Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jojin
The 0ri
|
Posted - 2009.07.25 13:39:00 -
[31]
I will admit I choose to train certain ships because of their look. I thought I had a nice looking symmetrical ship, then they changed it. Please return the original.
|
Laxyr
Chamsin Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.07.25 15:19:00 -
[32]
In my opinion the Helios is one of the ugliest ships in the game... but beauty has always been a matter of opinion.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder ;-)
CCP switched the models of the Cheetah too, which, in my opinion, was a mistake 'cos the probe hull is ugly =)
For my fellow sufferes: seconded.
But CCP wont change it.. they've turned down far more useful changes, no offense ;-)
Lax
|
Marcus Gideon
Gallente Federal Defense Operations
|
Posted - 2009.07.26 17:57:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Tortugan Supporting this thread means supporting a nerf to the Keres- the forgotten cousin of the Helios. Don't give Gallente EAF pilots yet another reason not to fly the thing ;D
EAF are 100% useless.
In any situation, an EW frigate is an annoyance, and your first target.
Any mission runner knows the first thing you pop is the Web and Scram frigates in case you have to duck out. So flying an EAF is just asking to die first.
Hence... why they should be ugly, because they die first. |
Ethaet
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2009.07.26 19:45:00 -
[34]
I want my Helios back -------------------------------------------------------------- Seriously, we need some kind of separation between the post and signature. There you go. Now that wasn't so hard |
Dierdra Vaal
|
Posted - 2009.07.26 23:24:00 -
[35]
if you're flying around in a covops and you can actually see your ship then you're doing it wrong.
Not supported. The imicus has always been the astrometrics frigate. Changing the hull to the maulus model would make no sense.
Pure vanity issue, not supported Director of Education :: EVE University
Chairman of the CSM
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2009.07.27 00:01:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Dierdra Vaal if you're flying around in a covops and you can actually see your ship then you're doing it wrong.
Not supported. The imicus has always been the astrometrics frigate. Changing the hull to the maulus model would make no sense.
Pure vanity issue, not supported
This.
if you want a nice looking covops to die in get an anathema.
|
Stil Harkonnen
|
Posted - 2009.07.27 01:57:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Dierdra Vaal if you're flying around in a covops and you can actually see your ship then you're doing it wrong.
Not supported. The imicus has always been the astrometrics frigate. Changing the hull to the maulus model would make no sense.
Pure vanity issue, not supported
fail logic. I could just as easily say that the other model was always the t2 astrometrics ship for gallente, so why change it? change the t1 (t1 meaning worse, worthless t1 frigates, less important than t2) counterpart to match the more important t2 model. They switched the wrong one if you ask me.
|
Dr BattleSmith
PAX Interstellar Services
|
Posted - 2009.07.27 03:08:00 -
[38]
Edited by: Dr BattleSmith on 27/07/2009 03:13:12
Originally by: Dierdra Vaal if you're flying around in a covops and you can actually see your ship then you're doing it wrong.
Not supported. The imicus has always been the astrometrics frigate. Changing the hull to the maulus model would make no sense.
Pure vanity issue, not supported
"You're not doing it right" = "I don't know anything about this, I have no opinion, but I'll jump all over this with my CSM boots anyway."
stfu.
Take your ego that says you MUST have an opinion on this and move onto the next thread.
Comment on stuff you understand first.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
|
Posted - 2009.07.27 03:18:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Dr BattleSmith "You're not doing it right" = "I don't know anything about this, I have no opinion, but I'll jump all over this with my CSM boots anyway."
stfu.
So you're suggesting that there's a valid reason to be looking at a covops model? You should either be cloaked, have a scanning screen open, or both. If you don't, then you're doing it wrong.
Seriously, on what basis do you suggest that a guy whose career is literally telling people how to play the game better that he doesn't know how to play?
|
Dr BattleSmith
PAX Interstellar Services
|
Posted - 2009.07.27 03:55:00 -
[40]
Edited by: Dr BattleSmith on 27/07/2009 03:56:05
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
So you're suggesting that there's a valid reason to be looking at a covops model? You should either be cloaked, have a scanning screen open, or both. If you don't, then you're doing it wrong.
Seriously, on what basis do you suggest that a guy whose career is literally telling people how to play the game better that he doesn't know how to play?
Is this thread titled "How do I fly a covertops correctly"?
|
|
Stil Harkonnen
|
Posted - 2009.07.27 03:58:00 -
[41]
Edited by: Stil Harkonnen on 27/07/2009 03:59:31
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
So you're suggesting that there's a valid reason to be looking at a covops model? You should either be cloaked, have a scanning screen open, or both. If you don't, then you're doing it wrong.
Seriously, on what basis do you suggest that a guy whose career is literally telling people how to play the game better that he doesn't know how to play?
You are so right! Why would I look at my ship anyways? They obviously DON'T want me to look at my ship because they have the first person view featu.....oh**** there is no first person...
I can still see my ship when I'm cloaked thank you very much. If you couldn't see your ship at all it would be extremely difficult to see what you were doing.
just because he's in that position doesn't mean he represents the majority of eve's players and their ideas. I for one didn't vote for him. Think of corrupt politicians. It happens.
EDIT: do CSM delegates even get paid?
|
Siigari Kitawa
The Aduro Protocol
|
Posted - 2009.07.27 08:34:00 -
[42]
Edited by: Siigari Kitawa on 27/07/2009 08:34:16 lol, leave it to someone in EVE University to "get it".
Besides, I can't cloak my ship while docked.
The original Maulus hull has sort of a bug shape to it which is almost attributed as "cute". The Imicus is definitely not cute and because of this, we wish to have a cute ship which we fly a lot.
What's the ratio of Helios to Keres you see flying about? I'm not one for making statistics on-the-fly, but I'm almost certain there are a lot more covert ops than electronic attack frigs.
So. How about you change your position? Vanity has EVERYTHING TO DO WITH EVE.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
|
Posted - 2009.07.27 15:06:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Dr BattleSmith Is this thread titled "How do I fly a covertops correctly"?
No - if you'd just asked that, this thread would have been over a week ago, and with much the same result.
Originally by: Siigari Kitawa Vanity has EVERYTHING TO DO WITH EVE.
Indeed.
|
Marcus Gideon
Gallente Federal Defense Operations
|
Posted - 2009.07.27 18:33:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Originally by: Siigari Kitawa Vanity has EVERYTHING TO DO WITH EVE.
Indeed.
I'll tell ya what Hershey...
If you don't have any constructive comments, then save the killmail epeen bullshit for your corp/alliance forums.
Siigari got my point precisely, as have several others that have contributed to this thread.
The Imicus is an ugly ship. The Maulus has a useless role.
And yet someone at CCP made the call to switch the T2 models instead of the T1 models, thus retiring a pleasing model and forcing everyone who used to fly a Helios to retrain for something else.
If it was so simple for them to swap models, then they can do it again... and get it right instead this time. |
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
|
Posted - 2009.07.27 21:01:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Marcus Gideon I'll tell ya what Hershey...
If you don't have any constructive comments, then save the killmail epeen bullshit for your corp/alliance forums.
Wasn't intended as epeen, just as comedy - I never said I could do any better. And seriously, anyone flying T3 in March obviously cares more about doing things in style than they do about doing things effectively. It's fine if you want to play that way, but you're in the minority if you do.
Originally by: Marcus Gideon CSM aren't career gamers. They aren't even CCP employees. They are volunteers who got picked to voice our opinions to Devs, because CCP is too lazy to respond to customers themselves.
I wasn't referring to his CSM tenure, or his RL career. DV is Director of Training for Eve University. When he says someone is doing something wrong, I'm inclined to agree with him.
|
Stil Harkonnen
|
Posted - 2009.07.27 22:24:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Wasn't intended as epeen, just as comedy - I never said I could do any better. And seriously, anyone flying T3 in March obviously cares more about doing things in style than they do about doing things effectively. It's fine if you want to play that way, but you're in the minority if you do.
I wasn't referring to his CSM tenure, or his RL career. DV is Director of Training for Eve University. When he says someone is doing something wrong, I'm inclined to agree with him.
idk if i'm correct in saying this, but all I've heard that Eve University can do is blob with frigates and an occasional cruiser. tbh that takes no skill. How much training skill does it take to train somebody to do that?
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
|
Posted - 2009.07.27 22:47:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Stil Harkonnen idk if i'm correct in saying this, but all I've heard that Eve University can do is blob with frigates and an occasional cruiser. tbh that takes no skill. How much training skill does it take to train somebody to do that?
"Man, all those big alliances do is shoot their enemies. It doesn't take skill to do that, any monkey can click and F1-F8". Statements like "They just blob" says nothing about their skill level - do they blob well, or badly? Do they win fights, or lose them?
I've never flown beside them or been a part of them, but I know that they're a corp that people get pointed towards to learn how to play well, and that they're a corp that advertises the presence of gobs of newbies and isn't plowed under by wardecs 23/7. Their killboard shows 47% efficiency, which isn't bad at all for a corp with their demographics. From what I can tell from back here, I'd have to say that they're pretty good.
|
Stil Harkonnen
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 00:01:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
"Man, all those big alliances do is shoot their enemies. It doesn't take skill to do that, any monkey can click and F1-F8". Statements like "They just blob" says nothing about their skill level - do they blob well, or badly? Do they win fights, or lose them?
I've never flown beside them or been a part of them, but I know that they're a corp that people get pointed towards to learn how to play well, and that they're a corp that advertises the presence of gobs of newbies and isn't plowed under by wardecs 23/7. Their killboard shows 47% efficiency, which isn't bad at all for a corp with their demographics. From what I can tell from back here, I'd have to say that they're pretty good.
not sure how you can blob poorly, if you have enough ships it's really hard to lose. They aren't plowed under by wardecs because there's too many, nobody is willing to fight against such numbers. 47% is actually kinda bad considering that they are flying cheap t1 stuff and even with their blobs and numbers don't kill as much as they lose in cheap t1 equipment...
|
Dr BattleSmith
PAX Interstellar Services
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 01:48:00 -
[49]
Who cares about the expendable newbies at Eve-Uni....
Helios.
|
Stil Harkonnen
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 01:59:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Dr BattleSmith Who cares about the expendable newbies at Eve-Uni....
Helios.
apparently their credibility of knowledge on this subject is based on the expendable newbies.
sorry i couldn't resist getting in a fight with them
|
|
Dr BattleSmith
PAX Interstellar Services
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 02:36:00 -
[51]
I just hope after seeing this thread decent into trolling, that CSM members think twice before shooting down issues they have no understanding of. See how constructive that response was CSM? Stick to **** you know, if it's not your issue, then move along to something you understand.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
|
Posted - 2009.07.28 03:25:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Dr BattleSmith Who cares about the expendable newbies at Eve-Uni....
Helios.
Yeah, there's a reason I let that subthread die. Should probably have dropped it one post sooner, but meh.
Originally by: Dr BattleSmith I just hope after seeing this thread decent into trolling, that CSM members think twice before shooting down issues they have no understanding of. See how constructive that response was CSM? Stick to **** you know, if it's not your issue, then move along to something you understand.
How could anyone possibly not understand this issue? It's not exactly complicated.
|
Felix Mibaz
|
Posted - 2009.07.29 12:41:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Marcus Gideon
Originally by: SEN 5243 The Imicus grows on you. Give it some time.
Just like the rest of the Gallente ships, which all resemble cancerous growths...
Not all Gall ships are fugly, which is the same with all races. Now, it's a cov ops, ugly or not....You're cloaked 99% of the time while in one, unless you just park in a station and stare at your cov ops.
Fix Recons, not ship models. Not supported.
|
Felix Mibaz
|
Posted - 2009.07.29 12:43:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Marcus Gideon
Originally by: Tortugan Supporting this thread means supporting a nerf to the Keres- the forgotten cousin of the Helios. Don't give Gallente EAF pilots yet another reason not to fly the thing ;D
EAF are 100% useless.
In any situation, an EW frigate is an annoyance, and your first target.
Any mission runner knows the first thing you pop is the Web and Scram frigates in case you have to duck out. So flying an EAF is just asking to die first.
Hence... why they should be ugly, because they die first.
LOL, all of the EAF's aren't as useless as you think they are, however Gall one's are because sensor damps are pretend modules that you click to make yourself feel better.
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2009.07.29 13:11:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Felix Mibaz LOL, all of the EAF's aren't as useless as you think they are, however Gall one's are because sensor damps are pretend modules that you click to make yourself feel better.
long range point is still very useful.
|
A Ingus
|
Posted - 2009.07.29 13:39:00 -
[56]
Originally by: SEN 5243 The Imicus grows on you. Give it some time.
This. I see it now as a sorta rubber ducky in space. However, I do miss the antenae of the old Helios.
The more important issue with the Helios is the stupid 2 highs and 5 mids. Make that 3 highs and 4 mids please. Also, fix damps or the damp bonus ships so I might fly the Keres and have my antenae back. A 5% bonus on the "new" "improved" through scripts crappy damps is crap. Crappity crap.
|
Jose Black
|
Posted - 2009.07.29 13:52:00 -
[57]
The point is that the astrometrics frigates are cargo frigates at the same time. The Imicus hull does look way more like cargo than the Maulus hull does. Granted, the Imicus hull does look weird. But you can manage to love a ship regardless or even for its pitiful looks. Give it a try .
Also the model change did work out very well for the Cheetah. If swapping the models back would affect all of the changed ones I would strongly oppose it. Imo the Vigil hull looks at least as weird as the Imicus one, and I didn't yet manage to find something likeable about it.
|
Abortion Engine
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.07.29 14:11:00 -
[58]
Originally by: darius mclever
Originally by: Felix Mibaz LOL, all of the EAF's aren't as useless as you think they are, however Gall one's are because sensor damps are pretend modules that you click to make yourself feel better.
long range point is still very useful.
Better off using an Interceptor (esp. as Gallente).
Not only do they have better survivability over an EAS, but they're a prerequisite for another useful ship type, Interdictors. Oh, and they can point something the same distance the Keres can.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |