EVE Search - Sticky:New dev blog: Capital ship balancing

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

Sticky:New dev blog: Capital ship balancing

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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)
iulixxi EVE-RO Fidelas Constans 5	Posted - 2011.10.12 08:59:00 - [1681] - Quote ToXicPaIN wrote: I want also the Drone Skills for my Levi titan back ... so the T2 Heavys / Sentrys are not longer needed ... sou you can delete all the trained drone skills and give the SPs back !!! to train this Drones cost a lot of time ... and this time is wasted with this fuc**** patch or better , let me dock so i can refine the titan I also want my money back from Monday night dinner because you know ... it is in the toilet now ... E
Monster Dude hirr Against ALL Authorities 1	Posted - 2011.10.12 09:07:00 - [1682] - Quote down in this post: - preconditions for SC nerf are wrong - nerfing SC's wrong in general - it all in favor of botting To me all past changes do is "driving SC's out of game. Making them less and less useful." And that that removing of drones is a peak of nonsense. It has no EVE world logic at all. My assumption: Perhaps CCP devs listening some once opinions when making this. But I'm afraid that those people are either not honest to EVE community or just very high in leadership position that they do get SC by clap a hands (most likely both). Closer to the point: What is SC for ordinary player who has built on his own?. Not to mention that it takes whole character to get stuck in SC. It is ship that can give value in nice capital PVP for him, his corp, his alliance. Meanwhile if there is no PVP need SC pilot could make some ISK in his VERY expensive ship. (which expose him in danger getting tackled and killed) What for SC's after this nerf? For rich, well rich alliances that can afford lose them a lot if "something goes wrong"? That change is in favor of those rich alliances just to make their separation from others even higher. Hm... who might want that? Cause if you want to be cost efficient - you start using drednoughts due to their insurance... And what SC will do? Long ago SC's were already nerfed for worse ratting abilities. Why? I didn't see anything bad in ratting SC... Nothing is wrong in that. Freaking expensive ship does ratting and getting used. If it is getting used it will be tackled at some point and die. But now instead of manual ratting in e.g. SC half of eve does botting. After nerf 3/4 will do botting? Well, compare you doing manually ratting in SC and some one botting with drake(s). What is better for real EVE players? Preconditions for nerf: 1) Supercapitals are too hard to kill. 2) Supercarriers are far too versatile. 3) The Titan superweapon is too powerful. 4) Dreadnoughts are not good enough. 5) Remote ECM Bursts should not work on ships immune to ewar. 6) Sub-capitals are useless in fleet fights. 1) too hard to kill? really? I wouldn't say so as I seen many of those pops very quick being attacked sub-caps. 2) too versatile? really? a ship that can't really kill hictor on his own... that takes ages to lock cruser size or frig.... and if you need to swap fighters to drones it takes too long and time is everything. 3) titans - perhaps this is right precondition. So this step is for making gap between rich alliances and poor once smaller. When doing opposite with SC's... 4) dreds - absolutely correct 5) ECM - no comments that perhaps right 6) really? good to know... Now I know that all my fights before and titans/super kills were useless As I see things: - There is nothing wrong with SC's atm, absolutely nothing. They are just good. Nerfing them is a bonus for botting communities and bonus to very rich alliances (which are often the same). - May be it is not bad idea to nefr a bit titans dooms day, but I'd draw border on BS size. BS and above can shot, cruser and below can't. - YES, dreads needs boost. This one it self will bring needed balance. As a short summary. Why would player like to have/build an SC? (for him or for providing some abilities for his corp as individual) Why would corp like to equip members with SC's? (if business wise dreds are safer, insurance, etc...) This nerf will increase amount of botters -> ppl getting not fair advantage on those who stays in rules -> they will afford to use this nerfed SC's, as they can replace them in 2 weeks botting -> not good changes.
Ath'daru Phantom Squad Nulli Secunda 1	Posted - 2011.10.12 09:10:00 - [1683] - Quote People are disliking these changes, not because it will impact them in PvP, but because it will screw up their ISK farming. I can't fly capitals yet, let alone a super carrier, but I'd be pissed too if I used to make several billion ISK a day soloing ****, and someone took that away from me :)
Victoria Cheeks Swedish Aerospace Inc The Kadeshi 2	Posted - 2011.10.12 09:30:00 - [1684] - Quote I'm in love with the log off timer change. Future logs are showing a dramatic increase in selfdestructing ships. Especially capitals... Perhaps it would be a good idea to allow killmails to be generated even though someone selfdestructs? Just my 2p.
Victoria Cheeks Swedish Aerospace Inc The Kadeshi 2	Posted - 2011.10.12 09:32:00 - [1685] - Quote Ath'daru wrote: People are disliking these changes, not because it will impact them in PvP, but because it will screw up their ISK farming. I can't fly capitals yet, let alone a super carrier, but I'd be pissed too if I used to make several billion ISK a day soloing ****, and someone took that away from me :) If you can afford supers, do you really think they had an isk problem to start with?
CynoNet Two GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 444	Posted - 2011.10.12 09:35:00 - [1686] - Quote Le Cardinal wrote: A 20B endgame ship shouldnt be able to hold at least a few drones to fend off a dictor? lol. How somone could say thats a sane thing to do is beyond comprehension. Lets go further: Remove drones and offensive capabilty of interdictors and HICs: "Destroyer-class/Cruiser-class vessels, designed to pull other vessels out of warp." What are you talking about? The only HIC or Dictor with any kind of drone bay is the 5m-¡3 on the Eris, able to carry a single light drone. They do have a token offensive capability inherited from the Tech 1 version of their hull, but generally this isn't a threat to anything more than a pod or hauler, which is one of the targets they're intended to hunt solo. They can't however kill capital ships solo, they need support for that. Inversely, Supercarriers can still kill capital and super-capital sized targets using their offensive capability, which is exactly what they're designed to hunt. They now need support to kill sub-caps, which is how it should be. Le Cardinal wrote: Remove drones from majority of BS: "They have after all a designated role as well. Dont like it? bring support" BS often have to travel through gates to get home. They lack ewar-immunity and as such it's pretty fair for them to be able to fight off the weakest tacklers. Even with the drone bay they still have very, very little chance against an Interdictor or HIC, if you want to compare them to supercaps. Supercaps always take the direct route home. The very nature of capital travel means that another friendly entitiy will always be involved in their movement, either an armed starbase with a beacon or a cynoship. You can use anything you like as that cynoship to protect the supercap. Le Cardinal wrote: Remove all offensive capability of Cap-Industrial SHips and Mining barges: "Dont like it? bring support. Its industrial ships. Barges and cap industrial ships do not have ewar-immunity, ranged ECM bursts, or the ability to run large neuts/smartbombs without compromising their fit. This point is moot however as they're clearly not intended to be run without a support fleet already. Your argument is circular and redundant. Le Cardinal wrote: Remove mining abilities of Cap-industrial ships. They are supposed to be industrial platforms, not solominers ". The ability to run 5 mining drones is clearly game-breaking. Please provide less ridiculous examples. Le Cardinal wrote: Remove ability to fit EW modules on ships not designed for it: Dont like it? Bring proper support. Using ECM on an unbonused ship is about as effective as using Fighters against a sub-capital. The option is there in both cases and scales quite well. The key point that most people whining about drone bays seem to be missing is that a token dronebay will never, ever protect a supercap from a competent dictor pilot. No amount of drones is going to be popping that bubble placed outside of smartbomb range. This results in an issue of scale: A lone supercap will need many drones to defend itself against tacklers - 5 mediums just won't cut it against a dictor pilot who drops a bubble, warps out and back in then cloaks before it's time for the next bubble. Unless the supercap has enough drones to nuke it in a few seconds, that dictor will hold him forever. So what happens if we give it enough drones to do that? Sure a lone supercap becomes able to shake off a lone tackler. But then we get 10, 20, 50+ supercarriers in fleets who are suddently also able to shake off 10, 20 50+ dictors. Not accounting for scale is how we got into this mess in the first place. Supercaps are the deathstars of EVE. They bring all the extreme firepower, but you should still need escorts to keep the X-Wing from the exhaust port.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 5425	Posted - 2011.10.12 09:36:00 - [1687] - Quote Grath Telkin wrote: So why is every other offensive capital ship being forced into the "Fleet Ship" profile except the carrier? Because they don't need to in order to fit their role. Quote: After all if you're changing the role of offensive capitals, change them all, don't leave one in its broken state. You're assuming here that carriers are brokenGÇª You are also assuming that the roles are being changed GÇö they're not. They're being refined, clarified, and more strictly enforced. Le Cardinal wrote: A 20B endgame ship I have bad news for you: cost is irrelevant, and there is no endgame. By all means, ask them to reduce the build price and/or stop equipping them as expensively if they're no longer worth it, but price is not an argument for performance. Quote: No matter how you twist and turn it, you do in fact sometimes end up in situations where you are alone and without support, either from logging at a safespot or pos or whatever. Its inevitable. GÇªand in those scenarios, you are rightfully very very exposed and you should try your hardest to avoid them. This makes them no different from all other ships. So why is that a problem? 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.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 5425	Posted - 2011.10.12 09:37:00 - [1688] - Quote Mioelnir wrote: Close to all options small groups of capitals have. GÇªunless they bring the right support, which is, if anything, a good change. Quote: All the while, in large packs, very very little will change. So, really, if anything, more significant changes are actually needed. All you're doing here is demonstrating that what I said was correct. Quote: Carrier miraculously stay the same. And while their remote rep can be jammed, it is also a lot easier to field 250 of them How does that happen? Monster Dude wrote: 1) too hard to kill? really? I wouldn't say so as I seen many of those pops very quick being attacked sub-caps. And what were the scenarios for these kills pray tell? 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.
Brambridge Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2011.10.12 10:06:00 - [1689] - Quote In conclusion, this is my 2 gerbles! Great changes but i think its a bit to much too soon. Supercarriers (You need to change the name again... After this nerf there is nothing Super about there carrier function) Drone bay can only hold fighters and fighter bombers. - But abit more that 20-25 ... this is the Primary offencive weapon! Reduce Shield, Armor and Hull hitpoints on all Supercarriers by 20%. - I dont think this is nessesary (Ref: Logoff time fix is good enough) Reduce drone capacity. Aeon, Revenant and Wyvern: 125000 (25 total Fighters + Fighter Bombers) Needs to be both ..50 would be cool Hel and Nyx: 150000 (30 total Fighters + Fighter Bombers) Needs to be both ..50 would be cool Remote ECM Burst: Does not affect ships that are immune to electronic warfare (Supercarriers, Titans, Triaged Carriers and Sieged Dreads) Fighters Increase signature resolution to 400 (This should be Subject to the Ship Class i.e. Supercarriers) Dreadnoughts Remove drone bay from all dreadnoughts. ... Sounds good Titans.... Great changes Logoff timer This will do alot of good ...both in the short term and long! Great changes CCP!
Shadowsword The Scope Gallente Federation 116	Posted - 2011.10.12 10:22:00 - [1690] - Quote Brambridge wrote: Aeon, Revenant and Wyvern: 125000 (25 total Fighters + Fighter Bombers) Needs to be both ..50 would be cool Hel and Nyx: 150000 (30 total Fighters + Fighter Bombers) Needs to be both ..50 would be cool That would be like a battleship pilot asking to have turrets that can turn into blasters or railguns without having to refit. Forcing the player to choose is a good thing.
Doctor Ungabungas GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 83	Posted - 2011.10.12 10:25:00 - [1691] - Quote My favorite part of this thread (and damn, there are so many good parts) is the posts from people saying that supercaps are the 'end game' and should be overpowered. Sorry, there's no 'end game' in a sandbox game. My 'end game' is currently 'build 1T worth of supercaps' and when I hit that mark, I'll probably change it to 2T or 5T. If you've bought into the 'supercaps are like raid gear' mindset you've been sold a bunch of snake oil by your alliance leadership. My advice is to firesale your ship for whatever you can get for it (Here is a handy guide: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ArVlisPcgSHddGFZRGtwZ3YyT3dSUDB2YmJvQ053a2c&hl=en_US) and then join an alliance that camps Jita 4-4 until your epeen grows back.
Le Cardinal Spricer Raiden. 2	Posted - 2011.10.12 10:41:00 - [1692] - Quote @ Cynonet Two: You focus too much on the dronebay. A lot of people pull the role-card, and if that is to be a principle counting for Supercaps then it ought to count for other ships as well. And as for ewar immunity and advantages like that? Christ, a Supercarrier cost 20B. Ofcourse it should have advantages compared to its rivals. Its the principle behind it that is flawed. Its ok that SuperCarriers get nerfed cause "Now they get their designated role", while other ships dont need to get nerfed cause they are not immune to Ewar and have to jump through gates? If you dont like jumping through gates bring support. You know, black ops or a titan. And if you think its unfair that barges cant mine solo i nullsec then bring support. And no, cost isnt irrelevant. Or at least it shouldnt be. And every sane SC will try to avoid situations where they are alone. And the fact remains that solo SC's are as killable now as they will be postpatch, except postpatch SC's wont have any defencemechanisms that work on anything less than a capitalship. Ninjaedit.
Scatim Helicon GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 315	Posted - 2011.10.12 10:46:00 - [1693] - Quote Shadowsword wrote: Brambridge wrote: Aeon, Revenant and Wyvern: 125000 (25 total Fighters + Fighter Bombers) Needs to be both ..50 would be cool Hel and Nyx: 150000 (30 total Fighters + Fighter Bombers) Needs to be both ..50 would be cool That would be like a battleship pilot asking to have turrets that can turn into blasters or railguns without having to refit. Forcing the player to choose is a good thing. No no no you see if you spend a lot of money on a ship, you shouldn't have to do things like fitting the right tools for the job, or anything else which requires a functioning brain. ~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever.
Monster Dude hirr Against ALL Authorities 1	Posted - 2011.10.12 10:51:00 - [1694] - Quote Victoria Cheeks wrote: Ath'daru wrote: People are disliking these changes, not because it will impact them in PvP, but because it will screw up their ISK farming. I can't fly capitals yet, let alone a super carrier, but I'd be pissed too if I used to make several billion ISK a day soloing ****, and someone took that away from me :) If you can afford supers, do you really think they had an isk problem to start with? If you got your SC by claping hands and say - "give me SC" then of course not. If you got your SC by buying it on ISK made by boting - then of course not If you build your SC by doing everything for it - hauling, building parts, making isks on your own etc... all by yourself then YES you will have a problem. And this is why I'm saying that coming nerf will just favor very rich communities and make poor once weaker.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 5425	Posted - 2011.10.12 10:52:00 - [1695] - Quote Le Cardinal wrote: And as for ewar immunity and advantages like that? Christ, a Supercarrier cost 20B. Ofcourse it should have advantages compared to its rivals. Again, no. It does not follow. It's the other way around: an SC has advantages, so of course it should cost 10B. If its cost is out of proportion to the advantage, don't buy it, or ask them to reduce the baseline cost so it can find its true equilibrium. Quote: And no, cost isnt irrelevant. Or at least it shouldnt be. Yes it is, and yes it should, because as history has shown, price is no object if it buys an advantage. All of EVE is built around that very concept, and proves is every day. People will pay insane sums for marginal improvements, but here we have a case where they get a far more than marginal improvement for a rather small increase in relative cost. 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.
Doctor Ungabungas GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 83	Posted - 2011.10.12 10:58:00 - [1696] - Quote Monster Dude wrote: If you got your SC by claping hands and say - "give me SC" then of course not. If you got your SC by buying it on ISK made by boting - then of course not If you build your SC by doing everything for it - hauling, building parts, making isks on your own etc... all by yourself then YES you will have a problem. And this is why I'm saying that coming nerf will just favor very rich communities and make poor once weaker. When you can make a few billion a week running 0.0 plexes, reaction farms, or doing mysterious things in wormholes, making something more expensive just adds a few extra days or weeks to the grinding period.
loser mclame fatty Catelo Productions LLC 17	Posted - 2011.10.12 11:06:00 - [1697] - Quote almost everyone in this thread is the kid who takes his ball and does home when he gets dunked on i hope you're all proud of yourselves
Smoking Blunts ZC Industries Dark Stripes 215	Posted - 2011.10.12 12:08:00 - [1698] - Quote chnage them back to motherships, remove fighter bombers. make them a tier 2 carrier liek they used to be moms and titans have the old hp counts. titan dd's need to be nerf'd a bit more. introduce attack carrier fighter bombers only, hp same as the new supercarrier plan. allow all but titans to dock motherships and attack carrier build costs 5 and 10bil respectivly.. /me goes back to smoking blunts these ******* forums keep eating posts. ccp fix them ffs edit, dont even have to do a new model for attack carriers, just paint moms black and add that lovely camo crap to the attack carrier CCP-áare full of words and no action. We will watch what they are doing, for now
Phunnestyle School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 115	Posted - 2011.10.12 12:12:00 - [1699] - Quote ROFL@this patch
Endeavour Starfleet 685	Posted - 2011.10.12 12:17:00 - [1700] - Quote That is far too harsh. CCP has shown FAR more interest in what we have had to say in this topic than features of the past like captains quarters. So can we keep to actually discussing ways to make this change in best way to keep balance to the game instead of throwing crap everywhere?
Phunnestyle School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 115	Posted - 2011.10.12 12:20:00 - [1701] - Quote Best thing CCP can do to save them selves and save some dignity & respect for themselves is to rework the winter patch. As it currently is its an insulting bunch of biased fail. Need to rework the rework and come back again when you have something in all aspects positive and going forward for Super capitals and subcapitals alike. Some of the changes in the patch are so blindly being made that yet again people wonder if CCP actually takes time out of developing to actually play eve an know what the hell goes on in EVE, from the look of this patch I would be right in saying that. As has been said before, instead of refining down supers and titans CCP gets an axe and hacks away at them blindly leaving them as a mass hunk of scrap. Almost as though ccp are cracking a Joke to P1ss people off. The way the patch currently stands at,ccp are dooming the game we all love to its end. They will both lose themselves an absolute shed load of money from this fail patch & lose a hell of alot of players (mostly vets) who take this as the last straw. If it goes ahead expect significant drop in players attending EVE that much is obvious.
Sarahs Sister Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 2	Posted - 2011.10.12 12:21:00 - [1702] - Quote Shadowsword wrote: Brambridge wrote: Aeon, Revenant and Wyvern: 125000 (25 total Fighters + Fighter Bombers) Needs to be both ..50 would be cool Hel and Nyx: 150000 (30 total Fighters + Fighter Bombers) Needs to be both ..50 would be cool That would be like a battleship pilot asking to have turrets that can turn into blasters or railguns without having to refit. Forcing the player to choose is a good thing. Okay I agree with you if you allow SC to dock so that they can refit for the situation, becasue I am guessing you have no idea the hassle in swapping firghters to FBs. So yes they should be able to carry 20-25 of both FB and Fighters, I think in two differnet bays so that people can bring LOADS of fighters or FB and can only bring one set plus a few spare for ones that die. Sarah
Scatim Helicon GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 315	Posted - 2011.10.12 12:22:00 - [1703] - Quote Phunnestyle wrote: Best thing CCP can do to save them selves and save some dignity & respect for themselves is to rework the winter patch. As it currently is its an insulting bunch of biased fail. Need to rework the rework and come back again when you have something in all aspects positive and going forward for Super capitals and subcapitals alike. Some of the changes in the patch are so blindly being made that yet again people wonder if CCP actually takes time out of developing to actually play eve an know what the hell goes on in EVE, from the look of this patch I would be right in saying that. As has been said before, instead of refining supers and titans CCP gets an axe and hacks away at them blindly leaving them as a mass hunk of scrap. Almost as though ccp are cracking a Joke to P1ss people off. The way the patch currently stands at,ccp are dooming the game we all love to its end. They will both lose themselves an absolute shed load of money from this fail patch & lose a hell of alot of players (mostly vets) who take this as the last straw. If it goes ahead expect significant drop in players attending EVE that much is obvious. Look at this bitter babby crying over his soon-to-be-nerfed Inappropriate language removed. Spitfire. ~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever.
Phunnestyle School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 115	Posted - 2011.10.12 12:24:00 - [1704] - Quote Scatim Helicon wrote: Phunnestyle wrote: Best thing CCP can do to save them selves and save some dignity & respect for themselves is to rework the winter patch. As it currently is its an insulting bunch of biased fail. Need to rework the rework and come back again when you have something in all aspects positive and going forward for Super capitals and subcapitals alike. Some of the changes in the patch are so blindly being made that yet again people wonder if CCP actually takes time out of developing to actually play eve an know what the hell goes on in EVE, from the look of this patch I would be right in saying that. As has been said before, instead of refining down supers and titans CCP gets an axe and hacks away at them blindly leaving them as a mass hunk of scrap. Almost as though ccp are cracking a Joke to P1ss people off. The way the patch currently stands at,ccp are dooming the game we all love to its end. They will both lose themselves an absolute shed load of money from this fail patch & lose a hell of alot of players (mostly vets) who take this as the last straw. If it goes ahead expect significant drop in players attending EVE that much is obvious. Look at this bitter babby crying over his soon-to-be-nerfed spacedick. LOL I dont even have a super or titan,I am looking at this from both angles, appreciating what this nerf should be and what it is, that is 2 completely different stories,about time you got off your perch an did so aswell instead of being a child an trying to fail troll.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 5425	Posted - 2011.10.12 12:33:00 - [1705] - Quote Phunnestyle wrote: I am looking at this from both angles, appreciating what this nerf should be and what it is, that is 2 completely different stories So you agree, then, that the suggestions are not enough and that more is needed? 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.
Phunnestyle School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 115	Posted - 2011.10.12 12:36:00 - [1706] - Quote Tippia wrote: Phunnestyle wrote: I am looking at this from both angles, appreciating what this nerf should be and what it is, that is 2 completely different stories So you agree, then, that the suggestions are not enough and that more is needed? LOL fail troll an to be frank fail comment.

CCP Phantom C C P C C P Alliance 1078	Posted - 2011.10.12 12:43:00 - [1707] - Quote This has been a very good discussion so far, with many interesting points. Off-topic posts removed. Please continue to stay civil and on-topic, thank you! CCP Phantom - German Community Coordinator

Phunnestyle School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 115	Posted - 2011.10.12 12:43:00 - [1708] - Quote Ciar Meara wrote: [quote=CCP Tallest]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. This gives me some hope that CCP will save the game we love an save them selves from some* of the hurrendious patch notes they released.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops 5425	Posted - 2011.10.12 12:49:00 - [1709] - Quote Phunnestyle wrote: LOL fail troll an to be frank fail comment. I take that as a GÇ£yesGÇ¥. What has been suggested so far somewhat takes care of the issue with subcaps (aside from reneging on the fighter change, when it would be perfectly fine if they balanced the fighters themselves a bit better), but not the issue of super blobs. Granted, that's a hard nut to crack, but doing so would probably allow the same methodology to be applied to subcaps and solve some of the blobbing issues there as well. At any rate, that last part is still missing, so more is indeed needed. 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.
Lady PimpStar Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 1	Posted - 2011.10.12 12:53:00 - [1710] - Quote The changes to fighters make every wormhole carrier useless for PVE. Are the fighter changes only effective to Super Caps or effect all capital ships? As of now we can just barely rep our fighters in time lossing maybe 2 to 5 a site.

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

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.