Well, Beast ol’ chum, folks tried to tell you why you weren’t killing that afk ishtar, but iirc you absolutely rejected any of it.
You sure do like the term nano gang dontcha?
Welp, sorry you don’t like things. o7
1 Like
I don’t recall rejecting anything except when someone would say things that didn’t apply to the situation. Also, there was a video posted by someone else in the same thread of an experienced PvPer who has lots of videos he streams online, and he tried the same thing and failed.
Good point. I’ll repost the video here.
W…wait a minute.
That’s not a carrier. That’s a typhoon!
And he’s using torps.
And he doesn’t have a prop mod, so he can’t maintain range.
And it’s from 2017.
And he knew he was going to have all of these problems on the way in, but he took a stab at it for funsies and, afaik, didn’t run to the forum to cry about anything at all because he actually understands the mechanics and is cognizant of why he couldn’t just kill that Ishtar, given his circumstances at the time (one of any number of fairly modest refits would change the outcome entirely).
So… I guess it wasn’t a very good point, after all. 
Basically, he drew a mulligan hand but played the game for laughs, whereas what you did was just preternaturally stupid.
5 Likes
A lot of nasty people on these forums.
I didn’t rewatch the video. I remembered a carrier, because that was the topic of the original post. If in fact it was a Typhoon as you say - point taken.
I took a stab at the thing for funsies too. And I didn’t complain that I didn’t kill the Ishtar. I couldn’t have cared less. My point, which I repeated like 100 times, and which I will now repeat for the 101st time, was if carriers were so monstrously OP and so deserving of nerfs, one would think one could kill an AFK cruiser with such a beast.
And the response you were given 100 times, and I’ll now repeat for the 101st time, is that you’re basing your conclusion off of your own performance and you’re known to be a not-particularly-skillful player who has repeatedly demonstrated a poor grasp of game mechanics.
Nothing about your post demonstrated that a carrier can’t kill an AFK ishtar. It demonstrated that you, known baddie, can’t kill an AFK ishtar while flying a carrier. Those are wholly different concepts.
Moreover though, it’s a pretty stupid way to try to gauge how “good” a carrier is. An AFK ishtar is generally going to be 100mn fit. This means it is both small and fast. This means that a ship on the relatively poor end of the application spectrum, such as the carrier you elected to bring, is going to have a difficult time applying damage to it.
Now, Bjorn was out roaming in that typhoon - he’s taking the fights he can get. You, though - you chose to go have a go at an AFK ishtar in a carrier.
The major thing this tells us is that you’re not very good at choosing a good tool for a job. And, that’s exactly what ships are - they’re tools. You reach for the one that is appropriate for a given situation, you don’t just buy one hammer and figure, "I own a tool now, so my tool requirements for all scenarios are covered. Hanging a picture? Hammer. Leaky faucet? Hammer. Garage door busted? Hammer.
1 Like
@Florisha_Baldanus @Beast_of_Revelations @Rocket_Hellfire @Ramona_McCandless @Xuxe_Xu @Haulie_Berry @Xeux @QuakeGod @Commander_Kane @Scoots_Choco
Okay, I don’t consider any ship to be end-game. They all have their strengths and weaknesses, so it’s all about picking the right tool for the job. Yes, I do feel that there is some level of “gear” progression when it comes to Eve (especially when it comes to tiers -i.e. T2, Faction, Dedspace), but I like the fact that the progression is linear, and not exponential, and that everything comes with trade offs.
Now, a linear progression system helps keep lower level equipmunk competitive, which is extremely important in a PvP-centric MMO with a slow character progression system that is trying to attract new players. If new players had to train for 2 or 3 years just to not get their dick knocked in the dirt every time they undocked, most players wouldn’t bother. That being said, a linear progression system isn’t enough on it’s own. After all, the old tiered system for mods and ships demonstrated that most players would just flock for the most powerful stuff most of the time*. So, that’s where the trade-offs come in.
Trade-offs help to give various advantages and disadvantages to equipmunk lying at all points on the progression system, which has several awesome advantages:
- Of course, the first one is that it helps to make all equipmunk at least somewhat competitive (no, Eve is not perfectly balanced). This is amazing for helping newbros to be competitive and make meaningful contributions to fights.
- Past that, however, it greatly increases depth. For example, players would have their ability to make meaningful choices greatly restricted if the only competitive ships were super carriers and titans, and everything else was just noob ships and cannon fodder.
- It also makes Eve a much more diverse and interesting place. I mean, people already complain about it being Munin’s online, or whatever, but imagine how much worse it would be without the balancing force of trade-offs.
- This helps people to adhere to Eve’s Golden Rule. You don’t need to fly only the biggest, baddest, most expensive ships to be competitive. You can go out in your T1 frig and get good fights and have fun.
- And finally, this combats the “I-Win button,” which is especially important in keeping Eve from becoming straight up pay to win. Remember, players can buy plex from CCP and sell it on the in-game market for isk. Thus, in order to keep Eve from being pay to win, the single biggest determining factor for fights must be player skill. If it ever becomes ship cost, then all is lost. Besides, don’t you want fight outcomes to be determined by your skill, and not how much isk grinding you can tolerate?
Caps are huge time investment, and their power should be reflective of that. But they should never be an I-Win button -or “end game ship” as OP likes to call them. Obviously, some people would rather have their equipmunk determine fight outcomes instead of player skill, but I believe that one of the reasons that Eve is so g.d. amazing is because player skill is the single biggest determining factor in fight outcomes. And, if that ever stops being the case, I’ll probably bail.
But that’s just my opinion. What do you guys think?
*Note: For those that don’t know, pre-tiericide meta-level mods were differentiated by power, cost, and fitting requirements. Moreover, ships within a particular category weren’t specialized, instead they were designed more like pre-tiericide meta-level mods. CCP thought that the tradeoff between cost and power would be enough to present meaningful choices to the players, but found that everyone just flocked to the most powerful stuff#. So, that’s when they decided to differentiate ship into roles (i.e. T1 Logi, Ewar, Tackle, and Combat Frigates), and give meta-module mods different strengths and weaknesses (i.e. Enduring, Scoped, Restrained, Compact).
#Note for my note: No, I don’t have a source for this, but I adamantly assert that I heard CCP say this somewhere (probably during a player event AMA).
3 Likes
Again, if carriers are half as OP as they are alleged to be by certain types, then they wouldn’t have difficulty applying damage to Ishtars, and an Ishtar wouldn’t be on the poor end of the damage application spectrum. I will also repeat yet another point that was repeated ad nauseam on the other post: I didn’t have difficulty applying damage. I damaged it, it would just insta-repair in seconds. It’s easy enough to kill rat frigates in a carrier - I do it all the time. I don’t know what you’re going on about with the “damage application” nonsense.
-
I wasn’t trying to choose a “good tool” for the job. That wasn’t the point of my exercise (you have great difficulty in grasping points, even when they are spelled out over and over). I was trying to kill the thing with a carrier.
-
If carriers have to be such a “right tool” in order to kill something (an AFK-something no less), then that says they aren’t half as OP as claimed.
I’m not sure if you understand what it means to be OP.
This is like saying, “If a hammer is as good at hammering as they are alleged to be then they wouldn’t have difficulty polishing your mother’s silverware.”
It’s actually a non sequitur, but your inability to grasp the basic concepts at play prevent you from realizing it.
Your tenacity, or… verve, I’d almost call it… for remaining willfully ignorant of basic game mechanics is impressive, at least.
2 Likes
No, it’s like saying “If a hammer is half as great at everything on the planet as they are alleged to be then they wouldn’t have difficulty polishing your mother’s silverware.”
I guess you like to think these game mechanics are rocket science. Makes you feel better? They aren’t rocket science. They are basic, and easily understood. Nobody is willfully ignorant despite it making you feel good to claim otherwise, LOL.
Well that’s just a function of you being so illiterate that you actually think anyone says that about carriers.
There’s really no solution for that beyond you weaning yourself off that steady diet of lead paint.
About the only caps anyone (apart from you) cares about are supers and titans (and FAX, wrt supers/titans). Your fixation on carriers, specifically, is just you being dogshit stupid.
I agree with this. It’s what makes it so weird that you struggle with them so.
1 Like
I’m perfectly fine with people judging for themselves what has been said about standard vanilla carriers, much less other capships. And let the chips fall where they may.
Nobody is struggling except you. You seem to think it’s a discussion about game mechanics, LOL.
One of us has penned a whiny-crybaby screed about his embarrassing inability to kill an AFK ship and the other one is me.
But sure, whatever you wanna tell yourself.
1 Like
Yeah, one of us is quite a nasty guy who imagines whiny-crybaby screeds and something being embarrassing because all he has is personal attacks, and the other one is me.
But yeah, whatever you want to believe.
Yes but why? You cant say “this car is impractical to build cheaply, so it also must be powerful”.
Ditch em (caps) until they have a role.
1 Like
He literally has started 2 threads with “Waaahh”, imitating a baby noise.
4 Likes
His Powers of Projection are remarkable.
2 Likes
Well, I remember reading way back in an old AD&D dungeon master’s guide that rewards should scale with player time and effort. If the rewards are too much, they become meaningless and booring. And, if they are too little, players feel jipped, and get frustrated.
I think the same thing can be applied to ships in Eve online. If a ship takes a lot of time and effort to train into and buy, it’s power should reflect that. Of course, this does not mean I think they should be I-win buttons, but if they fall too far below the effort to power curve, it will make existing pilots angry, and dis-incentivize everyone else from ever trying to fly one.
Anyway, caps are rather oppressive right now, and something should be done (in fact, CCP has been trying), but I don’t think deleting them altogether is the right solution. To me, that’s like throwing the baby out with the bath water. It would greatly reduce Eve’s depth, make LOTS of players furious (which is important because a sizeable chunk of the player base would leave), remove a lot of content (not just for cap pilots, but also for whalers), and remove one of the biggest aspirational goals in Eve. Plus, capital alts probably make CCP a fair amount of money, so I doubt it’s ever going to happen.
Oh, and to answer you previous question, I think aspirational goals are important because working towards and achieving goals are fun, and because it helps keep players subbed and invested in the game.
1 Like
No. That went out of the window with injectors.
1 Like
YEah I agree, its just how you phrased that line made me think
Please, stop me if Im being pedantic, but I do find it helps me consider other options.
This above states that BECAUSE they are a huge time investment, then it follows they should be powerful.
Though your case for the value of skilling and/or being skilful (in EvE an important distinction) is a good one, it would more follow that IF they are powerful, the time investment should be reflective of that.
This sounds the same, but dont forget the accumulation of SP is no longer purely time based. In the same way you can buy and sell SP, you can easily change the requirements for a Cap as easily as you could change the cost, from CCPs perspective.
In essense its not really any different to Free XP and Silvers in WoT (if you’ll excuse the example) with two major exceptions: 1) SP doesnt have to either be worked for or even waited for. 2) The SP cost of a ship can be manipulated or even refunded now.
Now, this isnt even my issue with caps alone, this is just a general observation.
To bring it on topic, Caps are boring bricks that outscale everything smaller. I mean, they are just daft big without there being any ship class bewteen. It cant be about the jumpdrive because Blops exist. Massive things like those BTW SHOULD always be vulnerable to hoards of smaller ships. Thats how you have a Strategy Wheel. But they SHOULD have a preferred food, and they shoulld be highly specialised and second to none at what they are designed to do. Scale em down, and get a proper line of development going.
And sure it might be trivial to everyone, but having ship classes not reflect the ships they are named after is jsut really annoying.
In short, make em interesting, or bin em. They are boring and lame.