Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
1519
|
Posted - 2015.09.29 03:24:29 -
[31] - Quote
Sounds bitter.
Also, massive exaggeration. |
Reah Darknorth
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2015.09.29 03:55:43 -
[32] - Quote
Crosi Wesdo wrote:By that standard my PvP account is also P2W. I paid for it, and i win. If you are going to define P2W so loosely, any game that a good player pays for is P2W, and the same game bought by a bad player is not P2W.
It makes no sense. I agree but you didn't even address any of the points I made. P2W is not the problem per se. But T3 boosting alts are like the next level of P2W. That's all there is to it. If you can't get any better at PvP than you already are, the next level is a T3 alt. You can pay for another PvP account sure, but dual boxing with multiple PvP characters is significantly more difficult than dual boxing with a cloaky afk boosting alt and that's one thing that sets them apart. They require very little effort but offer substantial advantages. All you gotta do is buy the account. Not sure how you don't understand that this is a problem with the game. |
Valkin Mordirc
1517
|
Posted - 2015.09.29 06:00:35 -
[33] - Quote
I personally don't think OGB is the reason people stop playing EVE. OGB has really just become the massive excuse most people use for when they get there butts handed to them. You don't see people crying to the forums when they get archons cyno-dropped on them or when the other group has logistics.
Does OGB need to be readjusted, yeah. But is the cause for people quitting? I really really doubt it. Not enmass like it's being suggested.
#DeleteTheWeak
|
Morgan Agrivar
Happy Endings Massage Parlor
76
|
Posted - 2015.09.29 07:13:36 -
[34] - Quote
Off grid boosting is the only reason why I don't pvp. If I lose to someone else, I would want it because he beat me fair and square, not because his Loki alt was increasing his speed and armor repping and I couldn't keep up.
Personally, it is like 2v1 if they have an OGB. But of course, like life, Eve is not fair. I have been looking into OGB for my PvE mission running to see how much it improves it or if it is even worth it.
Just something about me...
|
Demerius Xenocratus
Rapid Withdrawal
675
|
Posted - 2015.09.29 10:00:59 -
[35] - Quote
Valkin Mordirc wrote:I personally don't think OGB is the reason people stop playing EVE. OGB has really just become the massive excuse most people use for when they get there butts handed to them. You don't see people crying to the forums when they get archons cyno-dropped on them or when the other group has logistics.
Does OGB need to be readjusted, yeah. But is the cause for people quitting? I really really doubt it. Not enmass like it's being suggested.
Edit: Also EVE is not a Solo game. So complaining that you can't play Solo with relative easy. Is ********. It's an MMO.
If you want to drop Archons in Black Rise you better have Snuff and SC cap pilots watchlisted, and eyes on their stations.
It's hard to single out any one thing as a cause for lost subs, but the attitude towards links amongst people who enjoy a combat style diverse from the standard blob warfare - is unfavorable to the extreme.
The primary issue is that the risk/reward on OGB is broken. They are far too safe an asset considering the massive advantage they provide, and if you don't think an all in one package of buffs to speed/point range/lock range/EHP/sig radius is a game changer, you are in denial. Links provide greater advantage than implants and drugs combined, at lower risk with no drawbacks. |
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
1520
|
Posted - 2015.09.29 10:37:38 -
[36] - Quote
As has been covered, yes, boosts need to;
- Be on killmails (along with logistics). - Gain suspect and weapons timer from the last agressed fleet member.
With optional;
- Make them easier to probe.
This opens up more avenues of gameplay for others and risk for the booster at the same time penalising KB warriors. They will still be viable, but they will also be at risk from someone with far less SP in probing than the booster has in leadership and a much cheaper ship. |
Estella Osoka
Perkone Caldari State
804
|
Posted - 2015.09.29 13:38:16 -
[37] - Quote
Arla Sarain wrote:Estella Osoka wrote:
Jump Freighters factor in due to logistics. Lowsec and nullsec markets are crap. Having a JF makes it a lot easier to resupply yourself.
Ok so, bar stating the obvious, what are you trying to say? People read about capital fights in EVE and turn up full of ambitions to have their own JF, having glanced at the somewhat shorter training time? They don't correlate. Saying that players join EVE because they want to fly big ships and stating JFs are a short train, I'm sorry, I don't follow. I admit, Crosi is right, I was selective with the facts. I shouldn't have used the term "newer" players either. There was a pic floating around on imgur, showing the amount of accounts most players have. A lot of players have just 1 account and only slightly less have 2. I won't pretend to know how many of those are links. I feel like a number won't really describe the issue - links have proliferated enough that we see having them as a standard. A lot of people are behind the standard. What, are we dumb? Bad at the game? How many people do you think would enjoy the idea that chasing alt count is becoming the epitome of this game? The commonly proposed counter, being probes, is still either delegated to alt duty, or a game of whack-a-mole for the person who actually brings a 200+ CPU module with them. Estella Osoka wrote:So we can all agree that OGBs are not the be-all end-all of why people are leaving the game? Yes. But it's ignorant to say that it's not a factor.
The big capital fleet fights are what most non-EVE players will see. They have made the news and are what most people talk about. I haven't met a new player yet who didn't have a carrier, dread, or titan on their list of ships to fly. Problem occurs when they find out it will take a long time to be able to fly one. Then they find out that capital ships are not used as much as they had been. Namely due to the changes in force projection/jump fatigue. Hence the person becomes disenchanted and quits.
Since the SOV changes and the capital ship movement changes, it has become much harder to keep you null empire. Especially when you can't get those much needed logistics out to null, or you substantial loots to market. They also have to be on the watch for gankers in hisec. Vets get bored with the actual work, move to hisec/lowsec, and unsub the capital pilot.
I believe people quitting over others use of OGBs is a very small factor.
Why do people quit? Because they are bored, or the game mechanics have changed too much to suit them.
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666 The Devil's Warrior Alliance
12133
|
Posted - 2015.09.29 14:02:35 -
[38] - Quote
Here's an excellent article on the subject I'm actually shocked hasn't been linked yet.
Better the Devil you know.
=]|[=
|
Cearain
Goose Swarm Coalition
1375
|
Posted - 2015.09.29 14:29:45 -
[39] - Quote
Crosi Wesdo wrote:As has been covered, yes, boosts need to;
- Be on killmails (along with logistics). - Gain suspect and weapons timer from the last agressed fleet member. Sec hit too?
With optional;
- Make them easier to probe.
This opens up more avenues of gameplay for others and risk for the booster at the same time penalising KB warriors. They will still be viable, but they will also be at risk from someone with far less SP in probing than the booster has in leadership and a much cheaper ship.
I am not sure who is saying that but CCP Fozzie has made it clear they need to be on grid.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2512888#post2512888
If anyone from ccp has backed off that stance I would be interested in knowing.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
Goose Swarm Coalition
1375
|
Posted - 2015.09.29 14:39:24 -
[40] - Quote
Crosi Wesdo wrote: You can buy an account to do anything.
Sure you can use alt accounts to do different things you find fun. But many people feel that buying an alt account for the sole purpose of dragging it around to safe spots with your main character is not fun gameplay. So forcing everyone who wants to be competitive in pvp to do this, is a bad design.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
|
Aerasia
Republic University Minmatar Republic
124
|
Posted - 2015.09.29 14:50:44 -
[41] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:Here's an excellent article on the subject I'm actually shocked hasn't been linked yet. What astounds me is that those numbers (TL:DR - having the right OGB doubles your ships effectiveness, and teaming that with Logi makes you nearly invincible) actually surprised people. Nobody was tossing out the numbers behind link effectiveness and in my naivete I just assumed that's because everybody thought that 25% extra HP * 20% more resists * 30% more speed tank was perfectly acceptable.
His blog is a bit odd at the end though, as he lists these as the bad design of links: Lack of Visibility Lack of Interaction Lack of Options GÇ£ItGÇÖs an alts JobGÇ¥ GÇ£Very SP IntensiveGÇ¥
And even those almost all of those are tied to the idea that link ships are off under POS shields, he says that bringing them on-grid isn't the solution. Instead, nuke them from orbit.
I like the idea of having 'buff' ships as a part of combat, so I wouldn't go that far. But having a single ship capable of doubling the effectiveness of an entire fleet is dumb. Admittedly, removing them entirely is far easier but I'd love to see it start with changes to their functionality. On grid, not letting a single ship have so many link mods, toning down the "Fit X to multiply link effectiveness by 2", stuff like that. |
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
1520
|
Posted - 2015.09.29 19:43:13 -
[42] - Quote
Cearain wrote:Crosi Wesdo wrote:As has been covered, yes, boosts need to;
- Be on killmails (along with logistics). - Gain suspect and weapons timer from the last agressed fleet member. Sec hit too?
With optional;
- Make them easier to probe.
This opens up more avenues of gameplay for others and risk for the booster at the same time penalising KB warriors. They will still be viable, but they will also be at risk from someone with far less SP in probing than the booster has in leadership and a much cheaper ship. I am not sure who is saying that but CCP Fozzie has made it clear they need to be on grid. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2512888#post2512888 If anyone from ccp has backed off that stance I would be interested in knowing.
Is that the same fozzue that thought entosis links are a good idea? |
Aerasia
Republic University Minmatar Republic
125
|
Posted - 2015.09.29 20:25:13 -
[43] - Quote
Crosi Wesdo wrote:imo boosts are fine subject to the few tweaks i listed above. Aerasia wrote:in my naivete I just assumed that's because everybody thought that 25% extra HP * 20% more resists * 30% more speed tank was perfectly acceptable. Ok, maybe not completely na+»ve.
But seriously, links aren't fine. We might end up disagreeing over whether to put them on the grid vs. removing them entirely, but putting links on KMs and calling it good isn't a solution. |
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order
1520
|
Posted - 2015.09.29 21:23:48 -
[44] - Quote
If links are as common as people who complain about them claim them to be, then you are probably at odds with a good proportion of the player base.
Links make more interesting fights, make some fits and doctrines viable where the would not be. EVE really should not be balanced to satisfy the tiny minority of tru-solo enthusiasts who think they are good because they chose to go hard mode but spend all day complaining about how hard it is. |
Aerasia
Republic University Minmatar Republic
125
|
Posted - 2015.09.29 22:19:19 -
[45] - Quote
Crosi Wesdo wrote:you are probably at odds with a good proportion of the player base. Possibly, but the general consensus seems to be that links either need to diaf, or be brought on grid.
And don't get me wrong, I like the idea of links. The idea of the decision making behind "Do I/Don't I?" for calling primary on a Command BC feels good. But you shouldn't be allowed to hide half your fleet's EHP in a safe 3 AU away. If you want to have enough link boosts to double your fleet, that's fine (well ok, links that powerful probably aren't fine no matter where they are). But either way you need to bring that half billion ISK worth of combat effectiveness on grid like everybody else.
|
Yang Aurilen
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
918
|
Posted - 2015.09.29 22:20:27 -
[46] - Quote
Crosi Wesdo wrote:If links are as common as people who complain about them claim them to be, then you are probably at odds with a good proportion of the player base.
Links make more interesting fights, make some fits and doctrines viable where the would not be. EVE really should not be balanced to satisfy the tiny minority of tru-solo enthusiasts who think they are good because they chose to go hard mode but spend all day complaining about how hard it is.
It certainly is easier to whine on the forums about links that trying to kill your linkified garmur though. So hard to scram you.
Post with your NPC alt main and not your main main alt!
|
Reah Darknorth
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2015.09.30 00:13:50 -
[47] - Quote
Crosi Wesdo wrote:If links are as common as people who complain about them claim them to be, then you are probably at odds with a good proportion of the player base.
Links make more interesting fights, make some fits and doctrines viable where the would not be. EVE really should not be balanced to satisfy the tiny minority of tru-solo enthusiasts who think they are good because they chose to go hard mode but spend all day complaining about how hard it is. The reason most players use links in fleet PvP is not because they are a good game feature, it's because links are insanely over-powered.
So no, we should probably not ignore all of the bad things about links, just because they turn some fits that would normally be terrible into actually usable.
I'm not sure if true-solo pilots are the minority, but links are possibly the most stupidly over powered feature in the game, so of course players are going to cash in on that action while it's here. That doesn't mean we should say "well, most players are using links, so I guess that means there's nothing broken here". |
Cearain
Goose Swarm Coalition
1375
|
Posted - 2015.09.30 01:45:37 -
[48] - Quote
Crosi Wesdo wrote:If links are as common as people who complain about them claim them to be, then you are probably at odds with a good proportion of the player base..
Lots of people who use ogb freely admit they are broken and a horrible mechanic. Here is a case in point: http://crossingzebras.com/links-and-other-bad-game-mechanics/
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Demerius Xenocratus
Rapid Withdrawal
675
|
Posted - 2015.09.30 02:27:12 -
[49] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:Here's an excellent article on the subject I'm actually shocked hasn't been linked yet.
I read that some time ago. I've also read a bunch of posts on reddit by Chessur regarding the current OGB meta. Neither of them are fans.
|
Demerius Xenocratus
Rapid Withdrawal
675
|
Posted - 2015.09.30 02:51:27 -
[50] - Quote
Crosi Wesdo wrote:If links are as common as people who complain about them claim them to be, then you are probably at odds with a good portion of the player base.
Links make more interesting fights, make some fits and doctrines viable where the would not be. EVE really should not be balanced to satisfy the tiny minority of tru-solo enthusiasts who think they are good because they chose to go hard mode but spend all day complaining about how hard it is.
I have never flown in a Gal Mil fleet with more than 10 people that didn't have at least one booster. My corp has linked solo'ers and nano gangs come through our home system daily. Links are ubiquitous because they are so powerful that flying without them is tantamount to suicide.
It is a broken mechanic. Just because the majority of the player base has adapted by acquiring their own links, joining a group with links, blue-balling link users or some combination of those options, does not make them any less broken.
Players can recognize that a game element is broken while still making the eminently rational decision to take advantage of that element rather than be at a perpetual disadvantage while they wait for the issue to be addressed.
I take full advantage of the fact that my corp has a dozen or so booster alts while still recognizing the absurdity of a situation wherein an AFK T3/CC is a vital corp asset and the most important element of any fleet we run.
All that said, we have this discussion often and I'm in agreement with the killmail notation/suspect timer solution to make links gankable and lessen their appeal for "solo." However it sounds like CCP has their own plans for boosts.
|
|
Estella Osoka
Perkone Caldari State
805
|
Posted - 2015.09.30 13:32:08 -
[51] - Quote
Take away the option for T3s to use command links. Especially if they can be fitted so they are nigh-unprobeable. |
Yun Kuai
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
279
|
Posted - 2015.10.01 18:41:52 -
[52] - Quote
The best option and the easiest to implement is this: Reduce the efficiency of links so that it falls something along the lines like this 1) Unbonused links (all Lvl 5) - 5% bonus 2) T3 Links (all Lvl 5) - 10% 3) Command Ship Links (all Lvl 5) - 15%
EvE is all about the 2% bonuses making the difference between winning and losing, so having 10%-15% increases still makes them extremely powerful, just not game breaking. It also means that not having links doesn't automatically mean you lose the fight 9/10 times. It also makes implants, drugs, and player skill (sling shot'ing, OH'ing, etc) that much more meaningful and relevant.
--------------------------------------------------------::::::::::::--:::-----:::---::::::::::::--------------:::----------:::----:::---:::----------------------:::::::-------:::---:::----::::::-------------------:::-----------:::--:::----:::---------------------::::::::::::----:::::::----:::::::::::::-------
|
Cearain
Goose Swarm Coalition
1387
|
Posted - 2015.10.07 23:06:39 -
[53] - Quote
Yun Kuai wrote:The best option and the easiest to implement is this: Reduce the efficiency of links so that it falls something along the lines like this 1) Unbonused links (all Lvl 5) - 5% bonus 2) T3 Links (all Lvl 5) - 10% 3) Command Ship Links (all Lvl 5) - 15%
EvE is all about the 2% bonuses making the difference between winning and losing, so having 10%-15% increases still makes them extremely powerful, just not game breaking. It also means that not having links doesn't automatically mean you lose the fight 9/10 times. It also makes implants, drugs, and player skill (sling shot'ing, OH'ing, etc) that much more meaningful and relevant.
I think those would be good numbers assuming the booster pilot is on grid. Allowing off grid boosts from alts is a non-starter.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Cearain
Goose Swarm Coalition
1387
|
Posted - 2015.10.08 00:59:01 -
[54] - Quote
Crosi Wesdo wrote:Cearain wrote:Crosi Wesdo wrote:As has been covered, yes, boosts need to;
- Be on killmails (along with logistics). - Gain suspect and weapons timer from the last agressed fleet member. Sec hit too?
With optional;
- Make them easier to probe.
This opens up more avenues of gameplay for others and risk for the booster at the same time penalising KB warriors. They will still be viable, but they will also be at risk from someone with far less SP in probing than the booster has in leadership and a much cheaper ship. I am not sure who is saying that but CCP Fozzie has made it clear they need to be on grid. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2512888#post2512888 If anyone from ccp has backed off that stance I would be interested in knowing. Is that the same fozzue that thought entosis links are a good idea?
I think null sec sounds better than ever.
It just demostrates how differently we view the game.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
313
|
Posted - 2015.10.09 09:32:48 -
[55] - Quote
Cearain wrote:I really think cancers like off grid boosting are why we are seeing numbers decline. Yes it will take some short term pain to get rid of the cancer but the long term decline will hopefully end, and even reverse.
BTW I listened to a podcast where ccp fozzie said they are making some headway on the technical issues of off grid boosters. He could not give us a date through.
Why are off-grid boosters a problem?
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=331004 - thank me later
|
Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
313
|
Posted - 2015.10.09 09:39:03 -
[56] - Quote
Aerasia wrote:Ralph King-Griffin wrote:Here's an excellent article on the subject I'm actually shocked hasn't been linked yet. What astounds me is that those numbers (TL:DR - having the right OGB doubles your ships effectiveness, and teaming that with Logi makes you nearly invincible) actually surprised people. Nobody was tossing out the numbers behind link effectiveness and in my naivete I just assumed that's because everybody thought that 25% extra HP * 20% more resists * 30% more speed tank was perfectly acceptable. His blog is a bit odd at the end though, as he lists these as the bad design of links: Lack of Visibility Lack of Interaction Lack of Options GÇ£ItGÇÖs an alts JobGÇ¥ GÇ£Very SP IntensiveGÇ¥ And even those almost all of those are tied to the idea that link ships are off under POS shields, he says that bringing them on-grid isn't the solution. Instead, nuke them from orbit. I like the idea of having 'buff' ships as a part of combat, so I wouldn't go that far. But having a single ship capable of doubling the effectiveness of an entire fleet is dumb. Admittedly, removing them entirely is far easier but I'd love to see it start with changes to their functionality. On grid, not letting a single ship have so many link mods, toning down the "Fit X to multiply link effectiveness by 2", stuff like that.
I think we should be able to declare war on NPC. If those groups were more vulnerable everything would be fine.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=331004 - thank me later
|
Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
313
|
Posted - 2015.10.09 09:52:51 -
[57] - Quote
If I feel like training a separate account for perfect Astrometrics, Leadership and Warfare Specialist skills just so I can have the privilege of one-shotting war targets with faction combat probes from the comfort of my +3bil internet spaceship setup... I should be able to do that (mindlinks and mid-grade Virtue clones are expensive, ya know) Unfortunately, I can't pull this off from the safety of a starbase forcefield. Looking at you Mr/Mrs Orca Pilot...
That's a lot of risk and a commensurate amount of reward.
I see some of the same types who drone on and on about "if you undock you're consenting to PVP" complaining about off-grid boosters like you don't own any or you're too proud to use them. Or better yet, hop in a garbage destroyer, probe them down and gank them. If you do it right you can catch the guy Alt-Tab'ed on his main while he's in the middle of a fight and get some juicy green and purple loot.
HTFU.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=331004 - thank me later
|
Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
313
|
Posted - 2015.10.09 09:59:26 -
[58] - Quote
Reah Darknorth wrote:The fact that a player can just buy an alt account with a T3 and significantly boost his PvP ability with said alt is really a bit insulting.
If that wasn't bad enough, fleet assist links also give The Blob even bigger advantages than they already have. As if it wasn't hard enough to fight in 1vX situations, they also have an absurd force multiplier on their side in the form of a 6-link Tengu.
Putting fleet links on grid is not enough. They should simply be removed from this game.
I mean picture that for a second. An Eve Online without fleet links. No more dragging the Loki alt around with you everywhere you go. No more 70km warp disrupting Garmurs. It would be so much cleaner, so much simpler. It would be so much more fair.
What's wrong with a frigate being able to tackle from 70km away? Didn't you prepare for that situation when you organized your fleet comp? Bring a Keres and damp it out from +100km away and jam it to hell and back with a Kitsune. Notice how both of these ships are in the same class as the Garmur? There's a counter to everything.
CCP should buff pilot skill before they nerf T3 links.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=331004 - thank me later
|
Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
313
|
Posted - 2015.10.09 10:16:08 -
[59] - Quote
If this fit is OP ..
[GetRektFukBoi] Brynn's Modified Co-Processor Dread Guristas Co-Processor Dread Guristas Co-Processor Dread Guristas Co-Processor Inertial Stabilizers II
Command Processor I Command Processor I Command Processor I 50MN Microwarpdrive II
Skirmish Warfare Link - Interdiction Maneuvers II Armored Warfare Link - Damage Control II Armored Warfare Link - Passive Defense II Armored Warfare Link - Rapid Repair II Covert Cynosural Field Generator I Covert Ops Cloaking Device II Sisters Expanded Probe Launcher
Medium Processor Overclocking Unit II Medium Low Friction Nozzle Joints I Medium Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer I
Proteus Engineering - Augmented Capacitor Reservoir Proteus Electronics - Emergent Locus Analyzer Proteus Offensive - Covert Reconfiguration Proteus Propulsion - Gravitational Capacitor Proteus Defensive - Warfare Processor
Liquid Ozone x100 Nanite Repair Paste x167 Sisters Combat Scanner Probe x8
but this fit is not...
[Proteus, Proteus] 1600mm Steel Plates II Centus C-Type Armor Explosive Hardener Imperial Navy Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane Imperial Navy Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane Federation Navy Magnetic Field Stabilizer Federation Navy Magnetic Field Stabilizer
50MN Microwarpdrive II True Sansha Warp Scrambler Small Capacitor Booster II Federation Navy Stasis Webifier
Heavy Neutron Blaster II Heavy Neutron Blaster II Heavy Neutron Blaster II Heavy Neutron Blaster II Heavy Neutron Blaster II Heavy Neutron Blaster II
Medium Trimark Armor Pump II Medium Trimark Armor Pump II Medium Trimark Armor Pump II
Proteus Engineering - Power Core Multiplier Proteus Electronics - Friction Extension Processor Proteus Offensive - Hybrid Propulsion Armature Proteus Propulsion - Gravitational Capacitor Proteus Defensive - Augmented Plating
Hammerhead II x5 Hornet EC-300 x5
Mjolnir Heavy Missile x26 Inferno Heavy Missile x30 Null M x5010 Void M x1466 Nova Rage Heavy Assault Missile x314 Navy Cap Booster 400 x9
... I mean c'mon. If the other side shows up with T3 cruisers and you don't know how to beat it... the solution is not bleating in the night like a calf separated from it's mother. The solution is GTFO.
rabble rabble Sun Tzu rabble rabble
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=331004 - thank me later
|
Yang Aurilen
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
939
|
Posted - 2015.10.09 10:18:20 -
[60] - Quote
Jamwara DelCalicoe Ashley wrote:Reah Darknorth wrote:The fact that a player can just buy an alt account with a T3 and significantly boost his PvP ability with said alt is really a bit insulting.
If that wasn't bad enough, fleet assist links also give The Blob even bigger advantages than they already have. As if it wasn't hard enough to fight in 1vX situations, they also have an absurd force multiplier on their side in the form of a 6-link Tengu.
Putting fleet links on grid is not enough. They should simply be removed from this game.
I mean picture that for a second. An Eve Online without fleet links. No more dragging the Loki alt around with you everywhere you go. No more 70km warp disrupting Garmurs. It would be so much cleaner, so much simpler. It would be so much more fair. What's wrong with a frigate being able to tackle from 70km away? Didn't you prepare for that situation when you organized your fleet comp? Bring a Keres and damp it out from +100km away and jam it to hell and back with a Kitsune. Notice how both of these ships are in the same class as the Garmur? There's a counter to everything. CCP should buff pilot skill before they nerf T3 links.
B-but muh true solo! That's really the gist of all those who whine about links being bad.
Post with your NPC alt main and not your main main alt!
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |