open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [Issue] Discuss Zulupark's carrier dev blog
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5

Author Topic

Doc Fury
Caldari
Posted - 2008.08.01 22:25:00 - [91]
 

TBH, this thread completely lost my attention at the word "Zulupark".

The OP might get more going on here if he removed that word from the thread title and his subsequent posts.






Vio Geraci
Amarr
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.08.02 03:20:00 - [92]
 

Originally by: Doc Fury
TBH, this thread completely lost my attention at the word "Zulupark".

The OP might get more going on here if he removed that word from the thread title and his subsequent posts.



Perhaps you should address the contents of the OP's post instead of dismissing it out of hand because it mentioned a Dev you dislike? Or better yet, perhaps you should not reply to threads whose contents you have neglected to read a single jot concerning.

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company

Posted - 2008.08.02 03:31:00 - [93]
 

On the assumption that the scope of the proposal will be redefined along the lines as discussed above, supported.

Doc Fury
Caldari
Posted - 2008.08.02 05:23:00 - [94]
 

Originally by: Vio Geraci
Originally by: Doc Fury
TBH, this thread completely lost my attention at the word "Zulupark".

The OP might get more going on here if he removed that word from the thread title and his subsequent posts.



Perhaps you should address the contents of the OP's post instead of dismissing it out of hand because it mentioned a Dev you dislike? Or better yet, perhaps you should not reply to threads whose contents you have neglected to read a single jot concerning.


Fair enough... You asked for it.

Originally by: Bane Glorious

The issue, raised by players and CCP and supported by a silent majority, is that carriers are becoming “the new battleship”.


The above is a completely unsubstantiated claim. Name names please, or this is just self-serving spin to justify a vague agenda.

Also, weren't the same (or very similar) carrier "issues" already brought-up before and then voted against?

So, who exactly is this "Silent Majority" again?

Isn't this just a big fancy nerf for older players who have already spent the time (years) to train-up for carriers? O.K. so Carriers need a specific role, I can see and probably agree with that, but what role exactly?


Originally by: Windjammer
What you're asking for remains a request for the CSM to give you blind approval on an unlimited number of unspecified proposals.

Which takes this back to the problem with the original post starting this thread. This is merely a rewording of the same proposal you offered in a CSM meeting and which was voted down and voted down for good reason. You haven't changed the proposal in any way including refusing to limit your proposal to a specific set of proposals. "Sample" of your ideas? How many more you have waiting in the wings to bring forth if you get an escalation approval from the CSM?
Windjammer


Windjammer pretty much sums it up for me too and it seems like the OP is merely "venue shopping". There are no clear boundaries presented here, and it would seem the OP is simply looking for carte blanche to change things which are not well-defined. I guess if it all got changed and things went badly, CCP could always point at the CSM and say "but, you asked for it".

Before the CSM gets behind any new nerfs, or buffs, or more junkets to Iceland, how about pressuring/begging CCP to fix the things that are actually broken? I am of course talking about lag and desyncs. I'd like these REAL problems to be the #1 priority and focus with CCP since these seem to be somewhere around the #8 or #12 priority at the moment.


Lomono
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.08.02 09:52:00 - [95]
 

Originally by: ian666
Another word, goonswarm cant kill bob because bob have to many carriers and you want try to nerf them.... again

Originally by: Scatim Helicon
As it happens, I'm not yet convinced that Bane's specific suggestions will address the issue of carriers being the generic cap-for-all-occasions, but your paranoia that every suggestion raised by a goon is some orchestrated nerf plot to make us win more fights is pretty hilarious.

What makes you think that Goonswarm is not susceptible to this nerf?

LetsDoThis
Posted - 2008.08.03 07:57:00 - [96]
 

Edited by: LetsDoThis on 03/08/2008 08:03:04
On the silent majority part: most players don't post and don't fly carriers.
We can't know their opinions without them offering them up, but we can analyze what is advantageous to their in-game experience.

Deemphasizing the role of carriers as carrier support is advantageous to most players, as it puts more emphasis on sub-capital support.

A lot of extremely loud players posted many many many times making it seem like most of eve was against it.

To achieve this, you must make carriers less effective by themselves.



There are many many ideas about how to make carriers dependent on support, but CCP's original proposition is superior to all of them. Drone delegation dependence is the right idea, and I think they should review their original idea.
I support the original fighter delegation idea for the following reasons:
Fighter delegation would be the sufficient weakness that carriers deserve. If you take out the ships that the fighters are delegated to, then the carrier is not as effective anymore. But if you ignore the ships that the fighters are delegated to, then the carrier is very effective.
Simple, elegant, effective, and makes perfect sense. They should have done it, but didn't.

People will be unhappy about it, after all there are thousands of carrier pilots. But it is the right decision. Those players may throw a hissy fit about it, but after they are done with that, they might reexamine what they choose to fly into combat, and choose an amount of carriers that is proportional to the size of the support fleet in which they must delegate drones to.

The worst thing that they could happen is that these players go back to flying sub-capital support, WHICH IS A GOOD THING.



However, delegation should be made much easier and convenient than it currently is.
The biggest complaint about that dev blog was that delegation is a logistical nightmare. Organizing who is delegating what to who, when there are hundreds of people in gang, I can see what they mean. Drone delegation should feel easy and natural.

Carriers should be able to flag drones as being available for delegation to their fleet, much like a sell order. On the flip side, fleet support should have easy access to requesting drone support, much like a buy order.

This would allow a carrier to open up a window to view drone support requests(buy orders), and delegate drones(sell) to whoever requested them.
It would also allow a support ship to open up a window to view drone support offers(sell orders), and accept support of those drones from whoever offered them.

I believe it would be ideal if both the nerf and similar functionality to what I propose went in at the same time.



Finally, @CCP, don't let players bully you into not making a decision that is good for the game. While more and more characters get more and more SP, eve will have more and more capital ship pilots.

If you do not make the right decision now, the situation will only get worse, to where absolutely everyone opts to bring a carrier to a fleet as support, rather than all of the other smaller support ships.

If you delay making the right decision, you'll just **** off more and more people that start to think of eve as capital ships online. You had the balls to admit the mistake that you made with carriers, now just find the balls to correct the mistake. It is the right decision, make it.

ZephyrLexx
Caldari
Caldari Provisions

Posted - 2008.08.03 17:44:00 - [97]
 

Edited by: ZephyrLexx on 03/08/2008 17:45:56
Edited by: ZephyrLexx on 03/08/2008 17:45:32
Edited by: ZephyrLexx on 03/08/2008 17:44:41
I like Bane's ideas, as a new player looking at carriers as a potential career in the longrun, I felt they were just too bland and a bit boring, more thought out mechanics and options available like he suggested would generally make them more fun and appealing, I think.

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2008.08.03 21:03:00 - [98]
 

Edited by: Windjammer on 03/08/2008 21:32:22
Originally by: Scatim Helicon
Originally by: Windjammer
1) Goonswarm does want more of their pilots able to fly Carriers and other capitals. That way goonswarms higher numbers will have more effect against lower numbers of more highly trained individuals.

The idea that Goonswarm is still made up of newbies in T1 caracals with 2 million SP each is pretty dumb, you know. Like I said earlier in the thread, we already have loads of pilots who are carrier and/or dread capable - there have been Goons playing EVE since the beginning, long before Goonfleet was formed.

Making carriers easier to get into doesn't benefit us in the slightest (in fact I'm not sure it benefits anyone but those players who train carrier alts in order to sell them on the eve-o forums), and if anything, its dreads that we're more keen to get people into, as any one of the many people with access to our notoriously-heavily infiltrated forums will tell you.
You're right. It IS pretty dumb to say that goonswarm is comprised of pilots flying around in T1 Caracals with 2 million SP each. But then you were the one to say it, not I. Nor did I infer it. Blob tactics with T1 ships is goonswarms history. Blob tactics using relatively inexpensive ships is still a goonswarm preferred tactic. In other words they would prefer to blob with T1 battleships rather than blob with capitals in ship to ship combat. Just to be clear, since you're having difficulty grasping this concept, I mean the majority of goonswarm.

You keep saying goonswarm has "loads" of pilots who are capable of piloting capital ships. I'm sure this is accurate, but "loads" isn't a number. More importantly, it isn't a percentage of your membership. I, on the other hand, am willing to say that over 50% of your 5,000 plus membership is incapable of flying a capital. Further, of those that can fly capitals there are perhaps a handful that are maxed in their skills/capability to do so.

- Bane, himself, has said he is well over a hundred days from being able to fly a capital. I think the number of days he indicated was around 160 or 190.
- From CSM meeting #3[ 2008.06.08 19:59:18 ] Bane Glorious > goonswarm relies on new players...
- Bane's Post 8 in this thread: ..."hardly anyone trains Advanced Drone Interfacing to V (let alone level IV)"....
- Banes post 10 in this thread:...."please consider removing some skill prerequisites, such as Jump Drive Operation V, Advanced Spaceship Command V, and so on"...."the skill training time is boring and causes harmful stratification between newbies and veteran"

The above quotes indicate Banes impressions derived from goonswarm membership. Apparently he disagrees with you on the the number of new players goonswarm has He, himself can't fly capitals and he's been in the game for over 2 years. He feels hardly anybody (in his alliance) has maxed the skills and wants those skills eliminated. And finally he wants to reduce the difference in ability between newbies and veterans.

That can be added up to show a pretty clear picture of what Bane hopes to gain and what he believes it will mean to goonswarm.

As an example of other alliances; BoB simply does not have the same demographic. In point of fact, one of the critcisms of BoB was that they take only people with 34+ million SP.

Clearly, CLEARLY, an alliance such as BoB would suffer disproportionately compared to goonswarm if Banes wishes were to be granted. Goonswarms numbers would then have a greater effect than they do now against BoB and similar alliances.

Windjammer

Mutabae
Posted - 2008.08.03 21:33:00 - [99]
 

Bane, making leading statements in your first sentence means I stopped reading at the first sentence.

Try again without logical fallacies straight off, okay?

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2008.08.03 21:47:00 - [100]
 

Originally by: Scatim Helicon
Originally by: Windjammer
2) Goonswarm does want Carriers to be less powerful so that all those in goonswarm who aren't trained for Carriers and/or capitals (see above) will be able to hold sway over Carriers and capitals with sheer numbers.
2a)You have to look at the specific ways that are being sought to nerf Carriers. i.e. nerfing them to be logistic support for smaller ships at the expense of being effective combat ships in their own right.
It's a two pronged attack upon a goonswarm problem (low numbers of highly trained pilots defeating large numbers of lesser skilled pilots). Attacking this problem from both ends to achieve a minimization of defense against high numbers of lightly skilled pilots. If either of these attacks is successful, goonswarm wins. If both attacks are successful, goonswarm still wins......they just do it faster.

Your tinfoil hattery is amusing, but ungrounded in reality. Goonswarm is not 'high numbers of lightly skilled pilots', as much as the LOL T1 N00BSWARM stereotype is played up we have huge numbers of characters with years of training behind them, we fly supercaps and HACs and T2 sniper battleships just like every other alliance. Any change to carriers affects Goonswarm carrier pilots in just the same way as it affects BoB or Roadkill or RAZOR or any other alliance's carrier pilots. Are other alliances somehow mentally incapable of adapting to use carriers as logistic support if such a change was made?

As it happens, I'm not yet convinced that Bane's specific suggestions will address the issue of carriers being the generic cap-for-all-occasions, but your paranoia that every suggestion raised by a goon is some orchestrated nerf plot to make us win more fights is pretty hilarious.
Look above to post 98 for the bulk of my reply.

Bane's proposed nerfs would not affect other alliances in the same way it would goonswarm. It quite simply has to do with goonswarms primary asset. Over 5,000 members. That's well over twice what anybody else has. To pretend it has no bearing on issues is to ask everyone to stick their heads in the sand and pay no attention to that 600 pound gorilla behind the curtain. Look to 2) and 2a) of what you've quoted me on to see one way in which this works.

It's not paranoia. It's paying attention to the situation and comparing that to what goonswarms representatives in the CSM ask for and apparently ask for again when denied the first time.

Windjammer

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2008.08.03 21:49:00 - [101]
 

Originally by: ian666
Originally by: Bane Glorious
As shown by Zulupark and Nozh's dev blogs last fall, the developers ...

Another word, goonswarm cant kill bob because bob have to many carriers and you want try to nerf them.... again
Damn straight!!!

Regards,
Windjammer

ElanMorin6
Garoun Investment Bank
Posted - 2008.08.03 21:50:00 - [102]
 

Originally by: Vio Geraci
Perhaps you should address the contents of the OP's post instead of dismissing it out of hand because it mentioned a Dev you dislike? Or better yet, perhaps you should not reply to threads whose contents you have neglected to read a single jot concerning.


Goons suggesting people read threads before making terrible replys, what is this world coming to?

ElanMorin6
Garoun Investment Bank
Posted - 2008.08.03 21:53:00 - [103]
 

Originally by: Windjammer


And finally he wants to reduce the difference in ability between newbies and veterans.



So tell us, how many players should someone who subscribed in '03 be able to defeat on their own?

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2008.08.03 21:56:00 - [104]
 

Originally by: Lomono
Originally by: ian666
Another word, goonswarm cant kill bob because bob have to many carriers and you want try to nerf them.... again

Originally by: Scatim Helicon
As it happens, I'm not yet convinced that Bane's specific suggestions will address the issue of carriers being the generic cap-for-all-occasions, but your paranoia that every suggestion raised by a goon is some orchestrated nerf plot to make us win more fights is pretty hilarious.

What makes you think that Goonswarm is not susceptible to this nerf?
Because you have over twice as many members as BoB and bring twice as many pilots to any given fight as BoB. Bane's proposed changes would enhance your advantage due to your numbers against the fewer and more skilled veterans of BoB.

Windjammer

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2008.08.03 22:26:00 - [105]
 

Originally by: ElanMorin6
Originally by: Windjammer


And finally he wants to reduce the difference in ability between newbies and veterans.



So tell us, how many players should someone who subscribed in '03 be able to defeat on their own?
Thank you. You precisely underline, make bold and italicize the summary of my posts as well as a considerable number of specific points in those posts. Your cooperation is most appreciated.Laughing

Best regards,
Windjammer

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2008.08.03 22:29:00 - [106]
 

Originally by: ElanMorin6
Originally by: Vio Geraci
Perhaps you should address the contents of the OP's post instead of dismissing it out of hand because it mentioned a Dev you dislike? Or better yet, perhaps you should not reply to threads whose contents you have neglected to read a single jot concerning.


Goons suggesting people read threads before making terrible replys, what is this world coming to?
I don't know. Almost seems like hypocrisy.

Windjammer

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2008.08.03 22:47:00 - [107]
 

Originally by: LetsDoThis
Whole lot of words designed to say LetsDoThis speaks for the so called "silent majority".
Very big of you to go out of your way to do so. I've bothered to actually ask a number of the "silent majority" what they think about the proposed carrier nerfs. The response, "that sucks", runs into the 90th percentile. Try it yourself. Oh.....but then I suppose they aren't intelligent enough to make their own decisions and we require you to tell us all what's best for us.Rolling Eyes

Originally by: LetsDoThis
However, delegation should be made much easier and convenient than it currently is.The biggest complaint about that dev blog was that delegation is a logistical nightmare.
You can't have read the response threads to the original CCP Zulupark dev blog because you got this exactly wrong. The biggest complaint was about the proposal to force carrier pilots to delegate their fighters. Carrier pilots overwhelmingly desire to retain control of their fighters in deployment and wish to delegate fighters as an option, not as a requirement.
Originally by: LetsDoThis
Finally, @CCP, don't let players bully you into not making a decision that is good for the game.
Yeah, CCP. Don't listen to the players. They're wrong. Listen to and be bullied by LetsDoThis. He's right. Thank goodness he/she is here to straighten everyone out.Rolling Eyes

Disgusted,
Windjammer

NanDe YaNen
The Funkalistic
Imperial Republic Of the North
Posted - 2008.08.03 22:58:00 - [108]
 

  • Give capital repair arrays automatic activation on locked friendlies, switching the activation to server-side where lag isn't an issue.
  • Have two sizes of fighters to both force carrier pilots to decide on large damage against large targets or small damage against small targets, just like everyone else in the game.
  • Allow anti-capital carriers to be fitted, but at the expense of repair capability
  • Make reppers smaller, faster, and require more slots, so that a focused repping carrier has to use more slots
  • Allow a repair oriented carrier to assign fighters in lieu on controlling them directly
  • Make triage mode allow a carrier to perform industrial scale repairs to dreads or allow the carrier to remain mobile during triage.

At current, fighters are too versatile. The repper omnifit takes too few slots and not enough focus. The capital damage dealer also requires too few slots. A carrier that triage's becomes vulnerable to capital fire but cannot actually perform capital support on the caps that are receiving cap fire.

Triage is badly broken. The amount of repair you can do in triage can only be useful for another cap. Look at the DPS numbers. A BS requiring triage HP/s is almost surely going to be alpha'd down on the first shot, making any DPS vs HP/s relationship moot. It's supposed to enable a carrier to be much more effective in it's sub-cap support role, but this actually just places it in line with dreadnoughts in the damage tanking arena.

Thus if you want to do something in triage, you simply make yourself have to tank dreadnought damage while being unable to give your industrial repairs to dreadnoughts (who can use it) and only able to repair non-triage carriers (who don't need it). Simply put, if you're in triage and not primary, you're enhanced capabilities go to waste.

ElanMorin6
Garoun Investment Bank
Posted - 2008.08.03 23:18:00 - [109]
 

Originally by: Windjammer
Because you have over twice as many members as BoB and bring twice as many pilots to any given fight as BoB. Bane's proposed changes would enhance your advantage due to your numbers against the fewer and more skilled veterans of BoB.


Yes, because alliance membership count is directly proportional to the number of pilots that show up to fights. This is why ASCN is still the game's dominant 0.0 power.

Originally by: Windjammer
Originally by: ElanMorin6
Originally by: Windjammer

And finally he wants to reduce the difference in ability between newbies and veterans.

So tell us, how many players should someone who subscribed in '03 be able to defeat on their own?
Thank you. You precisely underline, make bold and italicize the summary of my posts as well as a considerable number of specific points in those posts. Your cooperation is most appreciated.Laughing


Sarcasm aside, you've clearly stated that veteran players should have an advantage. No one really disagrees with that, except in degree. How many frigs should it take to kill a cruiser? How many cruisers to kill a BS? BS to kill a dread?

Player knowledge/skill, skillpoints and numbers should all be involved in determining which side wins a fight. So tell us, where does that line get drawn? Because right now all your statements amount to nothing more than rediculous anti-goon propaganda (that even worse, is based on numerous faulty assumptions).

LetsDoThis
Posted - 2008.08.04 04:56:00 - [110]
 

Windjammer if you can't be respectful to people that disagree with you, don't expect any in return.

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2008.08.04 05:23:00 - [111]
 

Edited by: Herschel Yamamoto on 04/08/2008 05:24:40
Originally by: ElanMorin6
So tell us, how many players should someone who subscribed in '03 be able to defeat on their own?


That depends. How many noob ships can fit on grid, and still leave room for a cyno and a Titan?

Originally by: LetsDoThis
Windjammer if you can't be respectful to people that disagree with you, don't expect any in return.


From a corpless alt by the name of LetsDoThis? I don't think he did before.

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2008.08.04 07:49:00 - [112]
 

Originally by: ElanMorin6
Sarcasm aside, you've clearly stated that veteran players should have an advantage. No one really disagrees with that, except in degree. How many frigs should it take to kill a cruiser? How many cruisers to kill a BS? BS to kill a dread?

Player knowledge/skill, skillpoints and numbers should all be involved in determining which side wins a fight. So tell us, where does that line get drawn?
As you well know there are no firm numbers to this situation. It is dependent upon more than the relative age of the veteran and new player. Different players train skills differently, ships are set up differently, racial ships have different upsides and downsides, etc. However, all things being equal, I believe that the current situation is satisfactory.

As things are now set up, EVE rewards those who have put years into character developement while at the same time providing a future for those willing put in the same dedication. Only when two sides have approximately the same skill level and tactical expertise should the number of pilots be the deciding factor in a conflict.
Originally by: ElanMorin6
Because right now all your statements amount to nothing more than rediculous anti-goon propaganda (that even worse, is based on numerous faulty assumptions).
Thank you. This gave me a smile. It never ceases to amaze me that the single greatest concentration of outrageous propaganda in EVE, goonswarm, still has the unmitigated temerity to accuse others of what they, themselves, do in such volume. Best defense is an offense, eh?

I suppose in the strictest technical sense what I say about goonswarm could be construed as propaganda. Propaganda is the dispensing of ideas to an audience or community. As such, propaganda may be true or it may be false. The ideas I forward are not based upon false assumptions. They are based upon observations and I report them accurately. Worse, for goonswarm, these observations can easily be duplicated and verified by anyone who cares to look at them. I often post the means by which this can be done, but anyone can figure it out for themselves if they wish. This can be done even more easily by a member of goonswarm, but then corporate pride and comraderie get in the way of that process so perhaps it isn't surprising when a goonswarmer responds as they do.

Windjammer

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2008.08.04 08:04:00 - [113]
 

Originally by: LetsDoThis
Windjammer if you can't be respectful to people that disagree with you, don't expect any in return.
I give respect where respect is due and I don't expect someone to be respectful to me simply because I treat them respectfully. I expect to have to earn any respectful treatment I receive. Which is not to say I receive what I earn......but who does?

You didn't just disagree with myself and others in this thread, LetsDoThis. You made accusations and allegations which weren't really designed to gain you respectful treatment.Wink

Windjammer

ElanMorin6
Garoun Investment Bank
Posted - 2008.08.04 08:21:00 - [114]
 

Originally by: Windjammer
Originally by: ElanMorin6
Sarcasm aside, you've clearly stated that veteran players should have an advantage. No one really disagrees with that, except in degree. How many frigs should it take to kill a cruiser? How many cruisers to kill a BS? BS to kill a dread?

Player knowledge/skill, skillpoints and numbers should all be involved in determining which side wins a fight. So tell us, where does that line get drawn?
As you well know there are no firm numbers to this situation. It is dependent upon more than the relative age of the veteran and new player. Different players train skills differently, ships are set up differently, racial ships have different upsides and downsides, etc. However, all things being equal, I believe that the current situation is satisfactory.

As things are now set up, EVE rewards those who have put years into character developement while at the same time providing a future for those willing put in the same dedication. Only when two sides have approximately the same skill level and tactical expertise should the number of pilots be the deciding factor in a conflict.


Based on what? You're posting with a character that is less than a year old, and which has never left the noobcorp. I strongly doubt the Windjammer character has ever flown in or next to a capital ship, much less fought one. Why should anyone take your opinion on balancing capships into account? (incidently, Bane should be largely disqualified from making any suggestions about capships on these grounds as well, and many of us have told him as much privately already)

If you have actual experiences with capship fights than by all means, post with your main, but until then you're nothing but an anti-goon troll with no constuctive input to provide.

Tobias Sjodin
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2008.08.04 08:51:00 - [115]
 

Without anything concrete I think you should abstain from doing anything with this at all.

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2008.08.04 18:37:00 - [116]
 

Originally by: ElanMorin6
Based on what? You're posting with a character that is less than a year old, and which has never left the noobcorp. I strongly doubt the Windjammer character has ever flown in or next to a capital ship, much less fought one. Why should anyone take your opinion on balancing capships into account? (incidently, Bane should be largely disqualified from making any suggestions about capships on these grounds as well, and many of us have told him as much privately already)
The Windjammer character was created for the sole purpose of posting in these forums. It has never trained a skill or flown anything other than a shuttle or been in more than three stations. This was done to protect my anonymity and that of those I associate with. My posts are my own and do not represent the desires of any corporation in EVE. Were I to show my affiliations, I would be restricted in what I could say in that anyone who posts showing their corp is giving a representation of that corp regardless of any disclaimers they may issue.

SmileAll this is unlikely to change and certainly not because you, or anyone else regardless of their corp affiliation, attempt to bait me. In your case, you simply don't have the skill set to do so effectively. Don't feel bad. Very few people in this world do.

Ironically Bane is one of the few in goonswarm whom I respect. He's by far your best choice in representation on any issue, though sometimes I get the feeling he reads a thesaurus on a regular basis to come up with some of the words he uses. He has an excellent vocabulary, is obviously intelligent and is not easily reduced to vulgarity, insults and name calling. I often wonder how he was mislead into being a part of goonswarm.Laughing Seriously, instead of critcizing Bane, you should get down on your knees in gratitude he bothers to represent you. I know he has a lot better things to do.

Originally by: ElanMorin6
If you have actual experiences with capship fights than by all means, post with your main, but until then you're nothing but an anti-goon troll with no constuctive input to provide.
Again, I refer you to the above regarding the Windjammer character. Providing you with details of my capital ship experience would lead to discovery of my identity and serve no purpose. If you can't read what I post and see the experience, it hardly matters if you know what the specific experience is.

I note the ElanMorin characters are only two years old. One year isn't enough to post, but two years makes you an expert? Your assessment of my reasons for posting is self serving and transparent in intent. Suffice it to say, I'm not trolling.

Windjammer

ElanMorin6
Garoun Investment Bank
Posted - 2008.08.04 21:53:00 - [117]
 

Why would I beleive someone who can't even figure out how to tank a hulk against a mindless suicide attack has the expereience you claim?

LetsDoThis
Posted - 2008.08.04 22:54:00 - [118]
 

Windjammer if you can't be respectful to people that disagree with you, don't expect any in return.

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2008.08.04 23:03:00 - [119]
 

Originally by: ElanMorin6
Why would I beleive someone who can't even figure out how to tank a hulk against a mindless suicide attack has the expereience you claim?
1) I have not listed my experience in capital ships for the reasons I gave in post 116 of this thread. Take another look at the second paragraph from the bottom. The statement also assumes an adequate level of competency on the part of the suicide ganker.

2) I don't really care if you believe anything I say.Smile It's just not that important to me.

3) Apparently you do care what I say....enough to remember something from another thread. Just as apparently you've misquoted me from that thread. In point of fact what I said in that thread was there was no practical way for a solo miner to tank a Hulk in high sec (0.7 and below) against a suicide ganker in such a way that the Hulk would survive. That's paraphrasing what I said to incorporate the context of the discussion rather than an exact quote of what I said.

The key word there was "practical". If you'd care to prove me wrong with the vast knowledge you've accumulated in your two years of play, do so. I stand ready to acknowledge your achievement.....assuming you meet the criteria inherent in the term practical.

Windjammer

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2008.08.04 23:07:00 - [120]
 

Edited by: Windjammer on 04/08/2008 23:08:59
Originally by: LetsDoThis
Windjammer if you can't be respectful to people that disagree with you, don't expect any in return. (from post 118)
An exact duplicate of your post 110 in this thread. I don't think I've ever reduced anyone to this particular level of incoherency before.Laughing

Windjammer


Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only