| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Templar Dane
Amarrian Vengeance
24eme Legion Etrangere
49
   |
Posted - 2013.01.09 11:13:00 -
[1] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Dzajic wrote:I don't see anyone noting that one of issues with OPs story is that everyone has agreed that Stabber drew the shortest stick in cruiser rebalance. So its not a "typical fight". All the Minmatar ships drew the short end of the straw. They're pretty much universally bad. :-) -Liang
You've still got the faction cruisers and command ships.
|
Templar Dane
Amarrian Vengeance
24eme Legion Etrangere
49
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 11:39:00 -
[2] - Quote
Solotta Erquilenne wrote:Dzajic wrote:I don't see anyone noting that one of issues with OPs story is that everyone has agreed that Stabber drew the shortest stick in cruiser rebalance. So its not a "typical fight". agreed, the stabber should probably just be getting a full 10% falloff bonus instead of a gimp one, and "LOL HE CAN"T FIT 425's" laughingwhores.jpg
Yeah, lets give it a 5/5/5 slotlayout, really fast, really low mass, 4 turrets, 1100 base grid, 10% damage and falloff per level and heck why not add a 25% role bonus to rate of fire. Oh and a 50m3 dronebay kthx.
|
Templar Dane
Amarrian Vengeance
24eme Legion Etrangere
49
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 09:49:00 -
[3] - Quote
Fon Revedhort wrote:The only valid reply on when exactly tackle became lacking of range refers to TE, so it's actually very reasonable to discuss this particular module. Else other contributing factors should be brought into attention. Like range values of neuts and remote reps, drone control range, minimal warp distance and so on.
What you seem to be missing is that the conversation basically evolves as follows:
- taclking is too short-ranged
- ok, why?
- weapons outrange it
- due to what?
- TEs
- fix TEs?
- nah, TEs are irrelevant!!
They're running out of things to whine about, so their new whine apparently is that TE autocannons aren't owning non-TE autocannons under 24km.....when you have a massive EHP disadvantage. Blasters get good and suddenly they want to push tackle range out to where they know they'll never get scrammed by a slower ship.
|
Templar Dane
Amarrian Vengeance
24eme Legion Etrangere
51
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 12:30:00 -
[4] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Templar Dane wrote:
They're running out of things to whine about, so their new whine apparently is that TE autocannons aren't owning non-TE autocannons under 24km.....when you have a massive EHP disadvantage. Blasters get good and suddenly they want to push tackle range out to where they know they'll never get scrammed by a slower ship.
I don't see how what you're saying makes any sense. I have access to links literally any time I want, and have both a Tengu and Loki stationed in Amamake for just that purpose. I even have an extra computer to run them on so it doesn't interfere with my main PVP account. But instead I'm pushing for the links to not play such a strong role in tackle and active tanking. It's not to my advantage, really, so... maybe you're just being a ******* idiot with that accusation? :) -Liang Ed: I also have an Eos and Damnation, and jump clones one jump out to power them. A Proteus is 4 jumps out, and the Legion is 6. I have max skills for all leadership, T3s, and Command Ships. Access to whatever leadership bonus, completely maxed out, is a trivial issue for me. Hell, with a small amount of effort (moving an alt from Amarr to Amamake) I can run full T3 gang links by myself across my 4 accounts.
|
Templar Dane
Amarrian Vengeance
24eme Legion Etrangere
51
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 12:53:00 -
[5] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Templar Dane wrote:
They're running out of things to whine about, so their new whine apparently is that TE autocannons aren't owning non-TE autocannons under 24km.....when you have a massive EHP disadvantage. Blasters get good and suddenly they want to push tackle range out to where they know they'll never get scrammed by a slower ship.
I don't see how what you're saying makes any sense. I have access to links literally any time I want, and have both a Tengu and Loki stationed in Amamake for just that purpose. I even have an extra computer to run them on so it doesn't interfere with my main PVP account. But instead I'm pushing for the links to not play such a strong role in tackle and active tanking. It's not to my advantage, really, so... maybe you're just being a ******* idiot with that accusation? :) -Liang Ed: I also have an Eos and Damnation, and jump clones one jump out to power them. A Proteus is 4 jumps out, and the Legion is 6. I have max skills for all leadership, T3s, and Command Ships. Access to whatever leadership bonus, completely maxed out, is a trivial issue for me. Hell, with a small amount of effort (moving an alt from Amarr to Amamake) I can run full T3 gang links by myself across my 4 accounts.
Piece of **** ******* forum ate my post because I'm a nubtard. A real pity, it was a good post.
The quick and dirty......
Liang, you are not and have not and will not be the only person with links. I have the same link capabilities as you.
We're in the tracking enhancer shield tank age. You know armor is hurting right now, and getting worse by the minute. Extending point range WITH the proliferation of links would make the situation worse. Boost tech 2 warp disruptor to 40km and nerf the link to 20% and you still have tech 2 warp distruptors with republic fleet linked range. I do not fancy the idea of being kited at 50km by anything and everything. If you're gonna point me at that range you'd best have potential shiny loot.
Oh but armor will get a buff eventually! Oh right sure, I've heard that one before. Look at me and my 1200m/s cruiser! I sure do hope I can cover the XX,XXXm distance between the end of his warp disruptor and the optimal of my scram!
That's hard enough sometimes at a difference of 13,200.
|
Templar Dane
Amarrian Vengeance
24eme Legion Etrangere
51
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 19:00:00 -
[6] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Templar Dane wrote:
The quick and dirty......
Liang, you are not and have not and will not be the only person with links. I have the same link capabilities as you.
We're in the tracking enhancer shield tank age. You know armor is hurting right now, and getting worse by the minute. Extending point range WITH the proliferation of links would make the situation worse. Boost tech 2 warp disruptor to 40km and nerf the link to 20% and you still have tech 2 warp distruptors with republic fleet linked range. I do not fancy the idea of being kited at 50km by anything and everything. If you're gonna point me at that range you'd best have potential shiny loot.
Oh but armor will get a buff eventually! Oh right sure, I've heard that one before. Look at me and my 1200m/s cruiser! I sure do hope I can cover the XX,XXXm distance between the end of his warp disruptor and the optimal of my scram!
That's hard enough sometimes at a difference of 13,200.
Why are you deliberately misunderstanding my posts? My desire is to shift certain bonuses away from links and towards the base items. This means that all the SP I've dumped into Leadership and all the ISK I've dumped into link ships and a POS is rendered much less powerful. This is in no way to my benefit. -Liang
I don't see how giving everybody the ability to kite at 40km would be better than just the loki linked guys doing it at 40km. Even while boosting scram range at the same time. that would create some 20km kiting setups that kite you with a scram.
And then you think they'll eliminate the Interdiction Maneuvers ganglinks? What, so the tier 3 bc gangs won't have to bring gallente recons anymore?
And as usual you are ignoring my point and mentioning your links again. Please stop using that as an excuse.
----->How would extending warp disruptor range NOT be an overall nerf to armor tanking? <------ |
Templar Dane
Amarrian Vengeance
24eme Legion Etrangere
51
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 06:46:00 -
[7] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:Templar Dane wrote:
The quick and dirty......
Liang, you are not and have not and will not be the only person with links. I have the same link capabilities as you.
We're in the tracking enhancer shield tank age. You know armor is hurting right now, and getting worse by the minute. Extending point range WITH the proliferation of links would make the situation worse. Boost tech 2 warp disruptor to 40km and nerf the link to 20% and you still have tech 2 warp distruptors with republic fleet linked range. I do not fancy the idea of being kited at 50km by anything and everything. If you're gonna point me at that range you'd best have potential shiny loot.
Oh but armor will get a buff eventually! Oh right sure, I've heard that one before. Look at me and my 1200m/s cruiser! I sure do hope I can cover the XX,XXXm distance between the end of his warp disruptor and the optimal of my scram!
That's hard enough sometimes at a difference of 13,200.
Why are you deliberately misunderstanding my posts? My desire is to shift certain bonuses away from links and towards the base items. This means that all the SP I've dumped into Leadership and all the ISK I've dumped into link ships and a POS is rendered much less powerful. This is in no way to my benefit. -Liang
And why are you ignoring the meat of my post and nitpicking again? Did I not ask you to stop doing that?
LINKS ARE BAD, WE HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED THAT.
But, you want to give the complete and total advantage to the kiting ships. Why the hell ever fly anything else?
Boohoo blasters hurt and I'm too lazy to fit a tracking disruptor and/or get someone else to tackle for me.
Overload and slingshot? Good luck doing that when you have to cover 30km to land a scram.
And here I am repeating myself yet again.
Please answer the following question...
Wouldn't a buff to warp disruptor range be a nerf to armor tanking?
|
Templar Dane
Amarrian Vengeance
24eme Legion Etrangere
51
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 07:03:00 -
[8] - Quote
Then let me rephrase that.
Wouldn't increasing the gap between long points and scrams be a nerf to brawlers?
Liang Nuren wrote:
Because you don't feel like it that day? Because the play style doesn't appeal to you?
[/quote]
That supposed to mean.........
Liang Nuren wrote:
I'm a kiter and brawlers should be easy prey.
? |
Templar Dane
Amarrian Vengeance
24eme Legion Etrangere
51
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 07:12:00 -
[9] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:
Not really.
So increasing the gap between long points and scrams wouldn't make it harder for the brawlers to catch? With links scrams are 16km overloaded and disruptors are 43.
If they were that range by default, you don't think it would make it harder for 1200m/s ships with scrams to catch 2200m/s ships?
Because everyone uses links all the time already, right?
Liang Nuren wrote:
My most commonly used weapon is the small neutron blaster II.
And mine is probably the Rocket Launcher II, but that's only on this character and we've already agreed that we both have other accounts and other characters that we use pretty often...... |
Templar Dane
Amarrian Vengeance
24eme Legion Etrangere
51
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 07:32:00 -
[10] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:
Comments:
- A lot of people use links all the time, right? :)
- A 16km scram is pretty powerful considering its perma-CC nature.
- You keep saying that kiters should get a tackler - but somehow the brawler shouldn't?
And if both sides lose their tacklers, who is the most disadvantaged?
Liang Nuren wrote:
I've been very open for well over a year that my favorite ships are the Blaster Harpy and Blaster Talos.
-Liang
Ed: I love how you keep QQing about how links are overpowered but we can't fix the situation because it would nerf your play style. On the other hand, I am directly asking CCP to nerf 4 of my characters.
Won't matter too much if you're blapping frigates out of the sky from 40km away anyway. And you're the one qqing about how you need to be further away from the scawy scwams. |
Templar Dane
Amarrian Vengeance
24eme Legion Etrangere
51
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 07:33:00 -
[11] - Quote
I hate you new forums. |
| |
|