02-12 14:31:32 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


No, you're simply being obtuse because you lack any knowledge about the subject you've chosen to soapbox about.

You're arguing out of a position of pure ignorance, simple as that.


Oh right, still clinging to the tear down the debater rather than the arguments tactic...
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1174 - 2015-02-12 14:33:12 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


No, you're simply being obtuse because you lack any knowledge about the subject you've chosen to soapbox about.

You're arguing out of a position of pure ignorance, simple as that.


Oh right, still clinging to the tear down the debater rather than the arguments tactic...


Your arguments remain countered, long hence. All you've done so far is spill out more tears about how you aren't able to pontificate from ignorance.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Valterra Craven
#1175 - 2015-02-12 14:35:33 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


Your arguments remain countered, long hence.


Oh, You've gone through and cataloged everything I've said and has been said to me? You have 100% evidence of this? Oh right, you are too lazy to do any actual work and actually show what you've got. (I still haven't forgotten that you've failed to chose)

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:

All you've done so far is spill out more tears about how you aren't able to pontificate from ignorance.


All of you done so far is spill out more tears about how you are unable to make any reasonable argument and would rather cry that people don't know what they are talking about.
Aralyn Cormallen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1176 - 2015-02-12 14:36:58 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
debate tactic

Use of a term like this alone says all that need be said. If your hope here is that some CCP moderator with a clipboard is watching the thread ticking off points, I hate to point out that they probably stopped caring about the contents of posts (other than to watch for obvious rule-breakers) at about page 20, when everything of any worth had already been said twice, and left the rest of the thread to the three people who absolutely have to have the last word to roll the post count up pointlessly.
Valterra Craven
#1177 - 2015-02-12 14:43:41 UTC
Aralyn Cormallen wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
debate tactic

Use of a term like this alone says all that need be said. If your hope here is that some CCP moderator with a clipboard is watching the thread ticking off points, I hate to point out that they probably stopped caring about the contents of posts (other than to watch for obvious rule-breakers) at about page 20, when everything of any worth had already been said twice, and left the rest of the thread to the three people who absolutely have to have the last word to roll the post count up pointlessly.


My post count is irrelevant to me. In fact if you go back through my entire post history (not just this thread) you'll notice that the only threads I post in are threads that either dev's start or dev's post in. I'm not tippia after all. As far debate tactic, given that the opposing forces stoop far lower than that, some modicum of reasonableness must be maintained. As far as everything of any worth being said, I disagree with you there, being that I think I offered a different take on it than other posters had (at least in this thread anyway). That being said I understood your subtle jab and will take it at face value.
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1178 - 2015-02-12 15:01:21 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
Hiasa Kite wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
My point is that the freighter doesn't need to be 100% invulnerable for this mechanic to be game breaking. If the goal is to reduce the risk of getting blown up to near zero or actually zero, and the goal is achieved, then by the very nature of the parameters that the way the game is laid out that ability would be game breaking.

You keep trying to force this, but that's not how it works. If freighters that can stay safe is game breaking, then what of:

  • Cloaking devices?
  • Warp core stabilizers?
  • Interdiction nullificattion?
  • Instant alignment?
  • Local intel?
  • D-scan?
  • Combat probes?
  • Jump drives?
  • Tactical bookmarks (instant docks/undocks etc)?
  • And indeed, player communication

All of these mechanics, used properly and/or in some combination allow pilots to attain a very high degree of safety and in most cases, near-as-dammit 100% in quite literally any area of space.

To argue that safe freighters are game breaking is to argue all of the above are game breaking, too. Shockingly enough, I don't think anyone's going to support the removal of ALL of those features.


Because NO ONE has made a complaint about anything on that list when being used improperly being game breaking? Or do the reams of threads on afk cloaking in NULL pass you by, or the reams of threads about how people were farming Faction Warfare with WCS on? Or the fact that people have complained endlessly about ceptors being overpowered with nullification, or the reams of thread about how broken local is, or the fact that they just nerfed the ever living hell out of jump drives... right...

How is "They're in the same system as me. I deserve to kill them." any different from "I deserve 100% for no effort."?

Both arguments are at the opposite end of the spectrum and both arguments are ridiculous. They're both come from sets of players that simply feel entitled to success and feel that anyone that can out play them should be nerfed.

I like a balanced game. That means people can squeeze by my attempts to kill them and it means others can kill me if I don't play for the utmost safety. Either way, my opponent outplays me and that is fine. In neither scenario is the game broken.

"Playing an MMO by yourself is like masturbating in the middle of an orgy." -Jonah Gravenstein
Valterra Craven
#1179 - 2015-02-12 15:10:43 UTC
Hiasa Kite wrote:

How is "They're in the same system as me. I deserve to kill them." any different from "I deserve 100% for no effort."?


I see what you are saying, but from my perspective the argument "They're in the same system as me. I deserve to kill them." is no different than what the gankers are saying in this thread!

Hiasa Kite wrote:

Both arguments are at the opposite end of the spectrum and both arguments are ridiculous. They're both come from sets of players that simply feel entitled to success and feel that anyone that can out play them should be nerfed.


There should always be an opportunity to outplay someone.

Hiasa Kite wrote:

I like a balanced game. That means people can squeeze by my attempts to kill them and it means others can kill me if I don't play for the utmost safety. Either way, my opponent outplays me and that is fine. In neither scenario is the game broken.


The problem comes in because a lot of these mechanics don't have counters. OR are you suggesting that a game with mechanics that have no counters is balanced? Because from where I sit, a mechanic that has no counter is the very definition of imbalance.
Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1180 - 2015-02-12 15:21:52 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:
I see what you are saying, but from my perspective the argument "They're in the same system as me. I deserve to kill them." is no different than what the gankers are saying in this thread!

How so? I've stated that I have no issues with people getting away from me. Hell, the CODE. alliance is built around the entire precept that players should take advantage of the fact they can defend themselves. I very much doubt they're against people who play well enough outplaying them at every encounter.

Quote:
Because from where I sit, a mechanic that has no counter is the very definition of imbalance.

Implying that mechanics that do zero damage to you need a counter.

"Playing an MMO by yourself is like masturbating in the middle of an orgy." -Jonah Gravenstein