These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 does it seem like CCP is castrating high sec content creators

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#301 - 2016-05-06 08:55:04 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
OK lets nail this on the alter of balance.

baltec1 wants it balanced as he puts it so that it is profitable to gank a T2 fitted barge of any description, that includes exhumers. I presume that this will include all security systems, so that a T1 fitted Catalyst could gank all of the mining barges in 0.5 systems. In effect he wants to go back to how it was.


You left out the part where I said profitable to gank an untanked barge sporting expanders and full t2 fit.

Dracvlad wrote:

Lets talk about a miner in hisec, I don't mean any one using bots and 20 characters or something like that, I am talking about people actively playing their accounts and trying to progress in the game. Their income is very very low, I used two skiffs and was getting 12.5m an hour. Again they can fit for yield use better ships in terms of yield and increase that by perhaps 30%

A Hulk costs 220m a Mackinaw 180m and a Skiff 150m, then the T1's, Covetor 32.5m Retreiver 29m and the Procurer 26m., simple fact that the game balance would be out of kilter in terms of the miner having a low income profession with what are very expensive ships. This was the situation before the ships were given better tank options. If CCP decides to go back to that situation then they have to reduce the cost of the mining ships so the Hulk will cost no more than 5m ISK because that would balance off against the the ganker and his ship which is the Catalyst in terms of the ship at risk and their income being able to sustain that loss.

All of the people I know who left the game before the tanks were revised saw no hope of progression, all they saw was that in that environment their ships were easy prey and it was massive hits against the income and they saw their asset progression go backwards at an impossible to sustain rate, there was so much risk and so little reward that they saw no way to continue. The balance on risk and reward was way out of touch...


These people who were getting ganked by pirates simply because they were not fitting a tank, they were infact fitting an anti-tank. The simplest solution to their problem was super easy, fit a tank. That one simple step resulted in gankers overlooking you.

Dracvlad wrote:

The balance currently is that the yield and ease of use in terms of warping back and forth require, some people make that decision and get an increase yield, and people gank them for fun or strategic reasons but not for ISK.

So in a nutshell, the mining ships in hisec before the tank had massive risk and no reward and that was it.

baltec1 will throw risk and reward around at times, but only when it suits him, but the balance issue with mining before the tanks were improved was that it was the most risky profession in the game with the lowest reward and people only did it because it was restful and enabled them to build stuff. In a Skiff with a tank its low risk but it is also low reward, EVE in a nutshell.

CCP will not listen to his arguments because they finally worked out that they lost a huge amount of people who paid for their accounts, I think CCP changed it too late in the day, because I can tell you now that not a single one of those people I knew who used to mine in Eve came back, not one single one.


The risk scaled with how you fitted your barge, no tank high risk, max tank very little.


The thing you willfully ignore was that the rewards for pirating barges was equally low and it relied entirely upon the miners themselves not fitting a tank. There is no balance when an entire profession is removed from eve, balance is when both sides have counters.


The statement that they were getting ganked because they were not fitting a tank, sorry but people were fitting a full tank for the ship and still getting blown up easily. I looked at it, assessed the scale of ganking and that there was no tank I could put on any of the ships at the time that would make me hard to kill, so I stopped mining period. Other players dropped from the game.

The simple thing you are missing is that the miners in hisec could not and did not sustain that level of risk and loss against the rewards. If we were to go back to what you want then CCP must make very high end ores available in some special format in hisec for the rewards to match the risk which they are not going to do, or they make all mining ships cheap as dirt which they are not going to do either or they add such massive bonuses to the ships for fitting a tank taht it unbalances that too.

If you are unable to understand risk and reward to that level when you freely say that in terms of ratting in sov 0.0 against level 4s then I can only conclude that you are trolling. I don't like to throw that word willy nilly, but I have you marked down as a massive forum troll and everything you say here reinforces my opinion as being the correct one.

However I will continue to bang away on balance on these forums because someone has to.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#302 - 2016-05-06 09:03:11 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
However I will continue to bang away on balance on these forums because someone has to.

Balance is a very subjective word, especially when all gankers are treated like witches and all miners like gold.

No such thing as balance exists in that environment.

The most balanced system of all would be to remove all restrictions and give all players an equal chance to try to do what they want, but with an equal responsibility to protect their ability to do that.

But then, that's nullsec and not highsec. Highsec by definition is not balanced. It's imbalanced on purpose, towards higher security.

