|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |

Large Collidable Object
morons.
1832
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 19:20:00 -
[1] - Quote
Boosters should only work within e.g. an invisible 200 km radius bubble and be blocked by POS shields, otherwise, there would be too much messing around with Grid-Fu. You know... morons. |

Large Collidable Object
morons.
1833
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 21:04:00 -
[2] - Quote
David Devant wrote:
Regardless of how much you might disagree, you're all mental if you think CCP will remove off-grid boosters. "I know, let's make it so lots of people unsub their second account!" :eye roll:
0/10
falcon nerf  You know... morons. |

Large Collidable Object
morons.
1835
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 21:49:00 -
[3] - Quote
David Devant wrote:
@LCO: The falcon nerf was in no way comparable to removing off grid boosting and you know it. 0/10. Deuce.
No - actually, it has far less impact. A falcon alt used to be able to jam from 200+ km away, but still had to be on grid - was it lame due to being completely risk-free? Yes - but at least it was on grid. 'because of falcon' was in every second post on the forums. Yet it was less frecked up than current T3 boosters.
Using my porposal, it would still be more lame and involving less risk than using a falcon alt.
Quote: I wouldn't object so much to making boosting occur on grid only if it wasn't for the fact that command ships are so ******* boring to fly. If you're kiting in a claymore you've got no ability to project damage and if you're brawling in a damnation you've got no damage at all.
I thought you multiboxed using your off-grid-booster alt?
Or did i mix things up and you solo in your off grid booster? Must be tremendously interesting and action-packed to fly...
In case you actually dual-box using your offgrid, you could also use your command ship on grid and fly a glass cannon on the other account, maybe? You know... morons. |

Large Collidable Object
morons.
1835
|
Posted - 2012.08.09 22:14:00 -
[4] - Quote
David Devant wrote:My main has CS V tqvm. And unless you're FCing, CS are bad to fly and i can tell you that from extensive experience. You are essentially following people around and whoring killmails. Scimitars (dude above) are awesome fun to fly.
I have 2 characters with CS V (lacking information warfare skills on both - lol).
Do I fly them? ^No - an off-grid Tenfu offers better bonusses with less rsik and skill involved. You know... morons. |

Large Collidable Object
morons.
1926
|
Posted - 2012.08.20 03:58:00 -
[5] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:
Oh ho ho ho, you are so funny and clever.
Don't try to pretend that people didn't whine about OGBs because they are too bad to train a prober alt.
And even if you aren't whining, you are still too lazy to probe OGBs so you are happy that the game is being simplified for you.
Actually, it can be a tad annyoing to probe out your npc-corp booster alt in a crowded highsec rvb system whilst you're happily killing rvb frigs with a little help from your 'friend'. You know... morons. |

Large Collidable Object
morons.
1932
|
Posted - 2012.08.21 22:43:00 -
[6] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:
You can make up all the stories you want, but nobody uses OGBs in RvB fleets. Seeing as all the fights are pre-arranged between the FCs. But that just shows how much you know... not much.
Also, post with your main or gtfo.
Telling me to post with my main whereas any recent killboard records of yours show RvB kills only whilst you continuously claim you need an OGB to keep soloing all those evil 0.0 blobs hunting you is slightly schizophrenic.
It leaves room for two conclusions: Either, you're alt posting yourself or your stories about evening the odds vs. nullsec blobs are entirely made up.
The fact that you're naive enough to believe nobody uses OGBs in RvB and your obvious display of lacking first hand experience in all your posts however leads me to believe you're not capable to comprehend even such simple logic and the latter conclusion is the correct one. You know... morons. |

Large Collidable Object
morons.
1958
|
Posted - 2012.08.29 23:16:00 -
[7] - Quote
Esk Esme wrote: Simple really eve is so dumbed now the nubs dont know how good they got it
Yes - another reason why OGB should be removed. Quickly training up a tankless T3 OGB and parking it off-grid or in POS shields whilst having a 6-link booster actually is too nub friendly even for my taste.
It's all a matter of perspective... You know... morons. |

Large Collidable Object
morons.
1961
|
Posted - 2012.08.30 22:18:00 -
[8] - Quote
Whar Target wrote:
With my terrible math skills, I calculate 8,960,000 Skill points for a character with "no proper skilling" to sit in a 6-link T3.
Thanks for running the numbers - as Nicaragua said it's 4-5 months, so nect to nothing. As I said it's quick and a newb friendly mechanic, especially compared to a proper CS pilot for on-grid purposes.
Hell - even for my throwaway T1 frigate only alt, I trained more in support skills (~12-13m SP) before even remapping to perc/will and going for gunnnery+spaceship command skills. You know... morons. |

Large Collidable Object
morons.
1965
|
Posted - 2012.09.01 22:08:00 -
[9] - Quote
Whar Target wrote:Well I tend to disagree that 4-5 months is nothing. To a long-term, established player, sure another account is not THAT big of a deal, but running another account for 4-5 months before it's able to serve its purpose does not in any way seem like a noob friendly endeavor. You ever read new player posts? People can't even convince them to rack up a few million SP's before they want to try undocking a battleship.
It's old-player alt friendly to skill one up, but there's still the lost potential of that account that could be used more effectively as a DPS or E-war alt. How much "risk" is involved in using a falcon alt every time a person engages 1-2 players? Meta gaming is always going to give you some advantage vs the true solo player, nerfing OGB will just mark the return of the infamous falcon alt.
It all depends on the definition of a noob. Real beginners may perceive 4-5 months as a big investment for a game they haven't invested much time in yet and will ultimately will be turned off by OGBs since they're not sure if the want to make the investment into an OGB and multiple screens if they don't have that already.
In case they're interested in solo pvp or beginning to do smallscale with a couple of RL friends, they'll end up really annoyed because every single one of them and their dogs have their private OGB alts.
Nonetheless, it's noob friendly for noobs that made the decision to stick around, so mostly the roughly 2 year old noobs and everyone of them feels obliged to get one. Sounds good for CCP, but then again, mandatory OGBs just turn absolutely new subscribers off.
ECM mechanics need to be reworked, but that's another issue. You know... morons. |

Large Collidable Object
morons.
1973
|
Posted - 2012.09.08 23:57:00 -
[10] - Quote
Fon Revedhort wrote:
That's right, but the whole point is in having to make trade-offs. At the moment should you start assemling a fixed-number gang of, say, 3-5 ships, you always have to evaluate pros and cons of any particular ship, that's including the boosting one. Are 3 skirmish links really more usefull than increasing your DPS by 25-50% or RR power by 1/3? That's a tough choice. Now it's all entirely different for blobs, they can easily remove one of their 50 Drakes and take a booster instead.
And that's just wrong.
I'd say that this particular thing is one of the most terrible flaws in current EVE mechanics, along with instantenious risk-free hot-dropping.
The problem with OGBs is that there is no trade-off. Want to run a gang of 3-5 ships? The question is not if you lose 25% of damage, the question is how many members bring their OGB alt. They're never dedicated pilots - just effortless alts.
I agree however that a purely range-based mechanic would overly favour blobs once more, but basing any mechanic on fleet size is only good in theory since most fleet coordination takes place OOG and people would easily circumvent that.
Anyway - with CCPs glacial speed, fixing the issues will probably take years, but they'll have to start somewhere and I think everyone in his right mind can agree upon the fact that OGBs should be removed, so that's a start. You know... morons. |
|
|
|
|