| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 .. 14 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
102
   |
Posted - 2012.08.17 03:38:00 -
[361] - Quote
Large Collidable Object wrote:So - regardless of the OP having been sufficiently discredited as a noob-blobbing highsec-bear, this thread holds some potential.
How would you make solo/small gang viable in this game without blobbing or fags bootisng with alts?
Click page 17, read what the ISD said. |
Large Collidable Object
morons.
1907
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 03:47:00 -
[362] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:Large Collidable Object wrote:So - regardless of the OP having been sufficiently discredited as a noob-blobbing highsec-bear, this thread holds some potential.
How would you make solo/small gang viable in this game without blobbing or fags bootisng with alts? Click page 17, read what the ISD said.
I'm quite aware of that, hence I'm hoping for some cosntructive discusion with people having some basic experience, so I'd appreciate you not posting anymore.
Thank you.
You know... morons. |
Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
102
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 04:10:00 -
[363] - Quote
Large Collidable Object wrote:Diesel47 wrote:Large Collidable Object wrote:So - regardless of the OP having been sufficiently discredited as a noob-blobbing highsec-bear, this thread holds some potential.
How would you make solo/small gang viable in this game without blobbing or fags bootisng with alts? Click page 17, read what the ISD said. I'm quite aware of that, hence I'm hoping for some cosntructive discusion with people having some basic experience, so I'd appreciate you not posting anymore. Thank you. Edit: Absolutely not meant as an insult, but you clearly have neither experience nor a clue considering eve, so please refrain from posting unless it's really as bad as your OGB posts (they're quite cute ) ;).
Yeah and you do? OK.
Your posts are ugly, very ugly little posts that my cute posts laugh at. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation
RAZOR Alliance
509
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 04:15:00 -
[364] - Quote
I didn't read the thread, is there anything interesting apart from the OP's delusional hopes that a broken mechanic working in his favor won't eventually be fixed?
EVE's 4th of July Fireworks |
Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
102
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 04:16:00 -
[365] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:I didn't read the thread, is there anything interesting apart from the OP's delusional hopes that a broken mechanic working in his favor won't eventually be fixed?
Nothing here, move along. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
638
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 04:18:00 -
[366] - Quote
CCP has the same problem your post has, nothing useful.
I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Large Collidable Object
morons.
1907
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 04:23:00 -
[367] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:Large Collidable Object wrote:Diesel47 wrote:Large Collidable Object wrote:So - regardless of the OP having been sufficiently discredited as a noob-blobbing highsec-bear, this thread holds some potential.
How would you make solo/small gang viable in this game without blobbing or fags bootisng with alts? Click page 17, read what the ISD said. I'm quite aware of that, hence I'm hoping for some cosntructive discusion with people having some basic experience, so I'd appreciate you not posting anymore. Thank you. Edit: Absolutely not meant as an insult, but you clearly have neither experience nor a clue considering eve, so please refrain from posting unless it's really as bad as your OGB posts (they're quite cute ) ;). Yeah and you do? OK. Your posts are ugly, very ugly little posts that my cute posts laugh at.
You're superficial. Not surprised.
Now **** off back to college and let proper people talk.
You know... morons. |
Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
102
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 04:31:00 -
[368] - Quote
Large Collidable Object wrote:
Now **** off back to college and let proper people talk.
Lead the way.
Alot of big talk for an alt. |
Large Collidable Object
morons.
1907
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 04:45:00 -
[369] - Quote
A lot of bullshit posting for a nub hiding in jita 4-4 and behind an NPC corp.
Where's you boosting alt btw?
You know... morons. |
Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
102
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 04:48:00 -
[370] - Quote
Large Collidable Object wrote:A lot of bullshit posting for a nub hiding in jita 4-4 and behind an NPC corp.
Better than hiding behind an alt.
For all I know your main could fly hulks all day. |
|
|
Large Collidable Object
morons.
1907
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 04:53:00 -
[371] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:Large Collidable Object wrote:A lot of bullshit posting for a nub hiding in jita 4-4 and behind an NPC corp. Better than hiding behind an alt. For all I know your main could fly hulks all day.
Nah - switched to Macks...
You know... morons. |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army
Heretic Nation
1889
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 05:15:00 -
[372] - Quote
Large Collidable Object wrote:How would you make solo/small gang viable in this game without blobbing or fags bootisng with alts?
I'd make a couple of changes:
- Remove all gang link strength bonuses from all ships.
- Nerf the **** out of command links. 50% bonuses are ******* outrageous in a game where people train 2 months for a 2% advantage over their enemy.
- Remove command processors. This means only dedicated command ships can fit more than one link.
- Dramatically lower the fitting on links and allow any ship to fit gang links. This gives people an extra choice about what to fit in a high slot - guns, neuts, link, etc.
- Links are modified to apply to everyone in fleet and on grid. Only the highest bonus per link type (interdiction maneuvers, shield harmonization, etc) applies.
- Increase the DPS, speed, and agility of all fleet commands.
- Add Command Destroyers (5 guns/3 links) which are geared primarily towards frigate gangs.
For bonus points:
- Buff certain modules (tackle and tank modules comes to mind) to compensate for nerfing links so hard.
- Increase fittings on the ASB and decrease it's reload time. Intended to prevent multiple ASB monsters.
- Increase the overheat bonus on regular active reps
-Liang
Ed: The implication for small gang vs large gang is that most links aren't that important to the small gang. And the ones that are, they will make SURE they fit. This is notably kiting based links. But on the whole they're just not disadvantaged here - not that it should make that big of a deal given how hard I'd nerf links.
Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?)
Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com
PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos
Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
|
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
220
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 06:45:00 -
[373] - Quote
Keep it civil please. Thank you in advance.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
Lieutenant
Community Communication Liasions (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department |
|
Adan Natrier
Paladin Order
Fidelas Constans
8
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 12:44:00 -
[374] - Quote
The fix to offgrid boosters, is to stop them working off grid. This by itself fixes all outstanding issues, under present mechanics.
- There is nothing to suggest T3 boosters are notionally dead if they can't be offgrid. Yes, you might actually have to train something to fit an effective tank to it. T3's can fit one link (maybe two), a tank and some useful ongrid facility (e.g. single or twin-linked skirmish loki) and I'm sure like other minmatar ships the loki can be fit to kite, if you really insist; choose your compromise. This one T3 link ongrid is also more powerful than a fleet command ship, so you can heavily emphasise that link's bonus if you as an FC want to, for specific squads depending what you have and what you need, with attendant risks now that you actually have it there. Choices (and piloting) become a little more distinctive than "everything, please", which only increases the diversity possible and practical. This can not be bad, for anyone.
- While indeed, often command ships are used even presently as FC boats, they're "allowed to" be ongrid mainly because it's a tough sell to make someone take their main and sit out a fight. CFC FC's have apologised to their boosters when telling them to get to a damned safe pos. This is absurd, and it's absurd that it's the only sensible choice, when it's available to make.
I shouldn't have to write any more, but noone else really stopped so let's continue with why this kind of non-participating participant removes things from the game, rather than adds to it.
Yes, ships on grid can be killed. How truly awful that must be. In fleet fights indeed your functional high value super tanked targets are going to get shot at. Maybe they get saved by logistics. Maybe they soak up 5/15/50 ships' worth of incoming damage before (if) they die. The availability of or necessity of killing this type of target, and recognising if it's not working is tactics and part of the equation that decides beweeen "killboards green" and "deleting losses from killboard to appear green". And there's an element of piloting skill involved in being on grid and staying alive too. Whether you like them or not, even in large fights there's more than align and anchor, something I'd point out is already more than some CFC claymores can manage.
And if in a large fight a T3/CS is "always" going to die to alpha, maybe all those battlecruiser link bonuses can actually get used instead, rather than ignored completely. Use some flexibility and adapt. In this case, boosters become lost in the crowd, perhaps? Or diversify to using squad boosters with specific boosts. There's plenty of underused tools this change would return to viability, and I truly can't think of any good reason for people to not want to put their cards on the table.
It's just to maintain a present advantage that's neither skill, not skillpoint based. When, on occasion I've put two alts on grid and screwed up massively, because for one reason or other the attention requirement goes over the line I can manage. That's my loss, and my risk. There's no reason whatsoever this shouldn't apply to every ship that participates.
Finally
- I'd apply an offgrid test to mining bonus, too. But given that it's back in vogue to coddle them I'd have to say ultimately, I don't care. I'm sure some people do.
- I don't care if an effective booster is inside a pos shield, so long as the fight is on the pos grid. |
Jerick Ludhowe
Toxic Waste Industries
142
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 13:13:00 -
[375] - Quote
thsi diesel guy is a complete idiot |
Rashmika Clavain
Shadows Of The Federation
Drunk 'n' Disorderly
18
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 13:18:00 -
[376] - Quote
Diesel47 wrote:Alot of people whining about off grid boosters being OP and unfair, even though they have been around for a very long time.  I don't think CCP is ready to pull the plug on off grid boosting, because the fact of the matter is ... There many accounts being plexed and paid for just so they can provide the boosts. CCP is a business afterall and it isn't good for business to be making changes that will reduce their income. I for one don't really feel too strongly how this matter is resolved, but I will unsub my OGB toon if they remove off grid boosting. Thats $15 a month less income for CCP. I'm sure many other OGB alt owners feel the same.
CCP is a business, and as such won't ban "macroers" and "bots", as they're all paid for accounts.
I heard that a lot from the tinfoil brigade, who harped on about how CCP prefered subs over everything else.
|
Halcyon Ingenium
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
168
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 13:37:00 -
[377] - Quote
People actually boost?
They say that in learning the game Go, it is best to lose your first 50 games as soon as possible. This is because Go is complex, and the only way you will start to get an idea of strategy and play is by first sucking and failing as hard as you can. So...In EVE, it is best to get your first 50 deaths by combat as soon as possible. |
Melodee619
The Scope
Gallente Federation
28
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 13:46:00 -
[378] - Quote
Halcyon Ingenium wrote:People actually boost?
Well in fairness, your TEST, it wouldn't help you guys anyway... :)... |
Halcyon Ingenium
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
168
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 13:50:00 -
[379] - Quote
Melodee619 wrote:Halcyon Ingenium wrote:People actually boost? Well in fairness, your TEST, it wouldn't help you guys anyway... :)...
Confiriming we are all noobs in **** fit rifter blobs.
They say that in learning the game Go, it is best to lose your first 50 games as soon as possible. This is because Go is complex, and the only way you will start to get an idea of strategy and play is by first sucking and failing as hard as you can. So...In EVE, it is best to get your first 50 deaths by combat as soon as possible. |
Melodee619
The Scope
Gallente Federation
28
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 13:54:00 -
[380] - Quote
I'm still laughing that Nulli forced you guys to self D 3 SC's.... sorry but boosting off grid is least of your issues :D |
|
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
1273
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 16:16:00 -
[381] - Quote
Halcyon Ingenium wrote:Melodee619 wrote:Halcyon Ingenium wrote:People actually boost? Well in fairness, your TEST, it wouldn't help you guys anyway... :)... Confiriming we are all noobs in **** fit rifter blobs.
I hear to take down 15 -A- supercarriers you lost 47 rifters along other things.
Do you have enough rifters to keep on fighting?
Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd
Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
106
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 16:34:00 -
[382] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:thsi diesel guy is -EDIT- complete -EDIT-
No personal attacks, Please. - ISD Tyrozan
lmao.
Rashmika Clavain wrote:[
CCP is a business, and as such won't ban "macroers" and "bots", as they're all paid for accounts.
I heard that a lot from the tinfoil brigade, who harped on about how CCP prefered subs over everything else.
Yeah because OGBs generate free isk and hurt the economy of the game. Not to mention that in the EULA said using OGBs are forbidden.
What next? Comparing multiboxing to exploits? |
Lin-Young Borovskova
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
659
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 16:55:00 -
[383] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Large Collidable Object wrote:How would you make solo/small gang viable in this game without blobbing or people boosting with alts? I'd make a couple of changes: - Remove all gang link strength bonuses from all ships. - Nerf the **** out of command links. 50% bonuses are ******* outrageous in a game where people train 2 months for a 2% advantage over their enemy. - Remove command processors. This means only dedicated command ships can fit more than one link. - Dramatically lower the fitting on links and allow any ship to fit gang links. This gives people an extra choice about what to fit in a high slot - guns, neuts, link, etc. - Links are modified to apply to everyone in fleet and on grid. Only the highest bonus per link type (interdiction maneuvers, shield harmonization, etc) applies. - Increase the DPS, speed, and agility of all fleet commands. - Add Command Destroyers (5 guns/3 links) which are geared primarily towards frigate gangs. For bonus points: - Buff certain modules (tackle and tank modules comes to mind) to compensate for nerfing links so hard. - Increase fittings on the ASB and decrease it's reload time. Intended to prevent multiple ASB monsters. - Increase the overheat bonus on regular active reps -Liang Ed: The implication for small gang vs large gang is that most links aren't that important to the small gang. And the ones that are, they will make SURE they fit. This is notably kiting based links. But on the whole they're just not disadvantaged here - not that it should make that big of a deal given how hard I'd nerf links.
This is why I like Liang, he has some awesome ideas but you have to push it to his limits so he gets out of his chest what he really thinks.
Now we can discuss, these are some good and less good ideas but overall something that will not make the removal of OGB small gang pvp awful (despite some people thoughts I'm a huge fan of small gang pvp witch is in my eyes the most technical/interesting type of eve pvp)
If I can agree on most of your proposals I wouldn't like to see those links be fitted in whatever ship. We need new small hulls able to do this why not a New destroyer?
Providing buffs to gangs/fleets whatever should require dedication, at least some dedication.
Over all I like your ideas.
brb |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army
Heretic Nation
1896
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 16:58:00 -
[384] - Quote
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
If I can agree on most of your proposals I wouldn't like to see those links be fitted in whatever ship. We need new small hulls able to do this why not a New destroyer?
Providing buffs to gangs/fleets whatever should require dedication, at least some dedication.
I can see your argument here. That's primarily intended to give people more options about what to fit in a utility high and prevent small gang lock-in for certain ship types (like BCs). It's possible that the introduction of more ship hulls would do the trick there too.
Quote:Over all I like your ideas.
Thanks :)
-Liang
Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?)
Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com
PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos
Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Rroff
The Xenodus Initiative.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
32
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 17:14:00 -
[385] - Quote
Lin-Young Borovskova wrote:
If I can agree on most of your proposals I wouldn't like to see those links be fitted in whatever ship. We need new small hulls able to do this why not a New destroyer?
Providing buffs to gangs/fleets whatever should require dedication, at least some dedication.
Over all I like your ideas.
I disagree with putting them on ships that small - way to easy to alpha'd out the fight - but some new tier3 command ships that can only boost on-grid wouldn't go amiss - i.e. the Gallente infowar booster should be based on the vexor/ishtar hull, get many of the bonuses the ishtar does (but lose the drone range bonus) get slightly higher base resists and say 5800 base shields and armor plus keep the slot layout of the ishtar so it can be run in either armor or shield fleets - also increased capacitor to match the eos. Base Signature should be around 200-240 or so but have a signature reduction bonus per level in command ships that brings it down to about 115 with command ships V. Can use 3 links simultaneously maybe 5% racial, 3% non-racial bonuses for on-grid. With a similiar sort of theme for the others - the min and gal ones capable of shield and armor tanking ok and getting sig reduction bonus per level and the cal and amarr ones getting a racial tank bonus along the lines they have now with a HP and resist bonus per level.
EDIT: Tho I can see the point about ship type lock-in which is another reason why removing off-grid boosting isn't a great idea at the moment... it could freshen up destroyers if they could fit 1 link I guess. |
Miss Management
5
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 18:23:00 -
[386] - Quote
It's Never gonna happen .
They would have to redesign the mining boost which simply is too much hassle for them.
No fool will change the current system to one which willl force people to deploy Rorquals
In Belts, unable to warp due to the Industrial Core before they give out any boosts.
My personal view.
Remove all boosts from off grid apart from the Rorqual. |
Cyrek Ohaya
Perkone
Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 20:22:00 -
[387] - Quote
-No one uses Tier 1 / 2 BCs for fleet links based on the next two points.
-Tech 3s offers the convenience of sporting all of their racial links, this "convenience" i believe needs toning down and give room to choice.
-A small minority flies fleet command ships with boosts, everybody else has the innate perception that the CMs 3% link boosts can be easily ruled out simply because you can have a superior Tech 3 vessel with superior bonused links and less SP requirement, as a valuable boosting vessel not fit for combat its best left in a safe spot.
-Entitlement over "I spent over a year training this alt, of course I deserve to be superior".
-Mining links shouldn't be affected as they are a non-combat domestic industry activity.
|
Diesel47
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
106
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 20:33:00 -
[388] - Quote
Cyrek Ohaya wrote:
-Entitlement over "I spent over a year training this alt, of course I deserve to be superior".
Thats how the entire game works.
You spend a long time training and you are rewarded.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
1273
|
Posted - 2012.08.17 23:00:00 -
[389] - Quote
Cyrek Ohaya wrote:-Mining links shouldn't be affected as they are a non-combat domestic industry activity.
Oh ho.
Nope.
Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd
Click for old school EVE Portraits: http://jadeconstantine.web44.net/Maison.htm |
Vizvig
Savage Blizzard
Bora Alis
8
|
Posted - 2012.08.18 04:50:00 -
[390] - Quote
I think small gangs need more powerful weapon against blobtards.
make new skill "advanced varfare link specialist" x12 difficulty
+200% to efficiency of gang links.
And also new t3 links can be installed on t3's only, with efficiency +150% (tank, disruptors, speed at all level 5), and new t3 damage links (+130% if it officer links )
Obvyously these links need +15% bonus to sensor strength, because stupid blobtards can to easy scan so expensive OGB, and it's wrong.
May be we need also special officer pod stopping disruptor, this prevents automatically tackle pod after explosion with chance 33 (officer)
And gang link increase it to 75%
Make the blob suffer, hahahaha. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 .. 14 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |