Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
|
Posted - 2010.08.28 23:58:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Vuk Lau Did you actually read what I wrote or you are just continuing plaguing this forums like you are plaguing CAOD with your bitter posts?
Yes, I read what you wrote. It is a bad idea.
Just send out a 87 alliance wide blue list mail stating for people to start scouting the POS they are about to jump their capital to.
Changing a game mechanic should not happen because people want to be lazy.
|
Soleil Fournier
UNFAITHFUL SHADOWS Combined Planetary Union
|
Posted - 2010.08.29 07:04:00 -
[32]
I don't think this is necessary, Supercaps are dieing quite often.
If there's a problem with supercap numbers, try pushing something that makes them harder to build. Like requiring an upgrade to produce a supercap, that is both expensive and requires the alliance to hold X number of systems.
|
Anile8er
D00M. Northern Coalition.
|
Posted - 2010.08.31 06:11:00 -
[33]
LOL your whole "coalition" is fail... your idea is fail...
Hey I have an idea... SCOUT LOCAL... DONT JUMP IN WHEN THERE ARE NEUTS/REDS/QUESTIONABLE BLUES IN LOCAL...
|
Anile8er
D00M. Northern Coalition.
|
Posted - 2010.08.31 06:23:00 -
[34]
Edited by: Anile8er on 31/08/2010 06:24:28 I also have a useful suggestion for this post other than my scouting suggestion.
"super point" POS module:
*150 mil shield HP, 150 mil armor HP, 150 mil structure HP.
*100km point range.
*500 mil ISK a day operating cost. (that should be a small price for all the sov whoring, moon goo whoring and 90% carebears in our alliance alliances to pay for "a super capital kill")
*120 minute onlining time.
|
devilsspawn
RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.08.31 07:58:00 -
[35]
Just another member of our fail coalition supporting, nothing to see here, move along....
|
Arrador
|
Posted - 2010.08.31 15:27:00 -
[36]
marlona hates the idea. Thats a good enough reason to support it ;)
|
Cikulisuy
Amarr D00M. Northern Coalition.
|
Posted - 2010.08.31 16:05:00 -
[37]
stealth NC whine thread detected. ~ |
Melkie
The Executives IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.08.31 19:42:00 -
[38]
yeah... NO. supers are meant for killing caps and used for killing towers. TBH I think if a person is stupid enough to have a jump freighter or capital by a pos without the proper precautions, they need to learn a lesson. This would just make some people scared to use supers again like the old days. I don't know why, but it would.
|
Fournone
|
Posted - 2010.09.01 01:31:00 -
[39]
Edited by: Fournone on 01/09/2010 01:32:00 Sounds cool, anything to kill some caps.
Originally by: 5-year-old-with-an-internet-connect-who-trolls-alot random stuff in bold
Cromo, stop posting in bold, you look like a moron.
|
Voddick
|
Posted - 2010.09.01 02:38:00 -
[40]
Good idea...Less Insurance = done...now more SC deaths!!
|
|
Rip Minner
ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries
|
Posted - 2010.09.01 03:14:00 -
[41]
I support anything that kills caps faster
Is it a rock? Point a Lazer at it and profit. Is it a ship? Point a Lazer at it and profit. I dont realy see any differnces here. |
John'eh
Asteroid Belt Protection Services
|
Posted - 2010.09.01 10:40:00 -
[42]
I support anything that will kill caps. - John'eh
Your Critics Are Your Best Friends, because they help you find your faults and help you improve to be better. Don't take my criticisms personally, I care about Eve just as much as you |
I'm Down
|
Posted - 2010.09.01 13:30:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Soleil Fournier I don't think this is necessary, Supercaps are dieing quite often.
If there's a problem with supercap numbers, try pushing something that makes them harder to build. Like requiring an upgrade to produce a supercap, that is both expensive and requires the alliance to hold X number of systems.
Really, they are? I'd love to see the proof of that. Fact is, when one side fields 20 supers, the other side isn't likely to field 21 and say ok, let's have a go at it. They're too expensive to risk losing half your fleet to kill the full other fleet for.
Supers do not fit the role that the Dread/Carrier proliferation of old fill. Simply put, they don't have a role, they just do it all well to a point where the only risk involved in using supers is your own pilots stupidity.
The IDEA has failed horribly and sadly it doesn't even seem to be on the radar of CCP to rebalance again even most reasonable people will admit they're overpowered... See SHC. Then you have the DOOM. Pilots who think that there is such a thing as end game and they all want to be in it. Hence they're constant refusal for changes like this one.
I don't particularly think it should be disruptors, but the 75km scrams I'm cool with. Easy to out range on top of being easy for a super to kill. So not much added risk, but a bit.
|
Yeay Fritg
Confrerie de Kaedri Cluster Of Rebirth
|
Posted - 2010.09.01 13:39:00 -
[44]
|
Larkonis Trassler
Neo Spartans Laconian Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.09.01 13:56:00 -
[45]
I really don't see why people are so upset at this suggestion. If the POS is unmanned then you can clear any and all tackle and offensive mods on you in about 20 seconds (it's p easy)...
|
debbie harrio
|
Posted - 2010.09.01 14:37:00 -
[46]
Edited by: debbie harrio on 01/09/2010 14:40:30
Originally by: Larkonis Trassler I really don't see why people are so upset at this suggestion. If the POS is unmanned then you can clear any and all tackle and offensive mods on you in about 20 seconds (it's p easy)...
This * 10...
If this is implemented it may make the above moaners to the idea think twice about dropping an Avatar and a Nyx on a lone drake, which they do with regularity, they want to keep the status quo of their risk free pvp, so supported.
also
Quote: QUESTIONABLE BLUES IN LOCAL...
As this is their preferred M.O.
How can a normal alliance member tell the difference between an questionable blue and a non questionable blue?
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2010.09.01 15:13:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Larkonis Trassler I really don't see why people are so upset at this suggestion. If the POS is unmanned then you can clear any and all tackle and offensive mods on you in about 20 seconds (it's p easy)...
maybe we want people to play the game (tackle things) and not stupid posses? this whole change would just make it safer for idiots who dont scout. we dont need to support those. darwin handles them nicely.
|
Aditia Holdem
Rionnag Alba
|
Posted - 2010.09.01 16:28:00 -
[48]
Yes supers need to die more. No, Vuk's proposal is not the way to do it.
The problem with supers is not that POS batteries don't scramble them, it's because they can log off when tackled and in trouble and usually live that way.
Vuk's proposal is simply a way of preventing/making harder the hotdropping of stuff on a POS, effectively making 0.0 safer for carebears. It does not, by any means, ensure the dying of more supers. The net result is probably that they will get used less again and carebears can use jump bridges/beacons with less chance of getting their stuff ganked again. No thank you I say!
Now the proliferation of supers, without them dying, is a serious issue. So yes, they need to die. Instead of Vuk's proposal, which doesn't serve to solve the problem mentioned, I would rather propose to change log off mechanics, so that any ship that is tackled will not disappear from space when it logs off, effectively eliminating the use of logging off to gtfo while in combat. |
Klyria
Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.09.01 17:44:00 -
[49]
Oh hell yeah.
|
I'm Down
|
Posted - 2010.09.01 18:01:00 -
[50]
Edited by: I''m Down on 01/09/2010 18:03:12
Originally by: darius mclever
Originally by: Larkonis Trassler I really don't see why people are so upset at this suggestion. If the POS is unmanned then you can clear any and all tackle and offensive mods on you in about 20 seconds (it's p easy)...
maybe we want people to play the game (tackle things) and not stupid posses? this whole change would just make it safer for idiots who dont scout. we dont need to support those. darwin handles them nicely.
Yes, because it's hugely challenging to log an alt into a system each day with a cloak and a cyno, go to work, come back, go to the store, come back, and just wait until you feel like being active.
That's real fair for the guys doing the proper scouting to know 1) is it a legit alt, 2) is it active, 3) does it have a cyno ready. How is shutting down a system of travel afking all day fair or in any way ACTIVELY PLAYING as you just phrased it?
Tell ya what, fix cloaks, fix HP, fix a few other things about Moms and we can forget the Point on the tower... Although I kinda like it too.
|
|
TowMater
|
Posted - 2010.09.01 18:28:00 -
[51]
Interesting idea but I don't think it is a good one - the whole point of these ships is that they have immunity apart from to HICS/DICS. It isn't all that easy to get one and so the benefits should be great. If it was a manned gunner device it may work better but the simple fact is that if you are patient enough to camp for a capital gank for hours then you should be able to get a reward :)
Either way I think that people really should just be more careful when moving caps through bridges and gens...most large alliances are awful at scouting and I do agree with whoever said this seems like a boost to the lazy and carebears of 0.0.
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2010.09.01 18:29:00 -
[52]
Originally by: I'm Down Edited by: I''m Down on 01/09/2010 18:03:12
Originally by: darius mclever
Originally by: Larkonis Trassler I really don't see why people are so upset at this suggestion. If the POS is unmanned then you can clear any and all tackle and offensive mods on you in about 20 seconds (it's p easy)...
maybe we want people to play the game (tackle things) and not stupid posses? this whole change would just make it safer for idiots who dont scout. we dont need to support those. darwin handles them nicely.
Yes, because it's hugely challenging to log an alt into a system each day with a cloak and a cyno, go to work, come back, go to the store, come back, and just wait until you feel like being active.
That's real fair for the guys doing the proper scouting to know 1) is it a legit alt, 2) is it active, 3) does it have a cyno ready. How is shutting down a system of travel afking all day fair or in any way ACTIVELY PLAYING as you just phrased it?
Tell ya what, fix cloaks, fix HP, fix a few other things about Moms and we can forget the Point on the tower... Although I kinda like it too.
see that kind of attitude is the exact reason why CCP should not implement that idea.
let me give you one small hint: a dual web rapier gets your cap ships/freighter away from a pos in no time.
|
I'm Down
|
Posted - 2010.09.01 19:57:00 -
[53]
Originally by: darius mclever
let me give you one small hint: a dual web rapier gets your cap ships/freighter away from a pos in no time.
Actually, it's that kind of stupidity that is why CCP should not listen to a person of your intelligence.
First your asking for a dual accouter, now your asking for a dual accounter with the 2nd account specifically trained for a particular race and a particular ship.
And finally, you're leaving out the fact that a hic or dic can bubble instantly and / or cloak, removing the ability to beat it with the system load working in the attackers advantage over the defender.
**** sake already, shut up and allow average gamers to play the game already w/o you wanting to epeen over everything with your overpowered toys.
You seem to not mention that you can go in at any time of day with your Supers and incap those mods forcing them to be repped constantly for multiple times the amount of time.
|
debbie harrio
|
Posted - 2010.09.01 20:47:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Aditia Holdem Yes supers need to die more. No, Vuk's proposal is not the way to do it.
The problem with supers is not that POS batteries don't scramble them, it's because they can log off when tackled and in trouble and usually live that way.
Vuk's proposal is simply a way of preventing/making harder the hotdropping of stuff on a POS, effectively making 0.0 safer for carebears. It does not, by any means, ensure the dying of more supers. The net result is probably that they will get used less again and carebears can use jump bridges/beacons with less chance of getting their stuff ganked again. No thank you I say!
Now the proliferation of supers, without them dying, is a serious issue. So yes, they need to die. Instead of Vuk's proposal, which doesn't serve to solve the problem mentioned, I would rather propose to change log off mechanics, so that any ship that is tackled will not disappear from space when it logs off, effectively eliminating the use of logging off to gtfo while in combat.
Although you have a point, this is not the solution.
If a ship is tackled without aggression, they emergency warp to safety after 1 minute, this is a good safety measure atm, it should not change, although some one may deliberately log off to save their ship, there is also legitimate disconnects.
ATM if a ship aggresses then logs, you have 15 minutes to kill it, plenty of time you say, which it is, if you are trying to kill an Aeon with 2 rifters and a thorax, you are doing it wrong.
The tackling isn't the problem, the problem is to catch a SC you need the right ships in the right places at all times, now expecting someone to man Hic's and dictors 24 hrs a day on JB POS's and Cyno POS's is ridiculous, who wants to spend their game time doing that?
Vuk's suggestion is a middle ground, the pos will tackle the SC, the Home defense force will mobilise, if quick enough to mobolise they will catch the SC still tackled by the POS disruptor, most of the time they will not get there in time and the SC will be in a safe spot, cloaked, waiting out it's aggression, the amount of alliances that could muster up such a fleet to snare that SC in time before the mods are destroyed are very few.
Also take into account SC's get tackled quite frequently, killing them is the hard part......
|
Aditia Holdem
Rionnag Alba
|
Posted - 2010.09.02 04:08:00 -
[55]
Edited by: Aditia Holdem on 02/09/2010 04:09:02
Originally by: debbie harrio
Originally by: Aditia Holdem Yes supers need to die more. No, Vuk's proposal is not the way to do it.
The problem with supers is not that POS batteries don't scramble them, it's because they can log off when tackled and in trouble and usually live that way.
Although you have a point, this is not the solution.
If a ship is tackled without aggression, they emergency warp to safety after 1 minute, this is a good safety measure atm, it should not change, although some one may deliberately log off to save their ship, there is also legitimate disconnects.
ATM if a ship aggresses then logs, you have 15 minutes to kill it, plenty of time you say, which it is, if you are trying to kill an Aeon with 2 rifters and a thorax, you are doing it wrong.
The tackling isn't the problem, the problem is to catch a SC you need the right ships in the right places at all times, now expecting someone to man Hic's and dictors 24 hrs a day on JB POS's and Cyno POS's is ridiculous, who wants to spend their game time doing that?
Vuk's suggestion is a middle ground, the pos will tackle the SC, the Home defense force will mobilise, if quick enough to mobolise they will catch the SC still tackled by the POS disruptor, most of the time they will not get there in time and the SC will be in a safe spot, cloaked, waiting out it's aggression, the amount of alliances that could muster up such a fleet to snare that SC in time before the mods are destroyed are very few.
Also take into account SC's get tackled quite frequently, killing them is the hard part......
Logging off super caps to avoid destruction mid fight has been a much used tactic for a while now. Both in ganking and fleet fight situations. The lag associated with fleet fights makes the 15 minute timer a joke.
|
debbie harrio
|
Posted - 2010.09.02 08:20:00 -
[56]
Edited by: debbie harrio on 02/09/2010 08:20:31
Originally by: Aditia Holdem
Logging off super caps to avoid destruction mid fight has been a much used tactic for a while now. Both in ganking and fleet fight situations. The lag associated with fleet fights makes the 15 minute timer a joke.
True, with Tyrannis level of lag it is impossible, it is a delicate situation because without lag it is totally possible, maybe you are right and AGGRESSED ships should not disappear after logging but then you will have lots of tears from other people, it may be possible to have differing timers for ship class but that sounds like overly complicated coding.
shrugs.
|
Soleil Fournier
UNFAITHFUL SHADOWS Combined Planetary Union
|
Posted - 2010.09.02 12:39:00 -
[57]
Edited by: Soleil Fournier on 02/09/2010 12:40:33
Originally by: I'm Down
Really, they are? I'd love to see the proof of that.
Ask and you shall receive:
From eve-kill.net, click on capital kills, then click "previous month" on the right, and shift through the kill mails.
Here's a Hel kill from Today.
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=7499261&nolimit
There's been no fewer than 10 supercap kills, including at least 3 titan kills, last month alone (and I didn't go through the whole month). Compare that to last year, where there was a titan or 'mothership' kill every few months at best.
So yes, there are more supercaps out there blobbing, but there are also supercaps dieing.
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2010.09.02 15:08:00 -
[58]
all titan kills in 2010-08 all mothership kills in 2010-08
|
I'm Down
|
Posted - 2010.09.02 17:11:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Soleil Fournier Edited by: Soleil Fournier on 02/09/2010 12:40:33
Originally by: I'm Down
Really, they are? I'd love to see the proof of that.
Ask and you shall receive:
From eve-kill.net, click on capital kills, then click "previous month" on the right, and shift through the kill mails.
Here's a Hel kill from Today.
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=7499261&nolimit
There's been no fewer than 10 supercap kills, including at least 3 titan kills, last month alone (and I didn't go through the whole month). Compare that to last year, where there was a titan or 'mothership' kill every few months at best.
So yes, there are more supercaps out there blobbing, but there are also supercaps dieing.
That's terrific, MM alone could probably cover all those losses with their own CSAAs 2 fold. That is not a steady or high rate, that's a pathetic rate which is leading to the explosion of number's we're seeing.
Supers are at the point where until you start seeing battles where sides take losses similar to dreads circa 2007, it's not going to matter.
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2010.09.02 17:15:00 -
[60]
Originally by: I'm Down That's terrific, MM alone could probably cover all those losses with their own CSAAs 2 fold. That is not a steady or high rate, that's a pathetic rate which is leading to the explosion of number's we're seeing.
Supers are at the point where until you start seeing battles where sides take losses similar to dreads circa 2007, it's not going to matter.
Maybe you should use all your supercaps to kill the hotdroppers once in a while?
And to answer your rant about alts from a few posts back. I didnt want to imply that you should use alts, this is an MMO, multiplayer, people playing together, I am quite sure you could get one of your corp mates to give you status on a system before jumping in.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |