Confused

Yup. Thats it.

Its not the paragraphs after paragraphs of arguments disproving your claims, or asking you for arguments to back up your claims.

" the resources needed to kill your average rorq is ridiculas"

21 Cruisers killed this rorq.

What does this mean? Absolutely nothing!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHAHAH

If your claim was “Its too hard to kill ants”, and a scientis came back with “theres plenty of ants dying”, you would be laughed out of the room.

Just like you are now.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

you haven’t disproved anything, thats the thing; all your doing is proving your biased and laziness.

We know this because anyone who can play the game, who is smart and adaptable and isnt a simple farmer like yourself would have simply said…

“yeh im good with that, i will just fit my barge with a cyno”

But you, you wont; because it suits you to remain invulnerable for five whole minutes with your cyno lit as soon as someone ejects their inhib.

We both know your agenda is to mine in complete safety under the delve umbrella, this devalues any argument (not to mention the illogical ‘this is a counter’ statements) that you have.

All your arguments for debate can and will always be debunked by rational logical thinking, what cannot be stopped is your incessant ranting to the contrary that you are right and have provided proof; yes you have provided proof, proof why rorquals should NOT be allowed to use panic AND light a cyno at the same time.

correct me if im wrong but an inhib takes a minute to anchor and has incredibly limited hitpoints right?

and the rorq can light a cyno and be invulnerable in the click of a button?

sounds one sided to me tbh

is this really what forum people do? stands to reason there is a disparity there its quite obvious really

Oh god this is hilarious.

Yes, youre right. I am completely safe under the delve umbrella.

Guess why?

Heres a hint: It has nothing to do with a PANIC module. And everything to do with the cyno module, and the fleet behind that cyno module.

In other words, even if PANIC was removed COMPLETELY, it wouldnt affect Delve mining, at all. Period. Because we have a good support fleet.

Im glad youve realized that.

Yeah, youre right. And youve clearly demonstrated this by refusing to respond to my arguments.

Which ive asked you, multiple times, to present.

Number of times asked? Many.

Number of times responded? Zero.

Yes, i am a firm believer of “Make the claim, provide the proof.”

Your stance is basically “I believe Bigfoot exists, prove me wrong”.

Thats not how it works. Sorry, mate.

1 Like

Oh thats cool, you brought an alt.

Yes, inhibs take a minute to anchor. But they have 170K HP. That is not “limited hitpoints”, thats double most battleships.

A single rorqual deals around a maximum of 1200-1300 DPS, with max skills.

That takes roughly 2 minutes and a bit to destroy an Inhib, not including drone flight time.

While that inhibitor is being shot at, the parties involved will be shooting and destroying your drones.

The way you destroy a rorq is the same way you catch a supercarrier, except easier, because supercarrier ratting is a lot more active, meaning that the chances that you are at your keyboard and on the screen you need to be, is much higher.

Thing is, you can say the same about a supercarrier. A click of a mouse and you can jump to a nearby cyno, getting out to complete safety.

But when youre actually being dropped on, things happen. Fast. And thats how you lose ships.

Super carrier has fortified warp strength iirc and is at least 4 times the cost of a rorqual? Are you saying a rorq should be as powerful as a super?
I thought carrier maybe and it is considering what its job actually is. The rorq is or was intended as a mining support ship correct? not the be all and end all of mining ships.

You can jam it, i’m not sure you understand how jamming works, looking at a falcon you would have around a 30% chance of jamming a rorq per cycle, if you know its a rorq and you have racial jammers fitted you’re likely to get a jam cycle off atleast once per round, you then use damps to reduce the rorqs lock range and increase its lock time for any time you fail a jam cycle, yes you’re not going to keep a rorq permajammed with a single jammer ofc but thats by design

Sure there is no way to remove it from panic once it enters it, like i said, the counter is BEFORE it panics, its really not that complicated to understand

I think the “tool” is the person who dismisses the counter because they don’t actually understand how it works :wink:

Not sure what relevance this has, combat ceptors being bubble immune didn’t exactly make much sense, their role isn’t actually to “intercept” so i don’t have an issue with that being removed, if you want to catch things and be bubble immune you take the actual intercepting interceptor :stuck_out_tongue:

I don’t bother flying rorqs, but resorting to insults does demonstrate one thing, you actually ran out of valid arguments, you dismissing the counters doesn’t change that they are infact counters, see the one being salty is the one who is unable to get the free kills he feels he is entitled to, Rorqual | Losses | Ship | zKillboard the fact that rorqs are dying on basically a daily basis complete with panic module equipped very clearly demonstrates they can be killed, refusing to accept the proof doesn’t as a result make you correct

Much like all you’re doing is proving you don’t seem to understand how the counters to panic actually work while throwing around insults at the people who DO understand how it works, i mean you’re really not helping your case

Yet you haven’t actually done this even once

1 Like

ohh yeh, you dumb, plain and simple.

you that dumb you probably still add with your fingers, and you probably got twelve of those.

LOL

no sir

Prove it :slight_smile:

Actually i was wrong, assuming 7 jammers you actually have a 47.1% chance per cycle of all your jammers so i admit i was wrong when i said 30%

https://www.evedata.org/ecmjam

By all means prove me wrong :slight_smile:

1 Like

Fully fit rorqual costs around 10 billion isk. So no, they are actually comparable to an empty supercarrier, and more expensive than even your average carrier.

By the way, even an average carrier can jump out too. There is no restriction to jumping out right before, or right when a ship lands on grid.

A rorqual, can’t. And that’s the point of the PANIC module. The rorqual is essentially pointed, unable to warp or jump.

1 Like

I love how funny your discussions is with other people.

Cypherous: A well thought out, structured argument proving how you’re wrong.

Lugburz: “lol u dumb”

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Best part is, if you look at his characters age he should be more than used to thinking outside of the box

It’s really sad how todays white knights even defend “features” that the community 10 years ago would have been ripped midair and started a riot about.

Something has definitively changed in the view some have at the game.

1 Like

You have no argument, only reasons why you should be safe when mining in a rorq tbh; thats literally all you have, and its not an argument for debate its a biased statement.

But w/e

So prove me wrong then if you think i’m dumb you clearly have a deluge of evidence to prove whatever i said was wrong, by all means present it :wink:

1 Like

Some people in the game and in the forum live in their 2003 bubble and everyone who DARES to say that this bubble is 15 years old and outdated is confronted with all the hate and all the nerdiness they have to give…

Reality of todays games = carebearing for those…

You can call this sad.i call it funny…

1 Like

*
3. a process of reasoning; series of reasons:

  1. a statement, reason, or fact for or against a point:

Cool. Everyone here sees how utterly moronic you are being, so keep at it.

@Lugburz, seriously @Solonius_Rex is pretty spot on in terms of what he said above about the Rorqual. I did not Rorqual mine but many of my alliance mates in Tactical Supremacy did and I helped defend them. I have also been on a number of Rorqual kills. I think he pretty much nailed it.

Can we keep discussions on gender politics out of this forum?

If you don’t like it Balos, don’t watch it. The world is not going under, cause Dr. Who is having a female doctor. It is an insignificant problem.

Can we maybe close this thread cause it has gone way too off-topic and is getting slightly bitter?
@CCP_Falcon @ISD_Buldath @ISD_Sakimura

2 Likes