Late to the party, but no regrets. Question for the OP: what would you suggest happens to the ships that fail to receive upkeep ? Mothballed/asset safety ? Pushed out of structure as if the structure were destroyed ? Simply cease to exist ?
My two cents: after the shameful abandoned structure pinata fest of last year ((still my opinion !), I doubt it would be in the long term interest of the community, and CCP, to deter supercap pilots from returning to the game after a hiatus. Most of us are absent from the game for some length of time. The prospect of returning to a game where you literally lost your prize possessions is not a happy, welcoming one. The type of customer who flies caps/supercaps/titans is probably too interesting to lose forever.
On cap/supercap proliferation: the harder or costlier it gets to replace them, the more fcâs will hesitate to have them fielded. Who cares about supers that donât undock - they donât matter as museum pieces. However, I think even that (the current ccp âshortageâ) approach is wrong, reason being that if one of the superpowers gets the upper hand by destroying another superpowerâs supercap/titan fleet, they get a free hand on the entire map, virtually untouchable for many years, and able to completely dominate the sandbox. Isnât that what happened on Serenity ? Increasing the stakes by playing âdouble or nothingâ is not a happy prospect when it comes to supercap fleets (see war in southwest).
I agree with @Solonius_Rex that the more interesting and fun answer to supercap proliferation is better counters
AND an ad hominem when answering to someone making a point. Exactly what you did in that post : insults in answer to my point, therefore another ad hominem. Just because you are unable to make a post without ad hominem, does not mean that what you are doing is correct. It just means, that you are a troll.
Therefore, your claim that insults and ad hominem are mutually exclusive shows you have no idea what you are talking about.
yes those costs are already paid but accepting to remove those assets means that the FUTURE dev time is also wasted.
Thatâs why when your strategy is to get rid of something that does not match your expectations then you are wasting dev time. Because then you WILL be making things that WILL be wasted.
So yes, you have no idea what I am talking about but need to use over simplification as usual.
Trying to remove all the things you donât understand just to make them again because you just did not understand that they were needed, is a very common caveat in dev. âthis car goes too slow, letâs remake the wheelâ.
No itâs not. You just made up that definition. An ad hominem is, when you attack the person instead of attacking his argument. Period.
I made a point. You answered with insults. Therefore you made an ad hominem.
But yeah itâs difficult for you to understand that things are not EITHER A OR B.
No itâ wonât. Thatâs why you are wrong, you assume it will be zero, but in reality, since the caps have a purpose, then dev time will be allocated to create things that will serve that purpose. That would not be called cap, yet that would not need to be developed if the caps had remained in place.
No it isnât. An ad hominem is an argument. Insulting you is not an argument, itâs an insult. I understand that you are ignorant and lazy and refuse to learn, but whining about âOMG AD HOMINEM I WIN YOU LOSE LOLOLOLâ doesnât make you right.
No itâ wonât. Thatâs why you are wrong, you assume it will be zero, but in reality, since the caps have a purpose, then dev time will be allocated to create things that will serve that purpose. That would not be called cap, yet that would not need to be developed if the caps had remained in place.
Utter nonsense. Even if you grant the assumption that capitals have a purpose that must be maintained (they donât) youâre ignoring the fact that development time is still required even if CCP keeps capitals because capitals are not working. And judging by CCPâs record of failure when attempting to fix capitals the amount of development time is apparently without limit.
Yeah I know you are not able to understand that. No problem, you will learn when you get over 5yo.
You make ad hominem all the time when you insult the person who presented his agument. Thatâs actually the definition of the ad hominem. Because you are actually answering to his argument, which you disagree with, by attacking the person.
Here is the issue : you assume they donât. You assume CCP made them for no reason, or for bad reason. You assume they have no purpose in the game.
No it isnât. FFS, read the damn definitions. An ad hominem is a fallacy, which means that by definition it must be an argument. In this case, it is an argument in the form of â{person} sucks, therefore Y is trueâ. It is a fallacy because even if {person} sucks their sucking has nothing to do with whether or not Y is true.
â**** youâ is not an argument. It does not present a position on any factual question, it simply expresses hostility towards you. But, like every useless forum troll, you shamelessly misuse the term as an excuse to masturbate over how you âwonâ the argument because someone said something mean to you.
You assume CCP made them for no reason, or for bad reason. You assume they have no purpose in the game.
I donât assume. I base this opinion on understanding of game design. And I base it on how CCPâs original design concept for them failed, and how their subsequent attempts to balance capitals have also failed.
Iâm genuinely surprised by how many people use the term âad hominemâ and donât understand what it actually means, which is exactly whatâs in this highlighted section.
And while I donât have a cock in this fight, one of Andersonâs recent posts really stands out in my memory:
That is some extreme misinterpretation of terms. Even a 99-cent dictionary bases the definition of violence on the presence of physical force, so itâs a bit concerning that someone so intently focused on direct interpretations would do this, or to interpret pretty much anything short of full agreement as a âpersonal attackâ (as Iâm sure this post will be as well).
I mean itâs fine if someone wants to base all their arguments on formal definitions or encyclopedia articles or whatever, but then it actually has to be done by the book.
Yes it is. FFS read the damn definition. An ad hominem is a form of arguing where you answer to a person argument by attacking the person instead of the argument he made.
Itâs fallacious because it assumes that the validity of the argument depends on who made it.
Yes, you do.
Your misunderstanding on game design is almost as strong as your misunderstanding of ad hominems and sunk cost fallacy.
You are right, but I just donât care.
Itâs just off topic blabbering with personal attack.
And I also gave definition. If you want to quote, then quote completely, not partially. That would be correct, otherwise itâs just a troll.
Yes, and then they lose the arguments when they speak to actual naval warfare and strategy experts who explain why we need things like Destroyers.
You do realize that people have made arguments as to why we have a military budget, at all, right? The important thing isnt whether someone questions or argues a point, its whether they can actually defend their point with a well-reasoned argument.
I dont understand, Youve never heard of something called a buffer tank?
Again, i dont understand. Are you saying cruise missiles cannot be intercepted?
Fired from a ship, no less. And a hypersonic cruise missile, no less. The P270 is a supersonic, not hypersonic cruise missile btw. We already have ways of intercepting sub and supersonic cruise missiles, the same way we deal with aircraft.
With regards to this, Again, I dont understand. What did your phone look like in 2002. What did EVE online look like in 2002? Oh, thats right, it was released in 2003. You do realize that technology has changed, quite drastically, in the last 19 years, right.
No, theres a big difference between being able to own 1-2 titans, and not being able to own any titans.
Its the same difference between building a keepstar, and building a palatine keepstar. Are you honestly going to tell me that there is only a slight difference between a keepstar and a palatine keepstar?
And it can bridge everything from frigs to Jump freighters?
So what is your relevant arguments to back up your claim?
Okay, lets break this down post by post. Here was your original reply.
Youve been talking about the Lore/Concepts from the very beginning. And my question to you was why bring it up at all when its merely a subjective, stupid argument.
And yes, this was all at the very beginning of your post, before we talked about citadels.
So yes, you need to learn to follow the discussion better.
â**** youâ is not an argument in and of itself. But if you are responding to someone who is making an argument, then it becomes a response or argument, and therefore fallacious.
Fallacious: A makes an argument, B responds with âYou are a moron and you are also ugly, you cannot possibly be correctâ. B has not offered a genuine response or argument, only abuse - this is fallacious.
Whatâs more he was arguing before and resorted to insults when he found himself out of valid arguments.
It was an insult to hide the fact that he had nothing to actually answer. Not that the argument he was answering to was valid, but more that he found a better troll than him.
If he had come out of the blue and just posted insults, yes that would not be an ad hominem. But here it was just him admitting defeat after an argument he knew he could not win.
You know eve is just a big making money simulator right? If everyone had a titan the game would grind to a halt because it would be boring. I think a lot of people here want the titan to be moved into a special class where it is unique and specifically used for certain things and overall should cost a good bit of iskies to keep in your Arsenal. Personally the idea of only a few existing is what would make them especially fun to actually ever get.
You have certainly set a new low, posting the entire sequence of posts where my very first post mentions game design concepts that have nothing to do with lore and lying that it says âLORE FROM THE BEGINNINGâ.
There is no point in engaging in any further discussion with someone who spends that much effort to lie so blatantly.
Personally I wouldnât have a problem with it but itâs very âun-EVEâ. Most other space games have some sort of fuel cost even for basic operation so itâs not that far fetched.
Would probably make more sense for each ship you undock with to require a base level of insurance. That way actively used ships are âtaxedâ and ships used in PvP, so which will be lost at some point, are taxed less due to insurance payout.
