Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 20 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
159
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 02:27:00 -
[181] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:
The problem they're attempting to solve is a non-issue. It simply doesn't need to happen in any form.
-Liang
yeah you say that untill the boost the hell out of tirage mod II... |
Kitt JT
Crimson Empire. Nulli Secunda
14
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 02:28:00 -
[182] - Quote
A great read. However i have to say:
NO DESTRUCTABLE STATIONS
What inevitably happen is a massive griefing campaign by pl/goons/alliancenamehere to systematically kill player stations. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
609
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 02:29:00 -
[183] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:
The problem they're attempting to solve is a non-issue. It simply doesn't need to happen in any form.
-Liang
yeah you say that untill the boost the hell out of tirage mod II...
I don't see how the proposed Triage II boost has anything at all to do with the topic at hand? Triage carriers can still be taken down in the totally normal ways.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Talia Nachtigall
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
15
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 02:39:00 -
[184] - Quote
The Drake is fine! Why the hell does it need to be nerfed? A Hurricane can stand toe to toe with it, a Harbinger can, and so can a Myrmidon. Jesus christ. Screw up this game more?! Don't pray for my soul. ;) |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
159
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 02:40:00 -
[185] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:
The problem they're attempting to solve is a non-issue. It simply doesn't need to happen in any form.
-Liang
yeah you say that untill the boost the hell out of tirage mod II... I don't see how the proposed Triage II boost has anything at all to do with the topic at hand? Triage carriers can still be taken down in the totally normal ways. -Liang
the fact is the longer a corp holds a class 6 system the more cap ships they will build... theoretically said corp could have enough triage carriers (right now dreads are eating carriers alive so chances are you are looking at a resist boost to triage II to tank about two dreads) and ballagorns for nueting and dreads for dps... plus sub cap support tech II/faction ships... to make said system for fraking knox!
you have to be extreamly lucky to even get a window to invade one of these systems and with mass restrictions there is only a finite about of ships you can get in... having a mass reduction mod that is destructible after one use that can only be put on a carrier that has to be refit at a pos only would IMO be a welcome addition to wh space... |
Sobach
Fourth Circle Total Comfort
1
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 02:51:00 -
[186] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:the fact is the longer a corp holds a class 6 system the more cap ships they will build... theoretically said corp could have enough triage carriers (right now dreads are eating carriers alive so chances are you are looking at a resist boost to triage II to tank about two dreads) and ballagorns for nueting and dreads for dps... plus sub cap support tech II/faction ships... to make said system for fraking knox!
you have to be extreamly lucky to even get a window to invade one of these systems and with mass restrictions there is only a finite about of ships you can get in... having a mass reduction mod that is destructible after one use that can only be put on a carrier that has to be refit at a pos only would IMO be a welcome addition to wh space...
and theoretically I can have 1000 titans with 2000 triage carriers and 5000 dreads in a k-system and it'll also be a "fraking knox", so what's your point?
truth remains that anyone who actually live in w-space knows that a system is nowhere near as secure as some people like to make them out to be |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
159
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 02:56:00 -
[187] - Quote
yeah which is why ccp is nerfed supercaps... and hopefully will nerf them even more...
i am looking forward to a captial super cap tackler... to me super caps pointing super caps just makes it so who has the most supercaps wins... making it on a regular cap it makes it more accessible to lesser alliances.... |
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE Limitless Inc.
220
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 03:03:00 -
[188] - Quote
Amelia Diamant wrote:Misanth wrote:Agree with your first point, but as for point 2 and the "power projection" argument: JF's supply wars, production, alliance income etc. It's a force multiplier. When you are building supercaps or hauling big amounts of moon minerals, the JF's are part of the power projection. I understand your point of view, and I agree in general terms. But both supercaps and moon minerals are primarily a Nullsec concern. The spool up change changes nothing to nullsec travel - the possibility of being camped in already exists there due to bubbles. So while I don't really agree with your specific examples, your point is fair enough. My primary concern is how the change will affect lowsec work, though. I primarily move assets in lowsec, and this will cripple my ability to do so in a timely manner.
Fair enough. But, camped in.. well that's part of EVE. You can get camped in in highsec too. this is a signature |
Akbhar
Purging Maelstrom
2
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 03:08:00 -
[189] - Quote
I am all against respec of skill points in any way. Having skillpoints assigned to a specific skill does not harm you in any way but they did help you some time ago. There was a reason you did skill those skills and only because you don't need them now, that should not mean you can take your decision back. Maybe some time in the future your Supercarrier will hopefully be no more and you want those points back. Solution to that is resepc again?
Sure the ruleset changed, which is unfortunate but the same holds for almost all rebalancing effords made to the game. Some people might actually have skipped some Galente training, because hybrids did suck... might not be the same but i think you can get my point.
Additional to that as far as I heard old Players (i guess Super pilots are old players for the most part) are running out of options to skill stuff anyways so why accelerate this process?
I really don't like the FW is the test for Null Sec thingy. I really don't want to be the guinea pig and I can not understand why one would want to make 2 different systems equal.
Haven't read all yet, might reply again later
|
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE Limitless Inc.
220
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 03:08:00 -
[190] - Quote
Kitt JT wrote:A great read. However i have to say:
NO DESTRUCTABLE STATIONS
What inevitably happen is a massive griefing campaign by pl/goons/alliancenamehere to systematically kill player stations.
I'll respectfully agree to disagree. At least in my view, it would be a major improvement for this game if every player built outpost in the whole game was destroyed. Just like it'd be a major benefit if we were rid of all capitals, jumpbridges, sov upgrades, etc. It'll too leave alot of people crying, but doesn't make it less true.. this is a signature |
|
mkint
629
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 03:10:00 -
[191] - Quote
CSM on the SP refund: "we're done winning EVE with our supercap blobs. Now we want something else to make us keep winning, and we want it for free." |
Moatra
Demi-Goth
2
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 03:13:00 -
[192] - Quote
Quote:* CCP Dr.EyjoG pointed out that all of the discussions and comments were assuming that the EVE skill point system was in itself correct. He wondered if it might be fruitful to question this assumption.
In the meeting notes, CCP mentioned the possibility that the current Skill system might not be as necessary a feature as has always been assumed. I wholeheartedly agree with this assessment.
I have found that the times when I am most likely to get bored with EvE and deactivate my subscription are those times when I find a new aspect of the game that I want to play, but will take months to skill for. I don't mind paying for the skill books to do something, but waiting for skills is very passive and unsatisfying.
This is especially true when expecting new players to want to stay in EvE. Real life waiting to play (most aspects of a game) is not a feature, nor a reward. |
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
539
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 03:18:00 -
[193] - Quote
So good read. I wanted say props to the current CSM. I am not in agreement with most of the direction and focus they want for Eve but I respect their efforts.
They have stayed consistent and focused. They clearly take the responsibilities seriously. And they have definitely changed the future of Eve.
Good job CSM! We don't have to agree with you but you are working hard on doing what you were elected to do!
If nothing else you will make the interest the player base shows in the next elections a new record high!
Issler |
mkint
630
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 03:40:00 -
[194] - Quote
Moatra wrote:Quote:* CCP Dr.EyjoG pointed out that all of the discussions and comments were assuming that the EVE skill point system was in itself correct. He wondered if it might be fruitful to question this assumption.
In the meeting notes, CCP mentioned the possibility that the current Skill system might not be as necessary a feature as has always been assumed. I wholeheartedly agree with this assessment. I have found that the times when I am most likely to get bored with EvE and deactivate my subscription are those times when I find a new aspect of the game that I want to play, but will take months to skill for. I don't mind paying for the skill books to do something, but waiting for skills is very passive and unsatisfying. This is especially true when expecting new players to want to stay in EvE. Real life waiting to play (most aspects of a game) is not a feature, nor a reward. The SP system rewards loyalty (which is good).
Asking for SP reimbursements is being a greedy little bastard who doesn't want to be held responsible for the consequences of the decisions they made. EVE has no room for those people, and they need to GTFO. Including the CSM bastards clamoring for more gimme's. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
614
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 03:50:00 -
[195] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote: the fact is the longer a corp holds a class 6 system the more cap ships they will build... theoretically said corp could have enough triage carriers (right now dreads are eating carriers alive so chances are you are looking at a resist boost to triage II to tank about two dreads) and ballagorns for nueting and dreads for dps... plus sub cap support tech II/faction ships... to make said system for fraking knox!
you have to be extreamly lucky to even get a window to invade one of these systems and with mass restrictions there is only a finite about of ships you can get in... having a mass reduction mod that is destructible after one use that can only be put on a carrier that has to be refit at a pos only would IMO be a welcome addition to wh space...
There are a lot of reasons why this is mostly hogwash, not the least of which is that WHs are restricted to the number of people you can reasonably support in a single system. Building all the cap ships in the universe doesn't mean that you have the manpower to wield them. Just because its hard to assault doesn't mean that its literally impregnable.
Frankly what this would do is increase casual blobbing in lower class wormholes that would never have the manpower to defend themselves. The AHARM CSM member that said they'd use it to kick every other corp out of WH space? He was probably bang on.
It would be bad for the game.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Moatra
Demi-Goth
2
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 03:57:00 -
[196] - Quote
mkint wrote:Moatra wrote:Quote:* CCP Dr.EyjoG pointed out that all of the discussions and comments were assuming that the EVE skill point system was in itself correct. He wondered if it might be fruitful to question this assumption.
In the meeting notes, CCP mentioned the possibility that the current Skill system might not be as necessary a feature as has always been assumed. I wholeheartedly agree with this assessment. I have found that the times when I am most likely to get bored with EvE and deactivate my subscription are those times when I find a new aspect of the game that I want to play, but will take months to skill for. I don't mind paying for the skill books to do something, but waiting for skills is very passive and unsatisfying. This is especially true when expecting new players to want to stay in EvE. Real life waiting to play (most aspects of a game) is not a feature, nor a reward. The SP system rewards loyalty (which is good). Asking for SP reimbursements is being a greedy little bastard who doesn't want to be held responsible for the consequences of the decisions they made. EVE has no room for those people, and they need to GTFO. Including the CSM bastards clamoring for more gimme's.
I don't disagree that Skill Points reward loyalty. I also don't want to see respecs. I do, however, question that skill points are needed. Skill Books, yes, but points... no. |
Miss President
SOLARIS ASTERIUS
21
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 03:58:00 -
[197] - Quote
Seems there is not much being done on BOTs, I saw nothing that tells me CCP is serious about bots and something specific and effective will be done in near future.
I may be wrong, I'd like for CCP to come out and present raw data - and specific SHTF if you're a bot in eve plan. Otherwise it's all talk, plans etc with no specific goals and deadlines that can be presented to the community to show something realistic is going on.
Banning bots is a priority, CCP main concern here seems to be keeping bots paying for accounts, well guess what - bots don't pay, they only raise plex prices that negatively affects honest players. |
Maleficent Frog
Black Frog Logistics Red-Frog
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 04:09:00 -
[198] - Quote
As to the "Supercapital Re-balancing" issue i do not have enough experience with combat ships to know one way or the other but what i feel and know here is that capital ships also includes non-combat orientated capital ships like the jump freighters and the Ore Industrials. i am not sure that a change to a 60sec spool timer is at all in fairness a good idea to ships that cannot be expected to live alone and with no ability to defend themselves while waiting out the timer out side a stations safety.
Perhaps capitals do need this change, perhaps they do not.
But there is a great difference between an Aeon and a Rhea.
|
RubyPorto
Profoundly Disturbed RED.Legion
1230
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 04:12:00 -
[199] - Quote
Miss President wrote:Seems there is not much being done on BOTs, I saw nothing that tells me CCP is serious about bots and something specific and effective will be done in near future.
I may be wrong, I'd like for CCP to come out and present raw data - and specific SHTF if you're a bot in eve plan. Otherwise it's all talk, plans etc with no specific goals and deadlines that can be presented to the community to show something realistic is going on.
Banning bots is a priority, CCP main concern here seems to be keeping bots paying for accounts, well guess what - bots don't pay, they only raise plex prices that negatively affects honest players.
On the third one, higher Plex prices also positively affect honest players who buy Plex with IRL money and sell them in game. Not everything's quite black and white. Bots are bad, but CCP does get their ~$17 a month from a Bot who plexes the account. dAWwww, here he goes. -áPoastin' Drunk agin. |
Elzon1
Shadow Boys Corp Bloodbound.
8
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 04:12:00 -
[200] - Quote
"spool-up timer"- good
"replacing Drone alloy drops with bounties"- good
"R32 Alchemy as a possible fix for the Technetium bottleneck"- good
"alliance taxation like the existing corporate tax mechanic"- good
"supercapital point"- OK
"supercapital siege mode"- fine
"new capital ship class"- lets wait a while still
Electronic attack ships should effect supercaps- sure
buff assault frigs- yes
nerf the drake- someone doesn't like drakes
Cloaky hunters- long overdue, make EVE more EVE, you shall never be safe
Destructible outposts- not such a good idea |
|
Henry Haphorn
Aliastra Gallente Federation
164
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 04:14:00 -
[201] - Quote
I actually liked what was mentioned on page 10 regarding the bot problem.
Quote: The CSM was surprised that CCP Sreegs was not planning another GÇ£unholy rageGÇ¥ (a highly-public mass-banning of botters during a specific time period). Instead, Sreegs explained that GÇ£unholy rageGÇ¥ events, while effective, are not his preferred standalone solution to botting activities; instead, he would like to create an iterative process to deal with EULA-breaking activities. The focus should be on long term solutions and a sustainable process to reduce the footprint of botters; large events such as GÇ£unholy rageGÇ¥ are resource intensive and donGÇÖt scale well.
While CCP Sreegs was adamant that banning is in fact very successful, and will always be a major tool for dealing with botting, he would rather work on infrastructure and processes to limit the way that unauthorized programs can interact with the EVE client.
For this, I would suggest that they start the iterative processes by fixing the wording of the EULA as plenty of the botters point to the EULA as their excuse for using bots (among other non-EULA related excuses). Even though it is fun seeing a mass banning occur like 'Unholy Rage', folks like me see this as only a temporary measure as botters/RMTers will always crawl right back like a cockroach. Therefore, I like the idea of implementing minor processes that can make life harder for the bots but not an inconvenience to the honest players.
Quote: The CSM suggested using behavioral analysis (similar to spam-detection) to identify botters. While CCP Sreegs did not dismiss its potential effectiveness, he strongly asserted his preference for a technical approach GÇô at the very least relying on technical solutions more than behavioral ones. He argued this would prevent customer support from being inundated with false-positives and fringe cases brought about by the behavioral-flagging. It must be noted that there isnGÇÖt a dichotomy between technical solutions and behavioral analysis, both methods allow you to be more effective than relying solely on either one. And when it comes to a decision of banning an account, Sreegs prefers a technical solution over behavioral analysis.
The false positives will no doubt always be an issue given how players can potentially abuse the 'report bot' option while honest players with no lives tend to behave as bots when they play. Even I tend to sit on my chair glaring at the monitor for hours on end while mining. Hey, I enjoy it, alright? |
Nykala
Teshnology Inc. Stealth Wear Inc.
1
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 04:20:00 -
[202] - Quote
@ destroyable outposts. Just imagine the killmails Like massive structures getting nuked irl, the framework and foundation still lingers on. Having them as conquerable or even ransomable at that point is fine as is IMO, but in bringing them to borderline rubble, I'd rather see them rendered useless and abandoned then completely destroyed. Null is too empty as is with blank systems that have no lingering storys of conflict to tell. Maybe have them undockable until a docking bay is reassembled? Or in general unuseable aside from archaeology/salvaging modules to nitpick and things left behind instead of a full on asset relocation. Until someone pumps the resources into bringing one back to life. That would be one heck of a welcome back package if the old owners rebuilt it and some juicy lewtz if the invading force gets to rebuild it before the previous owners do.
Now about the command link part on page 22 of the summit. Two leadership bonuses off the bat spun me into the idea of just making use of the already present pirate dual faction perks. NPC pirate ships are still small in variety, so why not make a hybrid battlecruiser off of other hulls or even new tier 3 spin offs (since they rock the highslot count already) to work with dual leadership bonuses? Just give 'em the usual pirate factions paintjobs and a spinny dealybobber or screen door hanging off of the minnie one, I dunno. The idea is definitely flawed, but still fun to think of so I figured I'd share. One thing being sanshas have too unique of a design and no tier 3 to work from, plus amarr/caldari command link boost types seem like it would risk overtanking things...might be good for anti-freighter gank support though.
Just doing a quick overlook on what range this is implying for dual boost types and so folks don't have to go through all the command ship types... Bloods - Amarr (Armored WF) Minmatar (Skirmish WF), + armor res, reduced armor cap and cycle time, reduced SigRad, Moar AB/MWD speed, + prop jam range.
Angels - Amarr (Armored WF) Gallente (Information WF), + armor res, reduced armor cap and cycle time, + EWAR strenght and range, + Sensor strenght.
Sanshas -Amarr (AWF..again) Caldari (Siege WF), see above and above again for amarr, Shield boost speed and cap reduction + res.
Guristas - Caldari (Siege) Gallente (InfoWF) Shield boost speed and cap reduction + res, + EWAR strenght and range, + Sensor strenght.
Serps - Gal (InfoWF) Minm (Skirmish WF) + EWAR strenght and range, + Sensor strenght, reduced SigRad, Moar AB/MWD speed, + prop jam range.
|
Miss President
SOLARIS ASTERIUS
21
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 04:28:00 -
[203] - Quote
If tengu command bonuses get nerfed, at least keep it so that bonus to other T3 ships remains the same. |
Sylthi
Coreward Pan-Galactic Holy Empire of The Unshaven
10
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 04:30:00 -
[204] - Quote
So....... It has been confirmed there will be no NEW content for 2012, only rehashed old stuff that they SHOULD have gotten right the first time. Check.
Hillmar has now made it his OFFICIAL job to do NOTHING constructive or anything even close to resembling actual WORK on the project that pays his (certainly) ludicrous salary. Double check. (Why doesn't he just go ahead and resign? OH, right, sorry, forgot, he lovvulles the FREE MONEY!!! Triple check.)
After all the pain, trouble, taking away from the REAL Eve, millions of dollars, and massive hurt feelings on all sides, Incarna has been abandoned. (That is what "backburner" MEANS in developer speak people.) Wow. Way to shoot yourself in the foot on that one CCP. People give you HELL about what kind of product you AREN'T providing them, and your response is to say: "Fine. You don't get ANYTHING then if you won't be HONORED to provide us with fellatio when demanded." Again, wow. Nice. Way to be real adult about this.
I honestly didn't think CCP could screw up MORE than it already has. But, once again, they did.
I mean, WTF guys. You're an MMO, and you just PROUDLY announced: "No new content for at LEAST a year." This on TOP of what you ALREADY haven't delivered or, worse yet, have already screwed up beyond all recognition. And, the CSM just applauded you guys for it; and all was smiles and giggles up in Iceland. Are you guys ALL really that detached from reality? Do NONE of you see where this is OBVIOUSLY going?
"No new content for at least a year" are the words and kiss of DEATH in MMO-land for cripes sake!!! Big new SCI-Fi titles VERY RECENTLY came out. You don't think they won't accept your PREVIOUS customers with open arms? CCP has ALWAYS succeeded in spite of itself, largely, because there was no real competition in it's genre. Got news for you CCP: THAT IS CHANGING; FAST. None of your competition has gotten "it" exactly right yet. But, it's GOING to happen. And when it does, you'll have NOTHING to respond with. Part of me thinks you actually KNOW that; and are now simply in the mode of delaying the inevitable as long as possible.
Yeah. I guess I am going to have to face facts that after 8 years I have to find a new hobby. Time to let my accounts expire I guess. Don't want to. I really don't. But, its not like news like this from CCP and the CSM is leaving me many realistic options. I mean, there is no hope coming right from the top all the way down "to the floor" at CCP. And the CSM is just cheering them along all the way. And NO, no one can have my stuff; I'd rather set it all on fire.
What complete and utter betrayal CCP; just when I thought you could sink no lower.
Quadruple check, out.
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
908
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 04:35:00 -
[205] - Quote
Amelia Diamant wrote:Furthermore, JF are not a tool of power projection. They have zero offensive use whatsoever.
"Amateurs study tactics. Armchair generals study strategy. Professionals study logistics." GÇö Omar Bradley
"The Army marches on its stomach." GÇö Military proverb
Now please tell me again how freighters are not a tool of power projection? Where does the a mo come from? Where do the minerals to build thing in nullsec come from? What is the essential component for a strong war machine?
That's right: logistics. Freighters jumping through safe systems are the spine of null sec alliances. |
Debir Achen
EVE University Ivy League
2
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 04:44:00 -
[206] - Quote
Talia Nachtigall wrote:The Drake is fine! Why the hell does it need to be nerfed? A Hurricane can stand toe to toe with it, a Harbinger can, and so can a Myrmidon. Jesus christ. Screw up this game more?! The drake's big problem in PvP is that it is unique: it's the only T1 missile boat that is generally fleet-worthy.
The caracal has a 100+km engagement range, but does weak cruiser damage with weak cruiser tank and weak cruiser speed. In a T1 cruiser arena, it absolutely dominates. Stick a battleship or HAC on the field and watch the caracal crumple.
The cruise Raven isn't bad, but when your biggest selling point is that you can engage for moderate damage almost out to lock range, but with a 30 second lag, it's hard to compete with sniper gunship or alpha BS.
The drake only gets ~75km range, but it's not bad within that range. A Tengu is significantly better offensively, but it costs 10-20x as much.
The drake is also a very forgiving boat to fly. This, combined with a relatively low SP requirement and cost, is what makes it attractive in big, laggy blobs. It's a tough, semi-mobile missile battery. Warp in, start spewing missiles, and take advantage of your impressive buffer tank. Each missile volley isn't that potent compared to a gunship, but with enough of them you'll eventually take the target down.
As such, everyone looks at the drake and thinks the hull is the problem, because it dominates the "cheap missile brawler" category. But there's nothing else in that category, or even close to it. All the other missile ships are snipers (mostly useless) or skirmishers.
(As for "doing everything well", can I introduce you to the triad of rifter-hurricane-maelstrom?) |
Soulpirate
State War Academy Caldari State
64
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 04:58:00 -
[207] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Soulpirate wrote:Quote:The CSM and CCP both acknowledged the need to rebalance Drake, which GÇÿdoes everything too too wellGÇÖ. CCP is considering giving it a more offensive role like Raven or Caracal where it would lose the shield resistance bonus and the 5% Kinetic damage bonus and instead gain a rate of fire bonus and a missile velocity bonus. The CSM vehemently approved of this idea. CCP and the CSM also agreed that this possible change to the Drake would help add more uniqueness to the Nighthawk, which is presently overshadowed entirely by the Drake. Boosting the Nighthawk by nerfing the Drake? Huh? What? The Drake " does everything too well"?? Did you guys leave the cap off the whiteout during these meetings? The only thing nerfing the Drake will do is put more people in Tengus, not Nighthawks. If you want to add uniqueness to the Nighthawk, add uniqueness to the Nighthawk. For fun I just did a D-scan in a level 4 mission system. 16 ships(1 Golem, 1 Noctis, 1 shuttle, 13 Tengus) Maybe the Drakes are all blitzing level 5 missions somewhere. PvE Ship Balance doesn't actually matter. Sorry. Nobody cares what people run PvE content in. All that matters there is relative reward for various activities. Drakes are too versatile in PvP. And that's where balance between ships actually matters. PvP balance can never ever ever happen in an MMO. Nerfing PvE gameplay for sake of PvP will always end in failure. Seen it too may times. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
908
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 04:59:00 -
[208] - Quote
Michus Danether wrote: think a lot of people don't realize how flying a supercarrier is different than other things. Yes yes, training for the FOTM is bad but you can always dock up and reship out of a nano vagabond, but you can't do that with a supercarrier.
So you can't park a supercap in a POS? Does training to fly a supercap mean you can no longer fly any other ship type? I didn't realise that training supercarrier skill wiped out your frigate, cruiser, battle-cruiser and battleship skills
You don't need to be able to protect your alliance-level infrastructure from alliance-level warfare by docking in an invulnerable structure. The purpose of supercapitals is to die spectacularly for the glory of the Alliance. Nothing more, nothing less. They are not ratting ships, they re not private taxis, they are not ***** extensions. They are tools for alliance warfare. |
Jimmy Nickson
The Lucky Star
5
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 05:07:00 -
[209] - Quote
Read is nice.
Multiple Market's into one umm... intresting not seeing how that would work.
FW being beta for null-sec yes and no... the idea of miltia having leaders and ranks is absolutly absurd considering how many multiple entities are in each miltia with their own achievments and desired game play. Some RP some pvp (not including ISK grinding alts), who's to say that RP'ers which can be forum jockies or people who are purly after system control are to lead the pvp'ers and who's to say the pvp'ers have any say on what the RP'ers do? They mainly just co-op together to get kills and because of friendships formed in combat against a common enemy. There can be very agressive interaction between certain players or corperations in the same miltia. Don't get me wrong I reckon it could work very well, but at the same time there are so many entities half the time leaders would be ignor'd and if CTA's become common in militia many a FW player I know would say... WE ARE GOING TO HELL! and **** this.... because even though often people pvp continously you find allot of people afk doing rl stuff so fleets can often feel empty at certain times of the day...
The idea of sov mechanic's though could be very intresting because of increase desire to control systems so more conflict occures - yes pls it means somthing is actualy done to fw rather than sitting in a pile of forum complaints.
Master Account - sounds intresting.
Fire ze missiles! |
Liranan
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
38
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 05:17:00 -
[210] - Quote
NO ******* WAY. I just spent 30 minutes writing a post and the ******* forums ate it!! http://www.youtube.com/user/zeitgeistmovie?blend=1&ob=4#p/u/23/Lio3n66bwOo This ****'s got to go - Jacque Fresco |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 20 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |