Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 .. 86 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 14 post(s) |
Evil Celeste
8
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 12:28:00 -
[1021] - Quote
Krimariol wrote:Tippia wrote:Ganthrithor wrote:2 Thanatoi: 2b isk
1 Nyx: 20b isk The realisation that cost is not a balancing factor: priceless. But cost should be at least partly a balancing factor.
The last balancing factor. Tbh, atm you are getting for that 20b much more, than you should be.
|
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
138
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 12:28:00 -
[1022] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Ganthrithor wrote:2 Thanatoi: 2b isk
1 Nyx: 20b isk The realisation that cost is not a balancing factor: priceless.
Thanks for misconstruing my argument.
What I'm saying is, there's no reason to ever promote the purchasing of supercarriers if what you're after is the ability to do DPS with fighters. Why would an alliance spend 20b on a Nyx when it could buy 8-10 Thanatoi instead and come out with 4-5x the offensive capability?
People are throwing down huge sums of money for supercaps because of their fighter-bomber capabilities, as well as their ewar immunity and large tanks, not because they're excellent at killing subcaps (thats what titans are for ATM, lolololol). The EHP nerf will take away a good chunk of their tank, and FB are already useless against subcaps, so I'm not sure why people are complaining so loudly about SCs needing reduced fighter capability. |
Kari Kari
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 12:30:00 -
[1023] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:In this thread, I've read several very good reasons why the fighter change is a bad idea. You are right. Fighters should stay the way they are. The change would be unfair for carriers.
The poor performance of Minmatar capital ships is being looked at and was already being looked at before the blog was posted.
Pointing out flaws and issues with the balancing plan is very much appreciated. I will look into the issues and make changes where they are needed.
Once this hits SISI, I will start a thread in the test server feedback forums. Your concerns will be listened to and acted upon if necessary.
Why are you destroying the super capital community... are you going to allow for skillpoints that have no meaning in those ships to be placed else where? are you going to allow those ships to be put in stations and be reprocessed? I mean you totally destroyed the use of them... not only that but CCP needs to allow skillpoints to be moved and the ships to be reprocessed if they cannot be used with reg drones anymore. That's why people trained for those ships. pretty sad if you do not allow this. |
Kari Kari
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 12:31:00 -
[1024] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:Tippia wrote:Ganthrithor wrote:2 Thanatoi: 2b isk
1 Nyx: 20b isk The realisation that cost is not a balancing factor: priceless. Thanks for misconstruing my argument. What I'm saying is, there's no reason to ever promote the purchasing of supercarriers if what you're after is the ability to do DPS with fighters. Why would an alliance spend 20b on a Nyx when it could buy 8-10 Thanatoi instead and come out with 4-5x the offensive capability? People are throwing down huge sums of money for supercaps because of their fighter-bomber capabilities, as well as their ewar immunity and large tanks, not because they're excellent at killing subcaps (thats what titans are for ATM, lolololol). The EHP nerf will take away a good chunk of their tank, and FB are already useless against subcaps, so I'm not sure why people are complaining so loudly about SCs needing reduced fighter capability.
i cannot believe I am saying this but this Goon has valid points on this matter. |
Dirk Tungsten
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
38
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 12:32:00 -
[1025] - Quote
Tokino Kaalakiota wrote:1. I have briefly owned/flew a nyx on the character Lord's Servant. I owned and flew extensively 2 wyverns on separate occasion on the character Servant's Lord. 2. While Welpfleet -IS- an existing tactic, it is not the tactic I am referring to...I believe I specifically stated that it was in fact a tactic. I'm not sure where I said it wasn't a tactic..... 3. I count 36 BS on the wyvern km, not "60-70"...but simple math is too difficult for you I suppose. There are a total of 41 battleships on the ENTIRE battle report. 18 Capitals/Supers appear on the WIdawt side in that fight. I am fairly certain there were more actually there, but seeing as they killed very little, and logoffski'd not many showed up on the BR. 18, however stands as the only number able to be proved as there, so I stand corrected. Irregardless, if 36 BS + mixed support can engage 6 supers with 12 capitals as backup and win without a significant loss (hictors/support don't really count....but 15 losses totalling about 700m for almost 30b isk killed) how can goons not lrn2eve and win with similar odds? The tactics I refer to are dedicated neuting and smartbombing BS. RnK did a similar thing later with 3 triage carriers(2 for most of the fight) utilizing an understanding of game mechanics to force 4 SC + mixed support to logoff/die. Oh yeah..they also had around 11BS + a handful of support in this fight. BR can be found here http://failheap-challenge.com/showthread.php?229-Low-Sec-Empire/page4 9 posts down, or the first post by Lord Maldoror on that page with all the pictures. That is only a simple 2:1 numbers advantage. On certain, *alternative* forums, a number I see getting tossed around is 500 v 100. If goons can bring a 5:1 advantage to the table, outside of the broken logoffski mechanic, why aren't you utterly dominating eve? 4. The whelpfleet is designed around cheap, high dps, easy to train for ships. You would be flying Tempests if you wanted any sort of actual neuting power/more dps(oh hey PL has done this), however, those cost quite a bit more and are less noobie-friendly. Hurricanes do all that you say, but the main point is their price/ease of training. Everything I say is backed up by facts. As to goonswarm's ability to field supers, I have not seen nor heard of goonswarm fielding more than a dozen or at any one time. Even assuming you CAN field "dozens of supers at the drop of a hat" those supers are most likely inexperienced and lack confidence, unlike individuals who have used them on a regular basis. Alas, I am not a current super owner, but I'm fairly certain that my understanding of game mechanics in relation to supers is quite a bit above your own. -Tokino/Lords PS-That BBCcode thing is driving me nuts too..as always the victor is :CCP: lol ;)
Goonswarm field 40+ supers/titans under a cyno jammer an still lose supers. Goons are fail and dont have ballz to use supers/titans thats why they have influenced the change in patch so they can lagg out systems again an have no contest in doing so. Pro tactics I think not. Narrow minded people including ccp evidently say ohh who ever has the most supers/titans often claims the field. And how may I ask is this patch going to change that. It will be alot worse after the patch,the only thing this patch will change in that context is that supers/titans will only be counter dropped onto capital targets from the winter patch on, so who ever has the most supers/titans will still win in that scenario, they will rarely if ever be fielded equally especially after this patch. CCP please wake up, stop listening to goons fail before you make eve a tradgedy. Tell you what make goons there own server where they can lagg out systems on there own with no opposition, they will be having fun, an allow all the deserving people of eve to have a functioning enviroment. |
Zomg Panties
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 12:32:00 -
[1026] - Quote
Good job CCP on making a 15 billion dollar ship worth 500 mill, because a 10 man gang can now shut down a mothership in less than 2 minutes, as easy as it is to kill fighter bombers and fighters, mom's will never be able to defend themselves again, they arent even worth bringing to a supercap fight because all people have to do is tell their subcaps to start shooting enemy fighters, 10-15 minutes later the alliance with the biggest subcap fleet wins.
what this really does...
1) makes the carrier even more worthless than it already is as subcap blobs can alpha volley a carrier with 1 salvo it takes only 40 battleships to do this lol we cant even rat anymore trolololol
2) moms can no longer defend themselves/get away - once tackled 15bill down the hole - a 15 billion dollar ship shouldnt be able to be killed by 10 stealthbombers
3) moms have become glorified dreadnaughts (you remember when the only time we use to use them was when we sieged a pos?) oh wait moms cant do that anymore, we can attack stations yay!
4) shield supers are even more worthless than they already are particularly the hell
5) 5-6 months from now the new blobs will be 400 man titan fleets + outrageous numbers of subcaps
6) anyone who actually owns or just finished training for a supercap wasted 3 years of their eve life on something that is now more worthless than a dreadnaught
7) incomming faction battleship blobs (i predict mechariel and nightmare blobs in the hundreds) 40 nightmares can kill a carrier in less than 1 minute add 300 more and watch a nyx pop in under 15 seconds
8) greater lag than drones cause because of more missile and laser boats
9) cheering from 5 mill sp characters because they dont own and never will own a capital ship and don't understand how easy it already is to kill a mom i mean really lol, 20 man fleets can kill a nyx in 4 minutes i've seen it done in lowsec on more than 20 occasions...
---
you say it's too hard to kill a mom, I say its too easy especially on blob warefare
a ship that costs that much should never be killed by less than 30-40 ships it isnt fair to the time invested let alone the money invested by individuals and ALLIANCES!!!
making it this way is both unfair to the pilot who fronts the cost of the ship and the alliance that spends a whole month making it
you wanna make these nerfs fine then go ahead, be prepare to lose money a lot more people will quit eve because you are fixing **** that aint broke
you wanna make these changes than cut the cost in minerals to build the ships if my 15 billion dollar ship can be killed by a 10 man fleet than it should only be worth a 1bill imo, cause all it is now is a ship that can use only 25 fighters or bombers and has a high number of hitpoints...
---
i also suggest this to you herp derp derpity derp lets fix drone lag derp herp lets nerf sc
oh wait!!! how bout you fix the physic and graphics engine so that the server can support more than 400 people in a system?
hell World of Warcraft can have 1000 people in one location and their servers laugh at the pay load, I bet you it has nothing to do with the amount of money they paid on the hardware either *winky face*
fix your outdated stuff and maybe you would never of had these problems in the first place?
oh wait giving in to what 20 thousand noobs in highsec want is easier duhhhh i forgot haha silly me we arent trying to fix the actual cause of the problem we are making a short term fix that will make it worse later, i forgot how ccp fixes things silly me ill just shut up now |
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
138
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 12:33:00 -
[1027] - Quote
Misanth wrote:Exactly this. The only reason CCP is removing the drone bays is same reasons titans/dreads are losing theirs: CCP hates drones and been trying to remove the drones from capitals since 2007. Each time players have been "quite upset" (to say the least). This time tho, CCP can disguise their drone-removal under the flag of 'capital revamp'.
The drone removals has nothing to do with actual gameplay, CCP just want less drones around. Probably for performance issues, but instead of being honest about it, they repeatedly keep trying to keep their reasons hidden and just blatantly try remove drones at every chance possible.
I don't know that its due to a conspiracy theory-- if they wanted to reduce drone counts for performance reasons, the easiest thing to do would be to leave carriers / SCs with 5 drones each and give them a corresponding bonus to drone damage and hitpoints to make them functionally equal to ten or twenty drones with a fraction of the performance cost. |
Smoking Blunts
ZC Industries Dark Stripes
215
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 12:33:00 -
[1028] - Quote
Karim alRashid wrote:Aldarean wrote: As far as bomber/fighter setup go, they should be intened purposes. Bomber = carriers/dreads/SC and TItan Fighters = Bs's/Carriers/Dreads Heavy/Sentry = Battleships/BC Meduim = BC/Cruiser Light = Frigates/Destroyers
QFT
fixed, fighters are an anti bs drone. other wise a carrier has no defence against a bs. i guess it could rep the bs while the bs shoots it.
fighters are fine the way they are CCP-áare full of words and no action. We will watch what they are doing, for now
|
Evil Celeste
8
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 12:34:00 -
[1029] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:Tippia wrote:Ganthrithor wrote:2 Thanatoi: 2b isk
1 Nyx: 20b isk The realisation that cost is not a balancing factor: priceless. Thanks for misconstruing my argument. What I'm saying is, there's no reason to ever promote the purchasing of supercarriers if what you're after is the ability to do DPS with fighters. Why would an alliance spend 20b on a Nyx when it could buy 8-10 Thanatoi instead and come out with 4-5x the offensive capability? People are throwing down huge sums of money for supercaps because of their fighter-bomber capabilities, as well as their ewar immunity and large tanks, not because they're excellent at killing subcaps (thats what titans are for ATM, lolololol). The EHP nerf will take away a good chunk of their tank, and FB are already useless against subcaps, so I'm not sure why people are complaining so loudly about SCs needing reduced fighter capability.
If people dont care about their anti subcap capability, why are they whining so much about scs losing it? |
Dirk Tungsten
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
38
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 12:35:00 -
[1030] - Quote
Dirk Tungsten wrote:Dirk Tungsten wrote:Ok heres the bread and the butter of things.
Thers are by all means alot of pros that will mean fleet fights could be more Ballz deep coming from the patch, but alot of crutial badly influenced cons. The loggoff timer relooping, yes a good idea, but why introduce 20% decrease in shield/armor/structure aswell. This is giving supers/titans relatively no chance. with the aggro relooping, should keep the stats tank wise for supers/titans, but maybe balance out what currently is there. For instance Aeon should have less HP as has an isaine tank, wyvern and Nyx should tank wise be relatively unchanged. The Poor Hel should get a buff. Make it competitive.
DDs on titans should be able to hit BSs if not give them a slight tracking bonus so they are at least able to hit BSs well and have some sort of a tank lol
It seems ccp are carebearing up eve for newer players or alot of the subcap players. What they are failing to realise is that this patch will be a tradgedy for a few of those crutial points. Alot of other vets are thinking of hanging up there boots when this patch is released.
It seems heirachy has been too influenced by certain GMs CSMs that revolve around fountian region,we all know who they are. What this patch allows is certain entities that live in fountian (cough cough) to use mass blob fleets of 2000+ again and lagg out systems. There will be no counter to this after the patch. What this patch is going to allow is lagg tactics and mass 2000+ man fleets to rule eve over better organised,structured & skilled alliances. Its basically allowing a bunch of noobs with no structure in there fleet to be successful. Carebearing it down. If you want to kill a titan/super then an aggressing fleet should at least have a well thought through structure an plan to there fleet, they do not deserve and should not expect to kill any supers/titans unless that is implemented.
When alot of the narrow minded people out there eventually realise what this patch will do, the pros from this patch will be massively overlooked, as this will not balance things, its only going to be putting the weight on the other end of the scales. Mark my words im right almost all the time =)
How is the looping aggro timer going to affect people who Disconnect from no fualt of there own, are they also suppose to lose there supers from relooping aggro timers. I mean its a good idea if there is measures in place to make sure people who disconnect are not unjustly affected.
|
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
315
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 12:35:00 -
[1031] - Quote
Kari Kari wrote:Why are you destroying the super capital community...
There's no such thing as "the supercapital community" just so you know. ~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
Crucis Cassiopeiae
EvE-COM
890
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 12:36:00 -
[1032] - Quote
Tippia wrote:CCP Tallest wrote:In this thread, I've read several very good reasons why the fighter change is a bad idea. You are right. Fighters should stay the way they are. The change would be unfair for carriers. Tbh, the problem is more that there are some pretty grave imbalances between the different fighters GÇö most notably that the close-orbiting ones do not have the tracking to support their own orbits (which sounds familiar somehowGǪ reminds me of a different weapon system that begins with a GÇ£bGÇ¥). If that part was adjusted, you could probably go ahead with the proposed change and not do all that much damage to standard carriers. Yes, average DPS would be down by ~30% against battleships, but that still leaves them very capable, and if need be you could always balance that out with a sig res skill bonus.
This
|
Dr 0wnage
The Dark Tribe Against ALL Authorities
9
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 12:38:00 -
[1033] - Quote
Just Another Toon wrote:CCP Tallest wrote:In this thread, I've read several very good reasons why the fighter change is a bad idea. You are right. Fighters should stay the way they are. The change would be unfair for carriers.
The poor performance of Minmatar capital ships is being looked at and was already being looked at before the blog was posted.
Pointing out flaws and issues with the balancing plan is very much appreciated. I will look into the issues and make changes where they are needed.
Once this hits SISI, I will start a thread in the test server feedback forums. Your concerns will be listened to and acted upon if necessary. nice back track... i say it again..carriers are not supposed to be offensive ships!! you bowing to the blobby carrier pilots YET AGAIN!!!! You know what why dont you just scrap the whole fecking idea!
Problem is we need the carrier to fill 2 specific roles...
1. as a logistical platform, specifically triage, to rep the fleet and be the hero. 2. to act as anti-sub support. a group of battle carriers w/ drone links and tackle can mess up a bs fleet, especially w/ triage support.
Problem is the carrier in its current form can't really do both, nor should it, as it would be op for its price tag. It may soon be time (once the current balance is tuned a bit) to introduce T2 "battle" carriers. Consider how a carrier w/ t2 resists that does maybe 200% more damage with fighters while in "siege" would fit into our capital battlefield. |
Aldarean
Eclipse Innovations Fabricated Confabulations
3
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 12:39:00 -
[1034] - Quote
Smoking Blunts wrote:Karim alRashid wrote:Aldarean wrote: As far as bomber/fighter setup go, they should be intened purposes. Bomber = carriers/dreads/SC and TItan Fighters = Bs's/Carriers/Dreads Heavy/Sentry = Battleships/BC Meduim = BC/Cruiser Light = Frigates/Destroyers
QFT fixed, fighters are an anti bs drone. other wise a carrier has no defence against a bs. i guess it could rep the bs while the bs shoots it. fighters are fine the way they are
This wasnt to say that Fighter would be useless against BS. The same as Meduim are not useless against Frigates/Destoyers, and heavies are not useless against cruisers.
But the main source of DPS on a ship should be restricted to a class of drone. |
Lorna Sicling
Helix Pulse Rolling Thunder.
2
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 12:40:00 -
[1035] - Quote
Good news generally. I agree with the "no remote sensor boosting" comments, but generally if you can afford a ship costing tens of billions, you should have enough friends around to help you defend it against those who you attack or who choose to attack you.
The US Navy would not send a carriers out on their own, but send a significant support fleet - these "adjustments" encourage this.
I do, however, think that maybe the fighter scan resolution nerf was a bit too much but time will, of course, tell.
Thank you CCP - keep the Devblogs flowing! |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
315
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 12:40:00 -
[1036] - Quote
Dirk Tungsten wrote:How is the looping aggro timer going to affect people who Disconnect from no fualt of there own, are they also suppose to lose there supers from relooping aggro timers. I mean its a good idea if there is measures in place to make sure people who disconnect are not unjustly affected.
Competent FCs already have to account for crashing fleet members and take precautions, so it'll affect them in much the same way as it does now. ~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
Evil Celeste
8
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 12:41:00 -
[1037] - Quote
Smoking Blunts wrote:fixed, fighters are an anti bs drone. other wise a carrier has no defence against a bs. i guess it could rep the bs while the bs shoots it. fighters are fine the way they are
Weird, you are saying here, that fighters are anti bs weapon here, and yet you are against their signature resolution reduction. Do you realize, that fighters now hit cruisers and bcs well?
Only way to avoid their dps in cruiser is go faster than them. Hm, or better, sit still. Try sitting still in 20-25k ehp cruiser in the middle of the fight. |
Robert Lefcourt
Audentia et Artis E.B.O.L.A.
2
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 12:42:00 -
[1038] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:Tippia wrote:Ganthrithor wrote:2 Thanatoi: 2b isk
1 Nyx: 20b isk The realisation that cost is not a balancing factor: priceless. Thanks for misconstruing my argument. What I'm saying is, there's no reason to ever promote the purchasing of supercarriers if what you're after is the ability to do DPS with fighters. Why would an alliance spend 20b on a Nyx when it could buy 8-10 Thanatoi instead and come out with 4-5x the offensive capability?
Because for every Thana, you'll need a Pilot to sit in it.
hth
|
Dirk Tungsten
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
38
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 12:42:00 -
[1039] - Quote
ccp & there close borthers goons will officially be labeled for ruining eve, it was abit of a mess before, but after this patch its going to be up s.h.i.t. creek
Thing is with the fighters, they take a long time to travel to a target, so that should be more than enough of a natural penalty, they dont need to be tampered with. Hell the whole dynamic of supercapitals will have to be changed again after this patch this winter unless ccp/goons want this to be the beginning of the end for eve. Wich none of us want, but what is happening in this up an coming patch. Pure stupidness. |
Pesadel0
the muppets RED.OverLord
26
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 12:43:00 -
[1040] - Quote
Evil Celeste wrote:Smoking Blunts wrote:fixed, fighters are an anti bs drone. other wise a carrier has no defence against a bs. i guess it could rep the bs while the bs shoots it. fighters are fine the way they are Weird, you are saying here, that fighters are anti bs weapon here, and yet you are against their signature resolution reduction. Do you realize, that fighters now hit cruisers and bcs well? Only way to avoid their dps in cruiser is go faster than them. Hm, or better, sit still. Try sitting still in 20-25k ehp cruiser in the middle of the fight.
or , warp out? |
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5425
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 12:44:00 -
[1041] - Quote
Krimariol wrote:But cost should be at least partly a balancing factor. No. Cost should at most be the result of the balancing factors GÇö it should never be a factor itself. At best, it's an effect, not a cause. In many cases (especially in a dynamic economy), it's not even that.
Pesadel0 wrote:I dont think you get it. I get that cost is not a balancing factor. That's all there is to get.
Ganthrithor wrote:Thanks for misconstruing my argument. You're welcome. All I'm doing is pointing out that cost is not a factor in determining the power of a ship. Whether another ship gets more power for less money is entirely irrelevant GÇö what matters is whether the ships in question gets the respective ranges of abilities they are meant to have.
Quote:Why would an alliance spend 20b on a Nyx when it could buy 8-10 Thanatoi instead and come out with 4-5x the offensive capability? Because people is not an infinite commodity and because marginal benefits in this game tend to come at huge surcharges. Want to save one person or reassign one slot in the fleet for something else to increase your overall capability? WellGǪ that's going to cost you.
Quote:I'm not sure why people are complaining so loudly about SCs needing reduced fighter capability. Because it makes them too good against subcaps. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
628
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 12:44:00 -
[1042] - Quote
Dirk Tungsten wrote:
How is the looping aggro timer going to affect people who Disconnect from no fualt of there own, are they also suppose to lose there supers from relooping aggro timers. I mean its a good idea if there is measures in place to make sure people who disconnect are not unjustly affected.
Anybody who has thought about game balance for more than 5 minutes should realize a disconnect can be simulated by unplugging a network cable or just shutting the power off on their router/modem/PC.
There is no difference between a logoff and a disconnect. If you're reading my sig you cannot claim ignorance, only stupidity or apathy, if you don't go VOTE now for CSM7. |
Dirk Tungsten
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
38
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 12:47:00 -
[1043] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:Dirk Tungsten wrote:
How is the looping aggro timer going to affect people who Disconnect from no fualt of there own, are they also suppose to lose there supers from relooping aggro timers. I mean its a good idea if there is measures in place to make sure people who disconnect are not unjustly affected.
Anybody who has thought about game balance for more than 5 minutes should realize a disconnect can be simulated by unplugging a network cable or just shutting the power off on their router/modem/PC. There is no difference between a logoff and a disconnect.
Lol thats the thing you can be right in a context, but what about the large majority of people who disconnect due to game lagg or other known issues, according to you they are to suffer. Not words of wisedom at all.
|
Ganthrithor
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
138
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 12:47:00 -
[1044] - Quote
Evil Celeste wrote:Ganthrithor wrote:Tippia wrote:Ganthrithor wrote:2 Thanatoi: 2b isk
1 Nyx: 20b isk The realisation that cost is not a balancing factor: priceless. Thanks for misconstruing my argument. What I'm saying is, there's no reason to ever promote the purchasing of supercarriers if what you're after is the ability to do DPS with fighters. Why would an alliance spend 20b on a Nyx when it could buy 8-10 Thanatoi instead and come out with 4-5x the offensive capability? People are throwing down huge sums of money for supercaps because of their fighter-bomber capabilities, as well as their ewar immunity and large tanks, not because they're excellent at killing subcaps (thats what titans are for ATM, lolololol). The EHP nerf will take away a good chunk of their tank, and FB are already useless against subcaps, so I'm not sure why people are complaining so loudly about SCs needing reduced fighter capability. If people dont care about their anti subcap capability, why are they whining so much about scs losing it?
I don't think anyone is whining about taking away SCs ability to field infinite waves of drones. I think most people agree that it's dumb and pretty imbalanced. What they're whining about is *totally* removing their ability to fend off subcaps. There's no way that you can honestly argue that a supercarrier being able to field a couple of flights of normal drones (just like a Dominix can) is overpowered.
By that logic, it is unfair and unbalanced to allow battleships to have drones. After all, battleship-sized turrets are designed to hit targets that are BC-sized and larger-- obviously allowing them to carry Warrior IIs makes them overpowered because it lets them kill frigates, which is not their "job" in a fleet fight.
...Except that fielding a few light drones *doesn't* make battleships overpowered frigate-death spewers. It gives them a *minimal* capacity to defend themselves against smaller ships that are not their primary targets. It's not unfair in the slightest. Without the ability to carry drones, BS gangs would easily find themselves perma-tackled (if not outright killed) by frigates. I think it stands to reason that Supercarriers should also be allowed some minimal ability to fend off smaller ships, even if that isn't their primary purpose. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
5425
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 12:47:00 -
[1045] - Quote
Dirk Tungsten wrote:How is the looping aggro timer going to affect people who Disconnect from no fualt of there own, are they also suppose to lose there supers from relooping aggro timers They're going to reconnect and keep fighting with the aggro timers they already had and either win the fight (at which point the timer no longer matters), be able to deaggress and escape (timer no longer matters), or die (timer only matters if they try to logoffski). GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Smoking Blunts
ZC Industries Dark Stripes
215
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 12:48:00 -
[1046] - Quote
Aldarean wrote:Smoking Blunts wrote:Karim alRashid wrote:Aldarean wrote: As far as bomber/fighter setup go, they should be intened purposes. Bomber = carriers/dreads/SC and TItan Fighters = Bs's/Carriers/Dreads Heavy/Sentry = Battleships/BC Meduim = BC/Cruiser Light = Frigates/Destroyers
QFT fixed, fighters are an anti bs drone. other wise a carrier has no defence against a bs. i guess it could rep the bs while the bs shoots it. fighters are fine the way they are This wasnt to say that Fighter would be useless against BS. The same as Meduim are not useless against Frigates/Destoyers, and heavies are not useless against cruisers. But the main source of DPS on a ship should be restricted to a class of drone.
your right, fighters being cruiser sized and shoudl have max dps applied on bs's up. there dps on caps is laughible at best. for caps there are fighter bombers. which is actually balanced CCP-áare full of words and no action. We will watch what they are doing, for now
|
Aldarean
Eclipse Innovations Fabricated Confabulations
3
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 12:48:00 -
[1047] - Quote
Lorna Sicling wrote:
The US Navy would not send a carriers out on their own, but send a significant support fleet - these "adjustments" encourage this.
Thank you CCP - keep the Devblogs flowing!
Yes
Thought exactly,
A Carrier strike group is made up of Carriers, Missile Cruiser, Missile Destroyers and Logistic and fuel ships. To name a few.
Without that support the Carrier would die, eventually, to smaller, less values ships with greater numbers. |
Via Shivon
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
53
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 12:49:00 -
[1048] - Quote
omg SC isnt a rattingship anymore oooh QQ im glad those changes are coming...even the carriers dont need the drone nerf, and dreads need more love
|
Amanda Redman
Intenso Company
0
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 12:50:00 -
[1049] - Quote
Just design a super dreadnought. Something to hunt SC and titans with. |
Dirk Tungsten
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
38
|
Posted - 2011.10.11 12:50:00 -
[1050] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:Evil Celeste wrote:Ganthrithor wrote:Tippia wrote:Ganthrithor wrote:2 Thanatoi: 2b isk
1 Nyx: 20b isk The realisation that cost is not a balancing factor: priceless. Thanks for misconstruing my argument. What I'm saying is, there's no reason to ever promote the purchasing of supercarriers if what you're after is the ability to do DPS with fighters. Why would an alliance spend 20b on a Nyx when it could buy 8-10 Thanatoi instead and come out with 4-5x the offensive capability? People are throwing down huge sums of money for supercaps because of their fighter-bomber capabilities, as well as their ewar immunity and large tanks, not because they're excellent at killing subcaps (thats what titans are for ATM, lolololol). The EHP nerf will take away a good chunk of their tank, and FB are already useless against subcaps, so I'm not sure why people are complaining so loudly about SCs needing reduced fighter capability. If people dont care about their anti subcap capability, why are they whining so much about scs losing it? I don't think anyone is whining about taking away SCs ability to field infinite waves of drones. I think most people agree that it's dumb and pretty imbalanced. What they're whining about is *totally* removing their ability to fend off subcaps. There's no way that you can honestly argue that a supercarrier being able to field a couple of flights of normal drones (just like a Dominix can) is overpowered. By that logic, it is unfair and unbalanced to allow battleships to have drones. After all, battleship-sized turrets are designed to hit targets that are BC-sized and larger-- obviously allowing them to carry Warrior IIs makes them overpowered because it lets them kill frigates, which is not their "job" in a fleet fight. ...Except that fielding a few light drones *doesn't* make battleships overpowered frigate-death spewers. It gives them a *minimal* capacity to defend themselves against smaller ships that are not their primary targets. It's not unfair in the slightest. Without the ability to carry drones, BS gangs would easily find themselves perma-tackled (if not outright killed) by frigates. I think it stands to reason that Supercarriers should also be allowed some minimal ability to fend off smaller ships, even if that isn't their primary purpose.
See even a goon doesn't agree with some of this horriffic mess. Although its only about the smallest of issues.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 .. 86 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |