…then fine, I can get down with the program. But “bigger shouldn’t be worse” either, so let’s fix all the inconsistencies making it so.
If bigger shouldn’t be better, then bigger shouldn’t require more skilling (and in the case of capships… LOTS more skilling). So, 1) de-tier the skilling, and make the entire skill tree flat, so that it’s as easy to skill into a capship as it is a frigate, and 2) reimburse skill points for the year of skilling it took capship pilots to get that skill.
If bigger shouldn’t be better, then bigger shouldn’t be more expensive either. So drop the price on bigger ships. Yeah yeah, I know - “CCP doesn’t control the price” and “it’s a player driven market” blah blah. Horse manure. CCP makes sure you can’t make and sell a capship for a profit unless it’s more than X amount of ISK. So CCP should lower that X so that capships are competitively priced with frigates and what not.
If bigger shouldn’t be better, then bigger shouldn’t be disallowed from highsec either. So let capships back into highsec. If they aren’t better, they also shouldn’t be the redheaded stepchild.
If bigger shouldn’t be better, then bigger shouldn’t be slower either. Increase impulse and warp speed of both capships and battleships.
If bigger shouldn’t be better, then bigger shouldn’t have worse signature resolution either.
And before I get accused of “trolling,” either by some forum idiot, or a moderator, it isn’t trolling to take a point people continuously make (bigger shouldn’t be better!), and take it to it’s logical conclusion, either to illustrate absurdity, or for some other reason.
I don’t know, ask them. I’m not the one who came up with, or uses the phrase “bigger shouldn’t be better!” However, apparently they mean “bigger shouldn’t be able to kill smaller.”
Different ships have different roles and there are various things that are either better or different among different sizes of ships and specializations. It’s not a linear scale.
No no no! Surely you’ve heard the mantra “bigger shouldn’t be better!” I’ve heard it for years. Come on, you’ve played this game longer than I have, so surely you’ve heard it.
If a big ship could do everything at least as well as a small ship could, it would be objectively better and noone would need to fly any smaller ship anymore.
Fortunately, this isn’t the case and there are situations, roles, locations or just personal preferences for almost any ship in the game. So no ship is objectively better than any other, it’s just arguably better for a specific task (and pilot).
Yes I agree. And the reverse is true too, i.e. if a small ship could do everything at least as well as a big ship could, it would be objectively better and no one would need to fly a bigger ship anymore.
Ever heard of the slippery slope fallacy? You sound no different than a person who says “if we let gay people marry, then the logical conclusion is that we should let people marry animals.”
Going to the logical extreme, means you end up at a logical fallacy. This is not only a stupid, but also fallacious argument to make, which means it’s a bad argument to make.
Don’t get me wrong. I think carriers should be anti-subcaps and they should stay where they are right now. But your argument isn’t a valid one. It’s not a valid criticism. It’s just a stupid fallacy at this point.