So if you are arguing balance and saying things should be nerfed in favour of more safety, that's not balance, that's tilting things further in the favour of imbalance.

Highsec should be unbalanced. That's the only way it can function as highsec. So drop the balance bullshit, because that's not what you are arguing for.

Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#303 - 2016-05-06 09:30:06 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:


The statement that they were getting ganked because they were not fitting a tank, sorry but people were fitting a full tank for the ship and still getting blown up easily.


Ok lets deal with this myth.

What was the tank on a hulk back then?
Geronimo McVain
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#304 - 2016-05-06 09:53:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Geronimo McVain
Simple: If mining isn't as profitable as ratting then ganking miners can't be very profitable too. Mining has to be profitable or nobody would do it. But because of the ore price miners are at the beginning of the food chain so they don't make a lot of money. If it would be really profitable to gank miners everyone would do it and that would make mining even more unprofitable. Fitting for Tank will cut down profitability even more.
Eve is a business Sim with attached combat so the business data of miners must be positive. You are flying an expensive ship with relatively low income so there must a counter to ganking them. Eve is nowhere safe but you shouldn't get profit on picking on the low end. If you want to kill miners do it for the fun but not for the money.
In the end: protecting miners must be top priority to CCP. If the mining crumbles the whole economy will crumble. Sounds dramatic but how would you build your ships and at which price if mining stops? If mining gets low, prices go up and that will hit PvP because the ships get more expensive ............
I have every respect for miners cause I wouldn't want to do the job of sucking astroids dry. Project discovery is the only reason I do it from time to time else I could watch gras growing: it would be more thrilling. From my point of view you could give miners total security just for doing this boring but important job.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#305 - 2016-05-06 10:16:57 UTC
Geronimo McVain wrote:
Simple: If mining isn't as profitable as ratting then ganking miners can't be very profitable too. Mining has to be profitable or nobody would do it. But because of the ore price miners are at the beginning of the food chain so they don't make a lot of money. If it would be really profitable to gank miners everyone would do it and that would make mining even more unprofitable. Fitting for Tank will cut down profitability even more..


Now this is where the fun starts.

First, back then ganking miners for profit earned you less than the miner was making. The second is when the ice interdictions happened the reward for braving the ganking was huge. Ice miners during the caldari ice interdiction were selling the ice they managed to mine for a fortune. Equally, the profits to be made for supplying both mining barges AND gank ships was lucrative. By far the biggest winners of this time were the manufactures.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#306 - 2016-05-06 10:18:24 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:


The statement that they were getting ganked because they were not fitting a tank, sorry but people were fitting a full tank for the ship and still getting blown up easily.


Ok lets deal with this myth.

What was the tank on a hulk back then?


It is not a myth and off you go and do the numbers, if you want to make a point make the effort. What I will tell you is that the Hulk of then is not much worse than it is now, but the Hulk was the best tanking ship and it could be destroyed by a single Catalyst in 0.7 and worse systems even when fitted for tank, what happened is people in their desperation fitted expensive modules that made no difference at all and just gave a load of ISK to the gankers when they dropped.

Toddle off and do the work and prove what exactly?

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Memphis Baas
#307 - 2016-05-06 10:23:47 UTC
The thing is, though, that there are no "miners", in the sense that nobody is stuck in that profession, because this game doesn't have classes limited to only a few skills and no choices. Train some skills, do other stuff easily. So ultimately CCP doesn't have to make mining, or ganking, profitable. Both activities are possible, and that's sufficient to provide an alternative to those who can't or won't do the more main-stream forms of PVP and PVE respectively.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#308 - 2016-05-06 10:26:00 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:


It is not a myth and off you go and do the numbers, if you want to make a point make the effort. What I will tell you is that the Hulk of then is not much worse than it is now, but the Hulk was the best tanking ship and it could be destroyed by a single Catalyst in 0.7 and worse systems even when fitted for tank, what happened is people in their desperation fitted expensive modules that made no difference at all and just gave a load of ISK to the gankers when they dropped.

Toddle off and do the work and prove what exactly?


There it is, a number to work with.

Back then you could fit a t2 tank to a hulk that would very easily give you 33k EHP. What did that mean? Well it would require 3x full alpha fit tornados to punch through that. So the chances of a single Catalyst managing to chew through all of that ehp before concord turned up? Zero. If you overloaded and fitted a few inexpensive impants turned that up to 40k ehp and thats the omni resists number. VS a catalyst the tank was higher due to the resist profile being more geared towards the damage blaster put out.


So let me be clear in saying this. What you just said is rubbish, the hulk could tank very well.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#309 - 2016-05-06 10:26:06 UTC
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
However I will continue to bang away on balance on these forums because someone has to.

Balance is a very subjective word, especially when all gankers are treated like witches and all miners like gold.

No such thing as balance exists in that environment.

The most balanced system of all would be to remove all restrictions and give all players an equal chance to try to do what they want, but with an equal responsibility to protect their ability to do that.

But then, that's nullsec and not highsec. Highsec by definition is not balanced. It's imbalanced on purpose, towards higher security.

So if you are arguing balance and saying things should be nerfed in favour of more safety, that's not balance, that's tilting things further in the favour of imbalance.

Highsec should be unbalanced. That's the only way it can function as highsec. So drop the balance bullshit, because that's not what you are arguing for.


Of course you want me to drop the question of game balance, simply put its the key issue in all of this, taht is why you go off on an absurd argument without any substantive facts just touchy feely stuff about hisec and that I want more safety because I want more safety which is not at all what I said and then define it as bull.

That you want to move the conversation away from the game balance of miners in terms of risk and reward is very telling, in that you know that this is the defining factor and the one that CCP late in the day eventually took on board.

Mining during the golden period of miner ganking for you guys was a High risk low reward for hisec miners and taht conept did not fit within the ethos of Eve. We can of course add fun gameplay into this equation for the participants but the fun for miners was to sit in a ship with the tank of a wet paper bag and hope that the ganker made an error, hardly engaging gameplay and on top of that their meagre reward meant that they took a massive hit on their assets.

Balance is the key factor in all of this which is why baltec1 is peeing into the wind...

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#310 - 2016-05-06 10:36:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
baltec1 wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:


It is not a myth and off you go and do the numbers, if you want to make a point make the effort. What I will tell you is that the Hulk of then is not much worse than it is now, but the Hulk was the best tanking ship and it could be destroyed by a single Catalyst in 0.7 and worse systems even when fitted for tank, what happened is people in their desperation fitted expensive modules that made no difference at all and just gave a load of ISK to the gankers when they dropped.

Toddle off and do the work and prove what exactly?


There it is, a number to work with.

Back then you could fit a t2 tank to a hulk that would very easily give you 33k EHP. What did that mean? Well it would require 3x full alpha fit tornados to punch through that. So the chances of a single Catalyst managing to chew through all of that ehp before concord turned up? Zero. If you overloaded and fitted a few inexpensive impants turned that up to 40k ehp and thats the omni resists number. VS a catalyst the tank was higher due to the resist profile being more geared towards the damage blaster put out.


So let me be clear in saying this. What you just said is rubbish, the hulk could tank very well.


Good I pushed you to make some numbers based on a deliberate over statement of effective, but what you said there about tornado's is rubbish and invalidates your profit argument. The final reality was that the 33k tank would take two catalysts in a 0.5 system when destroyers were buffed, which is when it went silly. The 40K is totally false and was only ever used by people who were very targetted by the gankers.

We know the numbers, a properly setup and overheating gank catalyst produces around 700 DPS, that would be 25 seconds having pulled away CONCORD in a 0.5 system which is 17,500 hit points and 35,000 in total meaning that two Catalysts could take it out in a 0.5 system., after that it was 3 uo to 0.8 if my memory is correct which is stuff that I no longer have access to.

Please continue...

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#311 - 2016-05-06 10:58:18 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:


Good I pushed you to make some numbers based on a deliberate over statement of effective, but what you said there about tornado's is rubbish and invalidates your profit argument. The final reality was that the 33k tank would take two catalysts in a 0.5 system when destroyers were buffed, which is when it went silly. The 40K is totally false and was only ever used by people who were very targetted by the gankers.


40k is the tank my barge had vs catalysts, you needed more than 2 to kill it in 0.5 and a large number to go after it in higher sec space which is where the bulk of miners live. Clearly, you cant turn a profit if you are sporting a tank. This is what balance looks like.


Dracvlad wrote:

We know the numbers, a properly setup and overheating gank catalyst produces around 700 DPS, that would be 25 seconds having pulled away CONCORD in a 0.5 system which is 17,500 hit points and 35,000 in total meaning that two Catalysts could take it out in a 0.5 system., after that it was 3 uo to 0.8 if my memory is correct which is stuff that I no longer have access to.

Please continue...


