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 - 9 post(s) |
Lusulpher
Blackwater Syndicate Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.08.26 05:26:00 -
[571]
Originally by: rgreat
Originally by: VonCruix In the end, a BlackOps heavy gang should be at a disadvantage to a more balanced gang.
...of the same cost.
Which will be like 4-10 times more ships.
Cost v Risk v Reward dictates that as the price goes up, the reward while above average does not continue to go up.
Diminishing Returns they called it a long time ago... What I want to see on a BOBS is a module that finds cloaked ships. Either a Destroyer vairant or them, to help resolve the cloaked afker problem.
I love my Razu but's it's cloak and forget 99% of the time. No one is scanning/probing/patrolling for me becuase they don't even have a chance of it. That's where this module or BOBS comes in.
After that is implemented go ahead and give the BOBS a CovOp cloak, because now that bastard can be found with my BOBS(have not trained one because it's pretty pointless). 7 |
Kayosoni
Caldari Ghosting Corp
|
Posted - 2009.08.26 10:02:00 -
[572]
Black ops should get an AoE effect siege module that allows them to shield other covert ops type vessels from being locked by a POS so they can shoot cyno jammers. That should be their role. ---
|
DirtyDirty88
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2009.08.26 22:40:00 -
[573]
Originally by: Kayosoni Black ops should get an AoE effect siege module that allows them to shield other covert ops type vessels from being locked by a POS so they can shoot cyno jammers. That should be their role.
AoE effect. redundancy at its finest.
|
DNSBLACK
Gallente Dirt Nap Squad
|
Posted - 2009.08.27 14:24:00 -
[574]
Iam amazed this post is still going. Some changes to look at
1. .5 light year increase
2. Bonus adjustment please make them relevant to the ship. The Sin and Panther need this more then the others.
3. Scan res reduction or take the penalty away. We lose all our advantages cause we cant lock people very fast.
4. Would like a cov cloak but not something that is a must but would be nice
|
Javelin6
Minmatar Dirt Nap Squad
|
Posted - 2009.08.29 01:52:00 -
[575]
Cache cleared. |
Sith LordX
|
Posted - 2009.08.29 12:25:00 -
[576]
Originally by: Rajere Edited by: Rajere on 03/04/2009 09:48:12
Originally by: Overbrain Edited by: Overbrain on 03/04/2009 09:17:10 I sense anger and totaly flawed will to find something wrong in my arguments . But what i see is total fail lol.
When i said , if ccp have gave them COC and they would still have slow lock time . Lets see , pump some more blood into your brain and then you will understand.
IF* they had COC, then ccp would give them scan res penalty on top* of that . Get it ?
These people just cant understand one thing . I see this everywhere. When you ask for a ship to gain an ability, you dont necessarily mean that the ship should gain that ability without losing anything in return or be subject to balance.
We ask for COC on Blackops because the ship's name and the overall need for "covert operations" in eve , "calls" for it .
Eve needed a stronger/slower force recon which could penetrate deep into so called safe* zones in 0.0 . And we got it, well not quite .
Ever wondered why blackops required level(4) cloaking skill ? Which is the same requirement for COC . NOW you are thinking..
Edit: typos
Wow, lol. I realize english isn't your first language so i'm not laughing at that, i'm laughing at how completely inaccurate everything you just said was, you managed to be totally off base in every single one of your statements.
You do realize that the Scan Resolution Penalty is a function of the actual Cloaking Module itself, and not the ship, right? Are you saying that CCP will create a *special* BO only Covert Ops Cloaking device and add a Scan Res Penalty to it? Why not just nerf the base scan res of the ships, it would accomplish the same thing? Oh wait, didn't they just boosted the base scan resolutions to partially compensate for the penalty on the Cloak Module?
You and everyone else who asked for a COC on blackops did so because you're terrible at this game, and lack even the most elementary concept of how stuff works. You really haven't got a clue, and would use a COC fitted Blackops to try and run around solo, going after ratters in belts, except you'd fail to tackle anything before they could warp off, and then of course you'd lose your COC fitted Blackops in the very first bubble gatecamp you jumped into, which just so happens would be the very next system you jumped into as the locals have already easily identified you and your lack of pvp prowess from your previous attempt to solo gank t1 fit ratting ravens. Even if they were all T2 fit, do you have any idea how many hundreds of ratting battleships you would need to gank before you'd make back enough isk to replace just 1 of your COC fit blackops?
You think Eve needs a stronger/slower Force Recon? What makes you think that? Even if it did, what on earth makes you think that Black Ops are supposed to fill that role? is it the diametrically opposed ship design? The fact that they have completely different, yet synergetic pvp roles? Or that they have so much in common, oh wait, absolutely nothing in common with one another? Do you even play eve or are you just trolling me? srs post
Mmm one thing you have wrong is, the ability to make isk in this game. A little thing called market trading gets the job done. 250mill per day. Not going to effect a market trader that much if they lose a black ops now is it when we can make that much isk. We can replace such ships in days.
|
DirtyDirty88
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2009.08.29 19:36:00 -
[577]
no the black ops loss didnt affect me much... <-Market *****. but when i lost my wyvern, i start crying my eyes out hahaha.
seriously though,.. that stung on a major level
|
thoth rothschild
Strategic Solutions Ltd. Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2009.09.17 22:06:00 -
[578]
Edited by: thoth rothschild on 17/09/2009 22:06:51 may i ask for T2 resists with Dominion incomming?
|
|
|
|
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 |