These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

CCP, about Industrial Ships - will they get rebalanced?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#41 - 2013-06-07 19:08:05 UTC
Nathalie LaPorte wrote:
Freighdee Katt wrote:


I'll give you rookie ships though. Rookie ships require a frigate skill and get no per level bonus from that skill. So that's the example. Rookie ships prove that having an industrial skill to V will "mean nothing" after rebalancing.



This is not correct, rookie ships require only Spaceship command I (requirements changed on june 4, 2013)

Ok, so the answer then is none.

EvE is supposed to suck.  Wait . . . what was the question?
Nathalie LaPorte
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#42 - 2013-06-07 19:11:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Nathalie LaPorte
Freighdee Katt wrote:
Nathalie LaPorte wrote:
Freighdee Katt wrote:


I'll give you rookie ships though. Rookie ships require a frigate skill and get no per level bonus from that skill. So that's the example. Rookie ships prove that having an industrial skill to V will "mean nothing" after rebalancing.



This is not correct, rookie ships require only Spaceship command I (requirements changed on june 4, 2013)

Ok, so the answer then is none.


Incorrect, the answer is Gnosis, Shuttle, Capsule, Primae, Echelon, Zephyr, (all rookie ships).
Freighdee Katt
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#43 - 2013-06-07 19:11:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Freighdee Katt
Nathalie LaPorte wrote:
Spaceship command level 1, none, none. (couldn't look those up yourself?)

Could you?

I asked for hulls that require a skill and get no benefit from that skill. You listed two hulls that require no skill . . . and get no benefit from whatever skill they don't require. And you listed one ship that requires a generic skill that gives a 2% agility bonus per level to all hulls.

So we're still waiting for an example of a hull that requires a skill, and gets no per level bonus from that skill.

EvE is supposed to suck.  Wait . . . what was the question?
Nathalie LaPorte
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#44 - 2013-06-07 19:13:00 UTC
Freighdee Katt wrote:
Nathalie LaPorte wrote:
Spaceship command level 1, none, none. (couldn't look those up yourself?)

Could you? I asked for hulls that require a skill and get no benefit from that skill. You listed two hulls that require no skill . . . and get no benefit from whatever skill they don't require. And you listed one ship that requires a generic skill that gives a 2% agility bonus per level to all hulls.

So we're still waiting for an example of a hull that requires a skill, and gets no per level bonus from that skill.


Incorrect, that's not what you asked for, that's what you meant to ask for.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#45 - 2013-06-07 19:20:08 UTC
Nathalie LaPorte wrote:
Incorrect, that's not what you asked for, that's what you meant to ask for.
He asked for “one hull in EvE that gets no benefit from its designated hull skill” and there are none.
Nathalie LaPorte
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#46 - 2013-06-07 19:57:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Nathalie LaPorte
Tippia wrote:
Nathalie LaPorte wrote:
Incorrect, that's not what you asked for, that's what you meant to ask for.
He asked for “one hull in EvE that gets no benefit from its designated hull skill” and there are none.


shuttle. (leaving aside the question of whether spaceship command is considered a designated hull skill, we'll go with shuttle)

((http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuous_truth) For anyone that doesn't understand how to deal with an conditional statement with a false antecedent)
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#47 - 2013-06-07 19:59:42 UTC
Nathalie LaPorte wrote:
shuttle.
…has no designated hull skill, so no.
Nathalie LaPorte
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#48 - 2013-06-07 20:00:53 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Nathalie LaPorte wrote:
shuttle.
…has no designated hull skill, so no.


So yes, actually.
Mortimer Civeri
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#49 - 2013-06-07 20:03:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Mortimer Civeri
Nathalie LaPorte wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Nathalie LaPorte wrote:
Incorrect, that's not what you asked for, that's what you meant to ask for.
He asked for “one hull in EvE that gets no benefit from its designated hull skill” and there are none.


shuttle.

Requires Spaceship Command 1, which by the way grants a ship a 2% bonus to agility, so what ship does not get any benifit to its designated hull skill again?

EDIT: Aw, you edited your post.What?

EDIT2: There really isn't a hull skill for shuttles anyway, so they don't even belong in this discussion.

"I don't know which is worse, ...that everyone has his price, or that the price is always so low." Calvin
Nathalie LaPorte
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#50 - 2013-06-07 20:05:38 UTC
Mortimer Civeri wrote:
Nathalie LaPorte wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Nathalie LaPorte wrote:
Incorrect, that's not what you asked for, that's what you meant to ask for.
He asked for “one hull in EvE that gets no benefit from its designated hull skill” and there are none.


shuttle. (leaving aside the question of whether spaceship command is considered a designated hull skill, we'll go with shuttle)

((http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuous_truth) For anyone that doesn't understand how to deal with an conditional statement with a false antecedent)

Requires Spaceship Command 1, which by the way grants a ship a 2% bonus to agility, so what ship does not get any benifit to its designated hull skill again?


I'm looking at the info tab for Amarr shuttle right now in game, and there is no prerequisites tab.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#51 - 2013-06-07 20:09:28 UTC
Nathalie LaPorte wrote:
So yes, actually.
So no, it's not a ship that doesn't get a bonus from its hull skill. It's a ship that doesn't even qualify to be part of the discussion.

If you want to nominate the Shuttle, I'd like to nominate my left sock — it's not even an EVE ship so it qualifies under the same logic.

Quote:
I'm looking at the info tab for Amarr shuttle right now in game, and there is no prerequisites tab.
…which means it doesn't miss out on any bonus from such a skill.
Nathalie LaPorte
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#52 - 2013-06-07 20:15:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Nathalie LaPorte
Tippia wrote:
Nathalie LaPorte wrote:
So yes, actually.
So no, it's not a ship that doesn't get a bonus from its hull skill. It's a ship that doesn't even qualify to be part of the discussion.

If you want to nominate the Shuttle, I'd like to nominate my left sock — it's not even an EVE ship so it qualifies under the same logic.


No, that would definitely be different logic. Tippia-logic.

If I made the claim "All women gain benefit from their husbands."

The obvious negation to that claim would be "Incorrect, some women are unmarried." The fact that they are unmarried disqualifies them to gain benefit from their husband, true; but they are still women, and so they still provide counterexamples to the claim. You are mixing up null cases in the subject and predicate. If he'd said "All ships which require a hull skill to sit in, gain benefit from that skill on a per level basis", then he would have put the qualification on the side he meant to, and it would mean what you think it means.

tippia-logic negation would be "Incorrect, what about my left sock?"
Ruze
Next Stage Initiative
#53 - 2013-06-07 20:19:51 UTC
Nathalie LaPorte wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Nathalie LaPorte wrote:
So yes, actually.
So no, it's not a ship that doesn't get a bonus from its hull skill. It's a ship that doesn't even qualify to be part of the discussion.

If you want to nominate the Shuttle, I'd like to nominate my left sock — it's not even an EVE ship so it qualifies under the same logic.


No, that would definitely be different logic. Tippia-logic.

If I made the claim "All women gain benefit from their husbands."

The obvious negation to that claim would be "Incorrect, some women are unmarried." The fact that they are unmarried disqualifies them to gain benefit from their husband, true; but they are still women, and so they still provide counterexamples to the claim. You are mixing up null cases in the subject and predicate. If he'd said "All ships which require a hull skill to sit in, gain benefit from that skill on a per level basis", then he would have put the qualification on the side he meant to, and it would mean what you think it means.

tippia-logic negation would be "Incorrect, what about my left sock?"


This is funny. I clearly see what the original question asked, and even stretching the logic a little bit, the question he asked remains true.

It was even narrow enough to avoid the less obvious pitfalls that some of the replies tried to bring out, which I wouldn't personally have thought of.

Well done for the original question. Win.

If you're driven to threaten others with harm or violence because of what they do in game, you can't separate fantasy from reality. That "griefer/thief" is probably more sane than you are. How screwed up is that?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#54 - 2013-06-07 20:20:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Nathalie LaPorte wrote:
No, that would definitely be different logic.
No. It would be the logic of the question: if there is a ship that relies on a (hull) skill and yet does not yield any bonuses from that skill. The ships suggested so far don't rely on a skill so they fail on the first part before we even get to the bonus calculations.

So no, there are none.

If you want to invent vacuous truths based on the second part by skipping the part that determines whether something is even eligible for evaluation or not, then I would like to submit my left sock since it obviously also does not yield any bonuses from its hull skills… and apparently, the fact that it has no hull skill (or that it's not even an EVE entity) is not relevant.
Nathalie LaPorte
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#55 - 2013-06-07 20:24:17 UTC
Tippia wrote:
It would be the logic of the question: if there is a ship that relies on a (hull) skill and yet does not yield any bonuses from that skill.


You just reworded the question exactly the way I did, to make it agree with what he meant. thanks for agreeing with me :) Sometimes, taking the time out of a busy day to teach people pays off.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#56 - 2013-06-07 20:33:25 UTC
Nathalie LaPorte wrote:
You just reworded the question exactly the way I did, to make it agree with what he meant.
…in other words, the question he asked is answered by “none”. It's all in the negation, which neatly sorts out those null cases unlike your positive “all women” example.
Nathalie LaPorte
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#57 - 2013-06-07 20:35:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Nathalie LaPorte
Tippia wrote:
Nathalie LaPorte wrote:
You just reworded the question exactly the way I did, to make it agree with what he meant.
…in other words, the question he asked is answered by “none”. It's all in the negation, which neatly sorts out those null cases unlike your positive “all women” example.


Yes, using other words than the words he used, the meaning is different than what he actually said. Again, thank you for agreeing with me in every respect :)

The 'women' example is the same as the 'ship' example, asking for a disproof of the women example takes the form of : 'name one woman who does not gain benefit from her husband', which is logically equivalent to the ship example. This, of course, is exactly what he was doing, asking for a disproof of a "for all x, y" statement.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#58 - 2013-06-07 20:40:08 UTC
Nathalie LaPorte wrote:
Yes, using other words than the words he used, the meaning is different than what he actually said.
Not really, no. Context matters, you know.

For the record, would you say that trotting out an elephant bull disproves the claim that “no women have tusks”?

Quote:
Again, thank you for agreeing with me in every respect :)
So you have accepted that the answer is “none”, then. Goodie.
Nathalie LaPorte
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#59 - 2013-06-07 20:44:55 UTC
Tippia wrote:

So you have accepted that the answer is “none”, then. Goodie.


the answer was never in question. The only problem was getting you to see the proper question, which I successfully did :)
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#60 - 2013-06-07 20:51:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Nathalie LaPorte wrote:
the answer was never in question.
…aside from you not accepting it.

Quote:
The only problem was getting you to see the proper question, which I successfully did :)
Nope and nope, in roughly that order.