Its not correct. You miss out that said hulk had ECM drones, getting perfect hits is rare, the gank pilots will not have perfect skills and very very few of them will be sporting an SH-604 implant so the destroyers wont be getting 700 DPS. The destroyer of choice for tuning a profit wasn't even t2 fitted, it was meta fit in order to turn a profit on ganking the untanked barges. The firepower of your average catalyst was more like 400-500 dps.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#312 - 2016-05-06 11:17:26 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:


Good I pushed you to make some numbers based on a deliberate over statement of effective, but what you said there about tornado's is rubbish and invalidates your profit argument. The final reality was that the 33k tank would take two catalysts in a 0.5 system when destroyers were buffed, which is when it went silly. The 40K is totally false and was only ever used by people who were very targetted by the gankers.


40k is the tank my barge had vs catalysts, you needed more than 2 to kill it in 0.5 and a large number to go after it in higher sec space which is where the bulk of miners live. Clearly, you cant turn a profit if you are sporting a tank. This is what balance looks like.


Dracvlad wrote:

We know the numbers, a properly setup and overheating gank catalyst produces around 700 DPS, that would be 25 seconds having pulled away CONCORD in a 0.5 system which is 17,500 hit points and 35,000 in total meaning that two Catalysts could take it out in a 0.5 system., after that it was 3 uo to 0.8 if my memory is correct which is stuff that I no longer have access to.

Please continue...


Its not correct. You miss out that said hulk had ECM drones, getting perfect hits is rare, the gank pilots will not have perfect skills and very very few of them will be sporting an SH-604 implant so the destroyers wont be getting 700 DPS. The destroyer of choice for tuning a profit wasn't even t2 fitted, it was meta fit in order to turn a profit on ganking the untanked barges. The firepower of your average catalyst was more like 400-500 dps.


Your barge, that is funny, now turn that into the required number of Catalysts with T1 fits now make that statement again about not turning a profit...

Small drone bay at the time need to clear rats, you always go on perfect situations like your 40k tank Hulk. I got my hulk up to around 35k and that was it, also if I had ECM drones I had to fit a small booster, so many compromises if my memory here is correct..

Keep going...

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Geronimo McVain
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#313 - 2016-05-06 11:35:03 UTC
Memphis Baas wrote:
The thing is, though, that there are no "miners", in the sense that nobody is stuck in that profession, because this game doesn't have classes limited to only a few skills and no choices. Train some skills, do other stuff easily. So ultimately CCP doesn't have to make mining, or ganking, profitable. Both activities are possible, and that's sufficient to provide an alternative to those who can't or won't do the more main-stream forms of PVP and PVE respectively.

They don't have to do it for themself, there you are right, but the whole economic of Eve is based on the minerals. Without minerals no ships or modules. If you can't make a buck with mining where do you think the minerals will come from? You could go to WOW economics so you don't need minerals no inventing etc just loot but do you really want to got this way?

And sure ganking miners will yeald less then the miners make. They have to mine for themself, their ships etc AND for your ships. You can't make more money then the miners make because Eve has a real economic. That's totally intended to discourage "minerfarming". Otherwise people will farm the asteroid belts for miners in High like they farm belts for rats in Null/WH
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#314 - 2016-05-06 11:40:43 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:


Your barge, that is funny, now turn that into the required number of Catalysts with T1 fits now make that statement again about not turning a profit...

Small drone bay at the time need to clear rats, you always go on perfect situations like your 40k tank Hulk. I got my hulk up to around 35k and that was it, also if I had ECM drones I had to fit a small booster, so many compromises if my memory here is correct..

Keep going...


Not too many pages ago you were saying your barge had the tank of a wet paper bag, now you are suddenly sporting a tank on par with a curse. As for the rats, they cant even threaten a day 1 ibis. I'm sorry but if you want anyone to take you seriously your lies have got to stop. You argument is thoroughly trounced, you used to be able to fit a sizable tank on barges, way more than what was needed to make them unprofitable to gank.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#315 - 2016-05-06 11:41:21 UTC
Geronimo McVain wrote:
Memphis Baas wrote:
The thing is, though, that there are no "miners", in the sense that nobody is stuck in that profession, because this game doesn't have classes limited to only a few skills and no choices. Train some skills, do other stuff easily. So ultimately CCP doesn't have to make mining, or ganking, profitable. Both activities are possible, and that's sufficient to provide an alternative to those who can't or won't do the more main-stream forms of PVP and PVE respectively.

They don't have to do it for themself, there you are right, but the whole economic of Eve is based on the minerals. Without minerals no ships or modules. If you can't make a buck with mining where do you think the minerals will come from? You could go to WOW economics so you don't need minerals no inventing etc just loot but do you really want to got this way?

And sure ganking miners will yeald less then the miners make. They have to mine for themself, their ships etc AND for your ships. You can't make more money then the miners make because Eve has a real economic. That's totally intended to discourage "minerfarming". Otherwise people will farm the asteroid belts for miners in High like they farm belts for rats in Null/WH


Very good post, this is game balance in a real economy which is why I like Eve, the thing is that the Empires are paying bounty fo kill those NPC's in belts, the loot drops from rats would not pay for people doing that, so who is paying bounty to kill miners in hisec, well the Goons were, but now they are not.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#316 - 2016-05-06 11:46:21 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Dracvlad wrote:
[so who is paying bounty to kill miners in hisec, well the Goons were, but now they are not.


That only happened in the miner interdictions and the funding came from playing the ice markets which required the total shutdown of ice mining in highsec (aka no mining in caldari space). The average pirate operating outside of the targeted racial icebelts got nothing. Again, don't lie.
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#317 - 2016-05-06 11:47:44 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:


Your barge, that is funny, now turn that into the required number of Catalysts with T1 fits now make that statement again about not turning a profit...

Small drone bay at the time need to clear rats, you always go on perfect situations like your 40k tank Hulk. I got my hulk up to around 35k and that was it, also if I had ECM drones I had to fit a small booster, so many compromises if my memory here is correct..

Keep going...


Not too many pages ago you were saying your barge had the tank of a wet paper bag, now you are suddenly sporting a tank on par with a curse. As for the rats, they cant even threaten a day 1 ibis. I'm sorry but if you want anyone to take you seriously your lies have got to stop. You argument is thoroughly trounced, you used to be able to fit a sizable tank on barges, way more than what was needed to make them unprofitable to gank.


It was a wet paper bag, a tank does not just come from its resists and base tank, it comes from its speed, its ability to project force and so on, a Catalyst ganking a Curse will suddenly find its guns shutting off though a lack of cap. Try better with comparisons because that one was especially weak.

You have only trounced yourself, and people do take me seriously, I get plenty of eupport emails from people who thank me for posting like I do on the forums, you would be surprised at how many. Declaring victory when you are losing is rather funny.

The rest of the barges had really poor tanks that were much worse than the Hulk, and I just proved to you that four T1 fit catalysts would tank your 40k EHP ship and make a profit. Keep it up you are digging yourself deeper...

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#318 - 2016-05-06 11:53:00 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
[so who is paying bounty to kill miners in hisec, well the Goons were, but now they are not.


That only happened in the miner interdictions and the funding came from playing the ice markets which required the total shutdown of ice mining in highsec. The average pirate operating outside of the targeted racial icebelts got nothing. Again, don't lie.


Actually the Goons were funding CODE, we know differently.

I have in my possession two gank Catalysts that are called John Madden's Catalyst which I took from two CODE players who were hyperdunking a Freighter, you will notice if you look at the history of John Madden which corp he was in until recently, of course I know who plays John Madden.

Keep going please as this is fun, though I have to go away for a couple of hours as I am scraping grout off of some tiles, but we can go further down this rabbit hole if you really want...

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#319 - 2016-05-06 11:53:58 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:



It was a wet paper bag, a tank does not just come from its resists and base tank, it comes from its speed, its ability to project force and so on, a Catalyst ganking a Curse will suddenly find its guns shutting off though a lack of cap. Try better with comparisons because that one was especially weak.

EHP is EHP, a curse sitting still is no harder to gank than a hulk sitting still.




Dracvlad wrote:

You have only trounced yourself, and people do take me seriously, I get plenty of eupport emails from people who thank me for posting like I do on the forums, you would be surprised at how many.


Yea I'll take "things that doesn't happen" for 600 alex.
Dracvlad wrote:

The rest of the barges had really poor tanks that were much worse than the Hulk, and I just proved to you that four T1 fit catalysts would tank your 40k EHP ship and make a profit. Keep it up you are digging yourself deeper...


So in the span of a page we went from 1 destroyer to 2 and now to 4. Is 8 next?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#320 - 2016-05-06 11:54:45 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:


Actually the Goons were funding CODE, we know differently.


Problem with this argument is code didn't exist back then.