is 600-800 million greater or lesser than 1.3-1.5b?
Did I say the price of an Orca was unchanged or…? Again, still waiting for the point.
You told me it was nonsense that an Orca could cost half of what it does now.
600-800 is half.
So yes. You’re 100% right. It could never have cost 600 to 800 ISK.
correct me if I’m wrong, but it would appear that prices did increase and not due to balancing ships?
No, they weren’t, and among subcaps, most of the cases where a ship did have an outsized price jump,
What do the highlighted words mean?
Actually, I said it was nonsense that the hulk was 100m when they came out. That you’re misquoting me so deliberately just a few posts later is just an obvious exercise in dishonesty.
oh, I see!
Could you elucidate on which ships did not increase?
So which is it? Did prices go up or did they remain the same? You’re the one who must tell us what to believe.
I have to be quite frank here, I do not play the market so my questions are genuine. I was appalled when I came back to play and saw the prices of ships had risen so much!
Do Orcas only use high sec minerals? How does war decs change the price of an Orca?
I’ve been very clear that prices are higher today, and that they are not higher to the degree that you claim.
I already mentioned a few. Pre-tiericide “third tier” battleships are similar or cheaper today, hulks are about the same price as in 2011 but the skiff and mackinaw are more expensive (tiericide, again).
1 Like
I do not know! I was just reading the current conversation between two individuals that appear to not like each other very much at the moment, and decided it would be a great time to ask some questions and maybe relax the conversation some!
I guess that’s not allowed, first flag in probably 4 years.
So once again you claim here that Orcas could never have cost 600m ISK.
I thought it went from 1 to 2? was it 3 to 2? My memory is a little foggy due to my retirement from mining so long ago.
No, once again I’m ignoring the generally dishonest tactic where you attempt to put words in my mouth and am simply redirecting back to what I actually said, instead.
How does Orca prices support your argument for war deccing needing a change?
But i specifically used Orcas in my example. You said I was completely wrong.
Your claim was that they could never cost 600m until someone else said it and you agreed. But not when i said it.
Your credibility is laughable.
Oh you didnt. You just said I was wrong when I said it. I never said that YOU said it.
I’m not sure if maybe you’re just unclear on how a quote-response works, but when someone quotes something and then furnishes a response, they’re generally responding to specifically what they quoted, and not whatever you imagine.