Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Yorda
Battlestars GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.09 16:29:00 -
[61]
Originally by: marakor Edited by: marakor on 09/03/2008 16:17:15
WOW your so knowledgeable it makes me want to ask a couple of other questions and point out a few things about 0.0 warfare you did not mention or do not know.
1. Considering we were talking about large scale fleet battles and everybody (apart from you it seems) is well aware of the lag/desynch issues that are part and parcel of such fights. And that the individuals involved in these fights hardly ever see what is killing them or have the ability to activate modules or warp anywhere a lot of the time "tackling " as you call it is hardly necessary and certainly not by a t1 friggie.
2. There are ships in EVE called "interdictors" and these ships are every so very clever you see, as they can actually drop something called a "interdiction" bubble and this "interdiction" bubble does the same thing as lots and lots of those "tacklers" without the need to bring 50-100 of them and adding to the lag/desynch so leaving room for worthwhile ships.
3. As has been mentioned before even a noob can fly a e-war fitted cruiser if the alliance he is in teaches him how to earn isk and train the correct skills, instead of exploiting his naivety and using him as lag/cannon fodder
4. Now given that, 1 lag in large fleet fights makes individual "tackling" useless as you never know what ship is gonna actually show up on your overview. 2 that very few "interdictors" are needed to "tackle" the entire hostile fleet without adding massively to the lag. And 3 that a properly trained and educated noob can fly a e-war or standard cruiser with even the same tackle if he realy wishes but with considerably more dps and e-war, and so i still personaly feel t1 frigs are worthless in large fleet ops unless its your aim to cause lagg.
PS: Although i found your attitude a bit sarcastic and patronizing and so decided to follow suit in my reply at least you actually attempted to post a detailed opinion on the subject instead of the standard one line insult.
As your ******** reply has shown, your terrible posts do not deserve a serious reply.
Originally by: nlewis jammers are the meatshield [Bob] wish their pets were
|
Orange Species
Minmatar Destructive Influence Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.03.09 16:32:00 -
[62]
oh the irony of the above two poasters of the same alliance! -------------
|
marakor
Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers
|
Posted - 2008.03.09 16:44:00 -
[63]
Edited by: marakor on 09/03/2008 16:45:24
Originally by: Dyson
Okay bud, two things you really don't seem to be picking up;
1; If everyone in goonfleet could fly useful ships into the fight we'd still crash the node. We just have too many people willing to fight.
2; Lag isn't caused by us. Lag is caused by CCP's lack of proper server coding/dedicated resources. If CCP either created a hard cap to the number of people in the system or had the proper hardware/software, we wouldn't be having this discussion (Possibly caused by the clients and the lack of documentation on what is the acceptable hardware to run during certain fleet battles). If the first solution was used we probably wouldn't even be playing because the scope of EVE is fairly attractive.
If you are saying that a lot your members cannot fly useful ships (cruisers with e-war or if you insist tackle) you should speak to the ppl in this very thread let alone this forum who brag about your training policies for new members.
And if as you say you have too many members willing to fight they should be more than willing to fly a ship that can actually fight and cause a reasonable amount of dmg like at least cruiser.
I agree with you CCP is responsible for the fact the game has lag, but throwing useless ships into a fight that you know is gonna lag instead of using useful ships (with good/better dps and e-war) is a choice that is not made by ccp it is made by your FC's who accept it or your alliance leaders and also by your members who do not know better or do not care.
|
Dyson
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.09 17:07:00 -
[64]
Originally by: marakor Edited by: marakor on 09/03/2008 16:49:13 If you are saying that a lot your members cannot fly useful ships (cruisers with e-war or if you insist tackle) you should speak to the ppl in this very thread let alone this forum who brag about your training policies for new members. I also suggest you get your training policies revised tbqh.
And if as you say you have too many members willing to fight they should be more than willing to fly a ship that can actually fight and cause a reasonable amount of dmg like at least cruiser.
I agree with you CCP is responsible for the fact the game has lag, but throwing useless ships into a fight that you know is gonna lag instead of using useful ships (with good/better dps and e-war) is a choice that is not made by ccp it is made by your FC's who accept and even encourage the usage of worthless frigs in gang or your alliance leaders who supply them for such ops and also by your members who do not know better or do not care.
That is a totally different debate. I am accepting your concept and challenging your idea that somehow flying better ships would reduce our participation. It wouldn't.
And god forbid we allow our membership to participate instead of banning them from showing up simply because they cannot fly ships of a decent caliber, which leads back into my first point; If they did have good ships and showed up, we'd still kill the node. CCP is really at fault for failing to see the scope of which these fights could reach, especially when they envisioned giant space ****s that kill entire fleets.
|
|
CCP Mitnal
|
Posted - 2008.03.09 17:21:00 -
[65]
Locked
User request. Mitnal, Community Representative
EVE Online CCP Games Email/Netfang Wrangler made me do it. ~Saint |
|
marakor
Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers
|
Posted - 2008.03.09 17:22:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Dyson
Originally by: marakor
If you are saying that a lot your members cannot fly useful ships (cruisers with e-war or if you insist tackle) you should speak to the ppl in this very thread let alone this forum who brag about your training policies for new members. I also suggest you get your training policies revised tbqh.
And if as you say you have too many members willing to fight they should be more than willing to fly a ship that can actually fight and cause a reasonable amount of dmg like at least cruiser.
I agree with you CCP is responsible for the fact the game has lag, but throwing useless ships into a fight that you know is gonna lag instead of using useful ships (with good/better dps and e-war) is a choice that is not made by ccp it is made by your FC's who accept and even encourage the usage of worthless frigs in gang or your alliance leaders who supply them for such ops and also by your members who do not know better or do not care.
That is a totally different debate. I am accepting your concept and challenging your idea that somehow flying better ships would reduce our participation. It wouldn't.
And god forbid we allow our membership to participate instead of banning them from showing up simply because they cannot fly ships of a decent caliber, which leads back into my first point; If they did have good ships and showed up, we'd still kill the node. CCP is really at fault for failing to see the scope of which these fights could reach, especially when they envisioned giant space ****s that kill entire fleets.
I do not think or care either way that forcing your membership to turn up in useful ships would reduce your participation what i am saying is that it would make the participation of those no longer in frigs but now in cruisers actually worthwhile and effective instead of totally worthless.
And if you claims of already having too many ppl willing and wanting to fight (so causing node crashes if they all turn up) are true then you must already be telling some of your members to be on standby while others fight, so having a non T1 friggie policy when forming up a fleet should hardly be a problem.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |