These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Countering Risk Aversion

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Basil Pupkin
Republic Military School
#261 - 2015-05-04 09:55:48 UTC
Solecist Project wrote:
No, you're not.

What you do is trying to make others aware of your imaginary fact of being right.

No where am I saying "I'm leet" either. You are imagining that.
It is not written anywhere.

Not literally, of course, your shape of it would be "everyone here is saying you're wrong" despite it being far from everyone and despite people bringing supportive arguments they try to present as opposite.
So far, you brought no other arguments to the table.

Solecist Project wrote:
All I am doing is trying to tell others that you are incapable of being reasonable
outside of that limited scope you have, which you are completely unable to widen.

Once again, you confuse "being sheep" with "being reasonable", which is common among your kind.
There is no limitation in my scope, as many arguments were reviewed and find to be supporting my claim, regardless of where they came from. When I can expect an actual argument from you to chew on?

Solecist Project wrote:
You feel attacked all the time, because it's the easier way to deal with what people are telling you.

Please don't project your own emotional complexes on me. I know your kind loves it, but it's inappropriate.

Solecist Project wrote:
You keep unknowingly making things up, which were never said or meant,
just because it helps you keeping your mental status quo.

Hey, at least I've tried.
I just wished other people wouldn't make your issue worse.

Buddy, please. I laid my cards on the table and you still call it a bluff?
If my cards are weak, go smash them. If your cards are weaker, hand over the chips.
But calling bluff when cards are already on the table is becoming a bit gross.

Being teh freightergankbear automatically puts you below missionbear and minerbear in carebear hierarchy.

If you're about to make "this will make eve un-eve" argument, odds are you are defending some utterly horrible mechanics against a good change.
Solecist Project
#262 - 2015-05-04 10:06:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Solecist Project
Quote:
Not literally, of course,

This just proves my point.
You imagine things that are not being written.

With the "not literally"-excuse you can come up with ANYTHING ...
... and read ANYTHING YOU WANT into the words others write.

And of course you read things into it that help you prove your points.

Unlike what you imagine ...
... I mean things the way I write them.

I am not projecting anything of myself onto you.
It's the other way round.

And telling me "your kind loves it" just further proves that I am right.
You are incapable of reading what is being written
and your hate and prejudice makes it impossible to stay neutral.

And I'm not your buddy.
Belitteling someone just proves my point even more.


So far, all you do is proving my point.


Massive superiority complex.
Ignorance, Dunning Krueger.

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia
Basil Pupkin
Republic Military School
#263 - 2015-05-04 10:20:48 UTC
Solecist Project wrote:
Quote:
Not literally, of course,

This just proves my point.
You imagine things that are not being written.

With the "not literally"-excuse you can come up with ANYTHING ...
... and read ANYTHING YOU WANT into the words others write.

Picking at one word out of the sentence, how predictable.
The rest got properly ignored to divert attention from the real issue of utter lack of anything other than "cuz I'm leet"-class sentences.

Solecist Project wrote:
And of course you read things into it that help you prove your points.

Unlike what you imagine ...
... I mean things the way I write them.

I am not projecting anything of myself onto you.
It's the other way round.

Sure, it's me having an emotional outbreak here, unwilling to just admit being bad at civil discussion.

Solecist Project wrote:
And telling me "your kind loves it" just further proves that I am right.
You are incapable of reading what is being written
and your hate and prejudice makes it impossible to stay neutral.

And I'm not your buddy.
Belitteling someone just proves my point even more.

So far, all you do is proving my point.

"Here, you said something, which proves that I'm right"
Logic, mothershipper, do you speak it?
"Your kind" was referring to emotional people, to which you clearly belong, as you gather purely emotional points and trying to pretend they have any weight, completely skipping the rationalization phase, like any emotional type would.
Your emotional type operates on the single line - "What feels good must be right". It would certainly feel good if eve were the game without SP wall, so, in your emotional sights, this is right on that basis and doesn't need any actual proof of the SP wall existence, because it gives you bad feelings.
Ah, the naivety. I'm a little envious of you emotionals sometimes.

By the way, care to elaborate, in hard logic, how anything what I said proves any point you think you made? I know it is much to ask from an emotional to stop his outbreak and behave like an adult for a few minutes, but I have to try. Otherwise I'll have to continue belittling just because you would totally deserve it, behaving like a child.

Being teh freightergankbear automatically puts you below missionbear and minerbear in carebear hierarchy.

If you're about to make "this will make eve un-eve" argument, odds are you are defending some utterly horrible mechanics against a good change.
Solecist Project
#264 - 2015-05-04 10:42:43 UTC
Emotional outbreak ... just look at your post.

Mothershipper.

A rationalisation attempt of "your kind",
which does not change anything about it.

"the naivety" ... again, the belitteling.


You try to belittle someone as "emotional type" ...
... making yourself the, what? Rational type?

Then you'd just fall for the illusion that there is a thing as rationality without influence of feelings.
You, though, in your own posts, show that you are incapable of that ... as I keep pointing out.


Everyone else can read through your posts and compare.


Good luck.

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia
Amy Undergood
Mexican Avacado Syndicate
#265 - 2015-05-04 10:43:12 UTC
Basil Pupkin wrote:
The rest got properly ignored to divert attention from the real issue of utter lack of anything other than "cuz I'm leet"-class sentences.

Your whole argument has always boiled down to because you say so.

It's no different to what you claim of other people and you never offer any evidence to support your claims.

To counter that, I'll just throw out there, that there is no SP wall because I say so.

Just as valid and much more realistic. As with your argument, no counter statements will prove anything other than the correctness of my view and all evidence will be construed to support my view also.

CCP, make skill training harder. It's way too easy at the moment and vets should gain some advantage from the time they put in. At the moment, any new player can come in and beat them. It's not fair. there needs to be a skillpoint wall.
Solecist Project
#266 - 2015-05-04 10:55:12 UTC
Amy Undergood wrote:
Basil Pupkin wrote:
The rest got properly ignored to divert attention from the real issue of utter lack of anything other than "cuz I'm leet"-class sentences.

Your whole argument has always boiled down to because you say so.

It's no different to what you claim of other people and you never offer any evidence to support your claims.

To counter that, I'll just throw out there, that there is no SP wall because I say so.

Just as valid and much more realistic. As with your argument, no counter statements will prove anything other than the correctness of my view and all evidence will be construed to support my view also.

CCP, make skill training harder. It's way too easy at the moment and vets should gain some advantage from the time they put in. At the moment, any new player can come in and beat them. It's not fair. there needs to be a skillpoint wall.

Just wait.

He will read things into your words you haven't written ...
... and belittle you.

But it's us who are projecting ...
... and he doesn't suffer from a massive superiority complex ...
... or dare I say Dunning Krueger.


If I am an "emotional type" has he says so negatively ...
... then I can at least say I'm not half a person, suppressing half of my humanity.


Just realise that trying to teach him something only makes it worse.

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia
Basil Pupkin
Republic Military School
#267 - 2015-05-04 10:58:16 UTC
Solecist Project wrote:
Emotional outbreak ... just look at your post.

Mothershipper.

A rationalisation attempt of "your kind",
which does not change anything about it.

"the naivety" ... again, the belitteling.


You try to belittle someone as "emotional type" ...
... making yourself the, what? Rational type?

Then you'd just fall for the illusion that there is a thing as rationality without influence of feelings.
You, though, in your own posts, show that you are incapable of that ... as I keep pointing out.


Everyone else can read through your posts and compare.


Good luck.

So you try to claim that you aren't having an emotional outbreak on basis that I have it too? Interesting.

"Logic, Mothershipper, do you speak it?" was obviously the parody to the classic Pulp Fiction act and you missed it. Don't blame it on me.

Rationalization were not an attempt, but a clarification just for you, and of course it is not supposed to change anything about the subject, just to make its definition more clear. And here I thought I'm being obvious, guess not to emotionals...

There is a thing such as rationality without the influence of feelings. It's alien to you, being the emotional type, but once again, extrapolating it to others is simply immature and inappropriate.

Please allow me to quote Rex Stout on this:
Mrs. Rachel Bruner: [gushing] Is there anything you can't do?
Nero Wolfe: Yes, madame, there is. I couldn't put sense into a fool's brain if I tried.

I'm fully capable of that, as anyone who considers himself adult should. Now, once again, I ask of you, can we stop going over me, and get to your points beating my points with something other than misplaced ad hominems and teenage fears projection?

Being teh freightergankbear automatically puts you below missionbear and minerbear in carebear hierarchy.

If you're about to make "this will make eve un-eve" argument, odds are you are defending some utterly horrible mechanics against a good change.
Solecist Project
#268 - 2015-05-04 11:09:15 UTC
No, sorry, argueing with someone who suffers a superiority-complex
and dunning krueger at your level is not a good thing to do.

Worsening your condition is the last thing I want to be a part of.
There are no personal attacks involved here, this is just how it is.

I suggest everyone else to consider this for him more than for yourself.
Proof can be found in his posting history all over the place.


And there wasn't a single personal attack coming from me,
I simply kept stating what can be seen right in front of everyone's eyes.


Now I'll go do something more productive,
because attemping to educate the masses to avoid you is equally pointless.

But I've tried.

That ringing in your ears you're experiencing right now is the last gasping breathe of a dying inner ear as it got thoroughly PULVERISED by the point roaring over your head at supersonic speeds. - Tippia
Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#269 - 2015-05-04 11:14:12 UTC
Basil Pupkin wrote:
I certainly wish I had no idea, I'd be a bit less unhappy if I had no idea, but unfortunately I have a perfect grasp, as usual.
LOL, if you want to be taken seriously on this you'll have to post some credentials.

There's game mechanics and then there's the metagame. Getting people to fight, 'herding cats', training them, making sure they have the right ships correctly fitted, having the logistics flexibilty to quickly adjust fleet comp, etc. etc.

While there may be a few people that have a 'perfect grasp' of mechanics, it's simply not posssible to have a 'perfect grasp' of all possible strategies and tactics, also considering that people constantly come up with new ones.


Basil Pupkin wrote:
because every "skill" move you make is trivially counterable with more SP.
???

Please explain, in detail, how a high-SP pilot in, say, an AB Enyo will counter a noob kiting him in a T1 fit condor.

Or a high-SP pilot in a Vigilant will counter a nasty bunch of noobs in T1 insta-lock arty trashers waiting on the other side of the gate he just jumped through.


Basil Pupkin wrote:
Engaging your internet friends to help you is a part of an SP wall leaping mechanics, and the necessity of it lies in the fact of SP wall existence.
If you arbitrarily define 'playing the game' as 'SP wall leaping', then yes, we're all SP wall leapers.

At this point, though, your arguments make no sense at all, since anyone can leap the wall even on a trial account... Roll

Basil Pupkin wrote:
before you win, first you must play skill queue online for 4 years + whatever wall adds in those years.
See above, as per your own argument, to 'win' you just have to leap the wall! Why wait 4 years, or 4 days for that matter?

Also I'm curious: why 4? Please explain your calculations.

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
Basil Pupkin
Republic Military School
#270 - 2015-05-04 11:14:58 UTC
Amy Undergood wrote:
Your whole argument has always boiled down to because you say so.

It's no different to what you claim of other people and you never offer any evidence to support your claims.

To counter that, I'll just throw out there, that there is no SP wall because I say so.

It appears to me that I'm failing if up to this post the most thick-headed people could still miss the arguments I bring every time.
Should we review them?
The first and foremost argument is that all-IV character is tremendously inferior to all-V. Last time I checked it were up to 15% in survivability (either ehp or ehp/s), and up to 18% in damage projection, not including corner-cases like the already mentioned Advanced Weapon Upgrades V, which allows to mount T2 1400 artys without compromising, and gives even further advantage than 18% to all-IV character incapable of mounting T2 version. That is the root basis of my claim, saying that even one level behind will make you lose on the basis of SP before anything else has a chance to influence a fight. This point is oftenly contested, and has mounted a few notable exceptions (mostly "old miner vs new ganker" vapor case though), but ultimately stood, as you can't just deny numbers.
From there on, it extrapolated to a whole theory that utilizing SP advantage is the most prominent way to win fights, as the "skill" moves can be trivially countered by having more SP, which makes SP the king of force multipliers. This was also contested, usually with "but miracles happen, so you are wrong" type of argument, but also ultimately stood.
From there we come to SP wall. SP wall is an amount of SP which allows you to effectively use all current meta ships enough to win a fight against a comparable meta ship by sheer SP, and counter meta ships by having enough SP to pilot a countership. This allows you to reach starting point in eve combat pvp by presumably not being squashed by pure SP in the "comparable" scenario, and the point where other factors, like piloting your ship better than the opposition, become noticeable.
And here it is connected to this thread, because being below SP wall is the major reason for not undocking, and buffing insurance even to 100% (and even 111% in my personal case) would not only not solve it, but also not even going to treat the symptom of it.
There, my arguments entirely, from base to tip. Feel free to ignore again.

Amy Undergood wrote:
Just as valid and much more realistic. As with your argument, no counter statements will prove anything other than the correctness of my view and all evidence will be construed to support my view also.

CCP, make skill training harder. It's way too easy at the moment and vets should gain some advantage from the time they put in. At the moment, any new player can come in and beat them. It's not fair. there needs to be a skillpoint wall.

If only there weren't an actual SP wall, as described in first part of this post, this argument could live to be something more than a wishful thinking.

Being teh freightergankbear automatically puts you below missionbear and minerbear in carebear hierarchy.

If you're about to make "this will make eve un-eve" argument, odds are you are defending some utterly horrible mechanics against a good change.
Amy Undergood
Mexican Avacado Syndicate
#271 - 2015-05-04 11:20:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Amy Undergood
Basil Pupkin wrote:
hot air

Lot's of guff without any proof and resorting to ad hominem attacks that you compain about from others.

Yep, thanks. If you can't provide evidence to support your statements, you are only proving my point.

Thanks Basil for supporting the view that there should be a skillpoint wall. I hope CCP take note of this and make the gap larger.

Mighty fine of you sir.
Ria Nieyli
Nieyli Enterprises
SL33PERS
#272 - 2015-05-04 11:21:57 UTC
There is a minimum of skillpoints that you need to be competetive in a solo fight. This begs the question, why not team up with someone else? EVE is an MMO after all. And after you've reached that minimum, it becomes really easy to diversify your ship options - you only need to train support skills once.
Basil Pupkin
Republic Military School
#273 - 2015-05-04 11:22:33 UTC
Solecist Project wrote:
No, sorry, argueing with someone who suffers a superiority-complex
and dunning krueger at your level is not a good thing to do.

Worsening your condition is the last thing I want to be a part of.
There are no personal attacks involved here, this is just how it is.
And there wasn't a single personal attack coming from me,
I simply kept stating what can be seen right in front of everyone's eyes.

You still haven't noticed how your personal attacks were all ignored?
I promise you, you can totally have my attention without them, so maybe it's time to stop the kindergarten level insults?
And your trying to weasel out of it by claiming that it wasn't what it was is so cute. Keep trying, I like it!

Solecist Project wrote:
I suggest everyone else to consider this for him more than for yourself.
Proof can be found in his posting history all over the place.

So you finally admit you brought no proof?

Solecist Project wrote:
Now I'll go do something more productive,
because attemping to educate the masses to avoid you is equally pointless.

But I've tried.

It's like trying to play eve avoiding everyone else.
Possible, but very hard, mostly pointless, and undeniably silly.

Being teh freightergankbear automatically puts you below missionbear and minerbear in carebear hierarchy.

If you're about to make "this will make eve un-eve" argument, odds are you are defending some utterly horrible mechanics against a good change.
Basil Pupkin
Republic Military School
#274 - 2015-05-04 11:25:25 UTC
Amy Undergood wrote:
Basil Pupkin wrote:
hot air

Lot's of guff without any proof and resorting to ad hominem attacks that you compain about from others.

Yep, thanks. If you can't provide evidence to support your statements, you are only proving my point.

Thanks Basil for supporting the view that there should be a skillpoint wall. I hope CCP take note of this and make the gap larger.


"I'm a cool kid, I can claim there are ad hominems in the post which doesn't even address me."

Come on, you can do better than this 1/10.

At least I always quoted the whole post, snipping only obvious insults - just to ease the workload of ISD who's going to have to remove them from quotes anyway. Never picking at words, never snipping mid-line, always addressing the whole point brought in.

Being teh freightergankbear automatically puts you below missionbear and minerbear in carebear hierarchy.

If you're about to make "this will make eve un-eve" argument, odds are you are defending some utterly horrible mechanics against a good change.
Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#275 - 2015-05-04 11:26:59 UTC
Basil Pupkin wrote:
The first and foremost argument is that all-IV character is tremendously inferior to all-V. Last time I checked it were up to 15% in survivability (either ehp or ehp/s), and up to 18% in damage projection, not including corner-cases like the already mentioned Advanced Weapon Upgrades V, which allows to mount T2 1400 artys without compromising, and gives even further advantage than 18% to all-IV character incapable of mounting T2 version. That is the root basis of my claim, saying that even one level behind will make you lose on the basis of SP before anything else has a chance to influence a fight. This point is oftenly contested, and has mounted a few notable exceptions (mostly "old miner vs new ganker" vapor case though), but ultimately stood, as you can't just deny numbers.
This is a very weak basis, Basil.

Just fitting a web, or a second web instead of one, or a faction web with more range, will make a much greater difference in damage application then 18%...

You really should PVP more, my friend. You'll be surprised.

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!
Basil Pupkin
Republic Military School
#276 - 2015-05-04 11:30:04 UTC
Ria Nieyli wrote:
There is a minimum of skillpoints that you need to be competetive in a solo fight.

Now I'll be blamed for taking this quote as the one supporting my point without consent from all the emotional beings who don't like this. You can't deny it does, can you?

Ria Nieyli wrote:
This begs the question, why not team up with someone else? EVE is an MMO after all.

Which is the first and second exception to "more sp = win" general rule, teaming up with people over the SP wall, or out-SP-blobbing the enemy. I believe that's exactly what I mentioned.

Ria Nieyli wrote:
And after you've reached that minimum, it becomes really easy to diversify your ship options - you only need to train support skills once.

And yes once again, once the SP wall is crossed, you can start winning, also my point exactly.

Being teh freightergankbear automatically puts you below missionbear and minerbear in carebear hierarchy.

If you're about to make "this will make eve un-eve" argument, odds are you are defending some utterly horrible mechanics against a good change.
Amy Undergood
Mexican Avacado Syndicate
#277 - 2015-05-04 11:31:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Amy Undergood
Basil Pupkin wrote:
At least I always quoted the whole post, snipping only obvious insults - just to ease the workload of ISD who's going to have to remove them from quotes anyway. Never picking at words, never snipping mid-line, always addressing the whole point brought in.

Oh ok then:

Basil Pupkin wrote:
It appears to me that I'm failing if up to this post the most thick-headed people could still miss the arguments I bring every time.


Still can't offer anything other than to address the poster. Once again, thanks for the support of my view since you can't counter it with any evidence.

You are really building us case for CCP here. More benefit to vets needed. New players are too good at pvp too early.

Surely you can do better then that, with actual evidence to refute my view. Of course, it's impossible to do, since there is no skillpoint wall as you now support yourself.
Basil Pupkin
Republic Military School
#278 - 2015-05-04 11:33:24 UTC
Gully Alex Foyle wrote:
Basil Pupkin wrote:
The first and foremost argument is that all-IV character is tremendously inferior to all-V. Last time I checked it were up to 15% in survivability (either ehp or ehp/s), and up to 18% in damage projection, not including corner-cases like the already mentioned Advanced Weapon Upgrades V, which allows to mount T2 1400 artys without compromising, and gives even further advantage than 18% to all-IV character incapable of mounting T2 version. That is the root basis of my claim, saying that even one level behind will make you lose on the basis of SP before anything else has a chance to influence a fight. This point is oftenly contested, and has mounted a few notable exceptions (mostly "old miner vs new ganker" vapor case though), but ultimately stood, as you can't just deny numbers.
This is a very weak basis, Basil.

Just fitting a web, or a second web instead of one, or a faction web with more range, will make a much greater difference in damage application then 18%...

You really should PVP more, my friend. You'll be surprised.


I were already surprised when I found out that you can only PvP without being content after years and years of skill queue online.

Still trying to figure out what you're trying to say. I said "up to 18%, not including corner cases", and you bring a corner case. Where's the contradiction?

Being teh freightergankbear automatically puts you below missionbear and minerbear in carebear hierarchy.

If you're about to make "this will make eve un-eve" argument, odds are you are defending some utterly horrible mechanics against a good change.
Basil Pupkin
Republic Military School
#279 - 2015-05-04 11:36:23 UTC
Amy Undergood wrote:
Basil Pupkin wrote:
At least I always quoted the whole post, snipping only obvious insults - just to ease the workload of ISD who's going to have to remove them from quotes anyway. Never picking at words, never snipping mid-line, always addressing the whole point brought in.

Oh ok then:

Basil Pupkin wrote:
It appears to me that I'm failing if up to this post the most thick-headed people could still miss the arguments I bring every time.


Still can't offer anything other than to address the poster. Once again, thanks for the support of my view since you can't counter it with any evidence.

You are really building us case for CCP here. More benefit to vets needed. New players are too good at pvp too early.

Surely you can do better then that, with actual evidence to refute my view. Of course, it's impossible to do, since there is no skillpoint wall as you now support yourself.


Still 1/10, quoted random parts of posts and pretended you did something sentient.
Of course, unlike me, you're just going to ignore parts that you have nothing to put against.
At least Gully Alex Foyle is trying, but you are the disappointment.

Being teh freightergankbear automatically puts you below missionbear and minerbear in carebear hierarchy.

If you're about to make "this will make eve un-eve" argument, odds are you are defending some utterly horrible mechanics against a good change.
Gully Alex Foyle
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#280 - 2015-05-04 11:42:37 UTC
Basil Pupkin wrote:
Still trying to figure out what you're trying to say. I said "up to 18%, not including corner cases", and you bring a corner case. Where's the contradiction?
Do you think having or not having a web, or having two, or having or not a rapier in fleet are corner cases?

What's the base case, in your fantasy world? All ships fitting exactly one web 90% of the time?


Honest question: did you ever undock?

Hell, did you even ever browse zkillboard? Just right now on the first page I counted 2-3 ships with a web, 2-3 without a web, and 1 with dual webs.

Roll

Make space glamorous! Is EVE dying or not? Ask the EVE-O Death-o-meter!