EVE Search - Remove Titans & Superscarriers

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Remove Titans & Superscarriers

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 256	Posted - 2013.05.15 19:38:00 - [31] - Quote Xeros Black wrote: It seems to me like the last bit to balance supers and titans out would be an anti-capital ship counter something like a stealth bomber only anti titan / super. Maybe a Cruiser class ship that equips capital sized torps. Something a carrier could take out easy with a 10 hammer heads but would be less vulnerable to titan and fighter bomber tracking. They should be expensive though maybe 200-500 mil for a cruiser class ship extra specialized I'm not a fan of specialised ships designed purely to take out high end ships that people have spent a long time training and getting into unless they also take as much investment. I think the main balancing factor should be that they can't be evacuated off the field as quickly and easily as they are now and using one in a fight is somewhat a proper commitment. Personally I think they should go into a reinforced mode once they've taken a certain amount of damage so that it is a catalyst for further fighting - I die a little inside when I see a capital die all on its own unsupported to a gank fleet.
Xavier Thorm Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 89	Posted - 2013.05.16 15:40:00 - [32] - Quote One proposal for Titans that I've thrown out in a couple of threads like this in the past is to require a Titan at either end of the jump bridge to send ships through.
Maximus Andendare Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 185	Posted - 2013.05.16 21:24:00 - [33] - Quote Tiberu Stundrif wrote: First of all, I'm a Supercapital pilot. I own an Avatar and a Nyx. Remove them from the game. - Reprocess ships and place all minerals in "Redeemable Items" based on ME 0 Titan/Supercarrier BPO - Refund all skillbook costs & refund skillpoints - Place character in home station. The Supercapital problem will not improve by simply nerfing these ships into uselessness as CCP has intended to do. My Avatar is a giant logistics cannon and mobile jump bridge. It is a 80-100 billion ISK sink that simply isn't worth what it is intended for. - The power of the Doomsday is fine as it is, but when you look at the numbers of Titans owned by any one corporation/alliance, it is unbalanced. When an alliance can drop 50 titans on an opposing fleet, there is something terribly wrong. - I don't want to bring tracking titans back. This was a stupid mechanic and far too easy to make subcapital fleets inferior. I want to bring back Dreadnought slugfeasts and the days when Carriers were considered something amazing. Remove Supercapitals from the game completely. This will go a long way to balancing the game and giving newer alliances the chance to succeed. I'm sort of in the mindset that mega-large supercap fleets (like the ones PL is fond of dropping) does hurt the overall gameplay, especially considering the effect TiDi has on Capital movements into a fight. (Shadoo is quoted as saying that with TiDi, no fight is too far away to bring the full cap fleet to bear.) I don't think the solution would be to remove Supercaps, though. It wouldn't fit Eve. And although the power creep associated with Alliances having fleets of supers to drop into a battle is horrendous, the best solution--the one that gives smaller alliances at least some sort of chance would be to install some sort of mass limits on ships that cyno into the system per time period. Not an overall mass, mind you, since that'd just lead to supers being deployed like drones when one goes down. It'd have to be an overarching "mass limit" on the cyno jumps into the system per time period. Once the cyno limit is reached (either through traditional bridging of subcaps or by cap or supercap jumps, the system is unable to take more mass via cynos for a given cooldown period. I think another way to redistribute some of the supers' power is to require a titan on both ends to bridge a fleet in. This would mean that titan pilots would have to commit their ships to the fray or the support fleet couldn't just be magically "beamed" into battle. Yes, this is a very "wormhole" way of looking at the ever-increasing supercap buildup problem, but the only way for fights to happen is to have some semblance of order. I know in a wormhole fight, for example, that the amount of Dreads that can come through that hole--indeed the amount of anything--is limited, so I can somewhat forecast what we may face even in the worst of times. Simply put, a small-to-medium alliance with moderate combat assets won't commit to a fight where they think "yeah we can probably take those two titans or supers" if there is a constant threat of PL dumping 70 supers in the battle and utterly obliterating them. It's not worth the whelp, especially considering that a supercarrier can deploy 12500 dps without having to commit to a siege timer or anything. If they going gets tough, they can cyno out. If the going gets tough for a dread or carrier, too bad. They're stuck there for 5 minutes.
Maximus Andendare Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 185	Posted - 2013.05.16 21:29:00 - [34] - Quote Xeros Black wrote: I have always thought that jump portals was a silly thing its one of those OP aspects of the game you can move huge forces with very little risk to the titan pilot in question... This is very true. It should be that smaller fleets are more mobile and can move more quickly vs large fleets that should move slowly. In fact, it's quite the opposite: the more wealth and power you have, the easier it is to move around. This is backward. There should be room for guerrilla tactics.
Xavier Thorm Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 94	Posted - 2013.05.16 21:44:00 - [35] - Quote Maximus Andendare wrote: Xeros Black wrote: I have always thought that jump portals was a silly thing its one of those OP aspects of the game you can move huge forces with very little risk to the titan pilot in question... This is very true. It should be that smaller fleets are more mobile and can move more quickly vs large fleets that should move slowly. In fact, it's quite the opposite: the more wealth and power you have, the easier it is to move around. This is backward. There should be room for guerrilla tactics. I think there needs to be a balance though. Wealthy alliances and coalitions should also be able to put massive amounts of resources behind an operation to move ships quickly. The problem right now is that there is little risk associated with Titan bridges.
Tiberu Stundrif Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance 44	Posted - 2013.06.09 21:51:00 - [36] - Quote Bump cuz this still needs to be addressed.
Mike Voidstar Voidstar Free Flight Foundation 165	Posted - 2013.06.09 22:16:00 - [37] - Quote Limiting something like titans would not be too difficult... but it would be impossible to insure they stay distributed without some very funky rules on how they are limited. For instance, you could tie them to SOV, and allow x amount per whatever metric you like--moons mined, systems owned, etc... but sooner or later someone would gain the upper hand and own them all. Something I like better is to actually buff them more, but give them an absolutely ruinous fuel cost to move them--- you get them where you want them, and they park there until another couple freighter loads of fuel arrive to allow them to move again. They become reinforced positions in space, and seeing one jump in would be headline news as you know it took the total fuel production of the alliance a week or more to get it there, and now it cannot even move from it's current location without more fuel. Combined with a similar fuel cost for opening bridges, or only allowing Titans to be the end point of a bridge and making it a structure that opens them would limit those shenanigans. Alternatively, add a module with high fitting costs to allow jumps on regular hulls to keep the strategic mobility but force a trade off for it.
Kara Books Deal with IT. 647	Posted - 2013.06.10 17:24:00 - [38] - Quote All I got from this thread was "lower the amount of supercaps in game" Simple, put a station realated tax on them, VOILA BUT BUT BUT. Why its never going to hapten? Im sorry I cant discus this because not only will CCP be Peed off but many old vets looking to quit. Supercaps are the driving force for those players playing the game for 7+ years, take the force away and we end up with WoW and who knows what else. the change would be so big, not in the form of big ships being removed but literally hearts broken. Keep these crappy ships in the game, their just crappy, my naglfar does 1500 DPS and Im just bashing myself for ever going full ******, training for and getting any kind of capital ship.
Tiberu Stundrif Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance 45	Posted - 2013.06.10 18:00:00 - [39] - Quote Kara Books wrote: All I got from this thread was "lower the amount of supercaps in game" Simple, put a station realated tax on them, VOILA BUT BUT BUT. Why its never going to hapten? Im sorry I cant discus this because not only will CCP be Peed off but many old vets looking to quit. Supercaps are the driving force for those players playing the game for 7+ years, take the force away and we end up with WoW and who knows what else. the change would be so big, not in the form of big ships being removed but literally hearts broken. Keep these crappy ships in the game, their just crappy, my naglfar does 1500 DPS and Im just bashing myself for ever going full ******, training for and getting any kind of capital ship. "Remove Titans & Supercarrier"
Tilly Delnero Licorne Ventures Ltd. 17	Posted - 2013.06.10 18:32:00 - [40] - Quote Tiberu Stundrif wrote: The Supercapital problem will not improve by simply nerfing these ships into uselessness as CCP has intended to do. My Avatar is a giant logistics cannon and mobile jump bridge. It is a 80-100 billion ISK sink that simply isn't worth what it is intended for. - The power of the Doomsday is fine as it is, but when you look at the numbers of Titans owned by any one corporation/alliance, it is unbalanced. When an alliance can drop 50 titans on an opposing fleet, there is something terribly wrong. - I don't want to bring tracking titans back. This was a stupid mechanic and far too easy to make subcapital fleets inferior. I want to bring back Dreadnought slugfeasts and the days when Carriers were considered something amazing. Remove Supercapitals from the game completely. I agree, NERF PL! On a serious note, there are also plenty of people who want all capitals removed and want to revert to the days of old where battleships were the dominant heavy combat platform. Times change, capitals and supercapitals are part of the game and many alliance logistics and (IMHO) should remain so. Removing titans means removing bridging, and that would be a nerf too far for many people (unless POS bridges didn't require sov anymore). It would also make large, well-piloted pantheon/slowcat carrier fleets virtually indestructible, since the only real way to kill those is via massive alpha (doomsday) unless you happen to have a ridiculous number of dreads at hand. In which case people would complain about the number of dreads. IIRC supercaps were a response to this type of capital escalation. If anything should be done about their proliferation, personally I'd like to see something more along the lines of supercapitals being subject to some form of ongoing tax like the alliance/sov system. Not necessarily ISK-based though. Maybe for the mechanics to treat them as a corp/alliance asset rather than a ship - perhaps even have ongoing fuel costs like a POS while they are online/in use? Whatever happens, I'd like to see supers reclaiming their 'special' status as end-game goals and something unique people really go 'OOH' at when they see them. At the moment they're far too common and lack anything that makes them really stand out. Except titan bridges, which are awesome.

Shadow Lord77 Shadow Industries I 305	Posted - 2013.06.10 21:32:00 - [41] - Quote I'm sure there's a place for Supers and Titans. Maybe if they increased the cost of Supercarriers 4x and titans by 2x, and gave Titans a buff that would make them super rare yet justified for the price? Supers are too cheap.
Airto TLA Puppeteers of Doom 45	Posted - 2013.06.10 21:54:00 - [42] - Quote Shadow Lord77 wrote: I'm sure there's a place for Supers and Titans. Maybe if they increased the cost of Supercarriers 4x and titans by 2x, and gave Titans a buff that would make them super rare yet justified for the price? Supers are too cheap. At this point price will not balance them, a large monthly upkeep cost may be helpful though, since it is the ever increasing nubers that people find offensive.
Maximus Andendare Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 264	Posted - 2013.06.10 21:59:00 - [43] - Quote Shadow Lord77 wrote: I'm sure there's a place for Supers and Titans. Maybe if they increased the cost of Supercarriers 4x and titans by 2x, and gave Titans a buff that would make them super rare yet justified for the price? Supers are too cheap. The cost really isn't the limiting factor. It's the fact that Eve is an over-time game combined with the fact that Super fleets--like those famed ones PL likes to drop--just don't get "used up." So, you have a situation where, over time, alliances build supers and distribute them with very little attrition. Without attrition, the game begins to suffer the sort of "supercap overpopulation" problem that its facing now. I hate to say that arbitrary limits are the solution, but they are one possible solution. Limit the amount of Supers that are available in a battle, and one side may drop theirs, knowing that the maximum opposing force (supplied by supers) will be limited. I know there's a similar thought to wormhole space battles in that we know the maximum number of Dreads/Carriers that could theoretically be brought by one side or another, and knowing that risk helps us to decide to risk assets (since it's not just going to be an automatic wipe-fest). Other than some spur to start super attrition, there's really nothing to stop the constant build-up and disuse of them. Hence, some sort of limit (cyno/jump bridge) limits would at least be somewhat effective, at least until an actual rebalance pass on supers can be made. And please no one think that I'm trying to limit the sizes of fights, since you can jump in all the subcaps you want the old fashioned way through a gate.
Tiberu Stundrif Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance 46	Posted - 2013.06.22 15:47:00 - [44] - Quote If you make them more expensive it will still only be a matter of time before everyone gets them. To be honest, I wouldn't see a problem if they made them 1/4 their current cost and 1/4 the EHP with the same bonuses/damage. This would make them easy to kill but also easy to replace. Another thing, be able to build them in low-sec. This would allow smaller alliances to gain super capital power. ....... Sounds pretty complicated, but I still think removing them is the best bet.
Vayn Baxtor Community for Justice R O G U E 55	Posted - 2013.06.22 19:51:00 - [45] - Quote Tiberu Stundrif wrote: First of all, I'm a Supercapital pilot. I own an Avatar and a Nyx. Remove them from the game. - Reprocess ships and place all minerals in "Redeemable Items" based on ME 0 Titan/Supercarrier BPO - Refund all skillbook costs & refund skillpoints - Place character in home station. The Supercapital problem will not improve by simply nerfing these ships into uselessness as CCP has intended to do. My Avatar is a giant logistics cannon and mobile jump bridge. It is a 80-100 billion ISK sink that simply isn't worth what it is intended for. - The power of the Doomsday is fine as it is, but when you look at the numbers of Titans owned by any one corporation/alliance, it is unbalanced. When an alliance can drop 50 titans on an opposing fleet, there is something terribly wrong. - I don't want to bring tracking titans back. This was a stupid mechanic and far too easy to make subcapital fleets inferior. I want to bring back Dreadnought slugfeasts and the days when Carriers were considered something amazing. Remove Supercapitals from the game completely. This will go a long way to balancing the game and giving newer alliances the chance to succeed. QFT Think it would be much cooler to see varieties of standard capitol ships and dreads than Titan/Scaps. I would just say that the Titan/Scap hulls could be scaled down and reapplied for other on-the-field roles (literally, the visual hulls so they are not just "deleted" from the game). There are a lot of creative people who had posted things like Scout Carriers etc, too. Heck, maybe we could see Science Carriers and other whatnots too. But yes, I think it would be a smart move. It is pretty much so that anybody who has more superduper ship wins - if we could break that ice and somehow spread the power across the board of new Dreads/Carriers, the territorial gameplay could become more interesting rather than just tossing in the few yet overpowered vessels. Using tablet, typoes are common and I'm not going to fix them all.
Tiberu Stundrif Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance 49	Posted - 2013.07.12 07:02:00 - [46] - Quote Bump because Titans and Supers are still in game!
Ronny Hugo Dark Fusion Industries Limitless Inc. 5	Posted - 2013.07.12 12:47:00 - [47] - Quote (@ original post) Hm, I'm working on a set of changes that would fix a lot of stuff ((a) boring structure shooting, (b) instapopping being all the fleet commander facilitates with some small unit-specific roles sprinkled on top, (c) not being able to feel like you're putting up a fight when dropped by huge fleets (you want to go out in a blaze of glory where you feel you did more than most would be able to), (d) active tanks having so low buffers they pop before the second and third rep cycle hits, and (e) the inherent SP cap which often has old players training stuff they won't really use while (f) the new players have a year of capacitor cap, capacitor recharge, shield HP, armor HP, agility, hull HP, etc, to train before they get properly competitive in whatever ship they wish to fly, and (g) also people are carbon-copies of each other because everyone has the same skills. Having everyone be the same is a lame but easy way to balance the game, but there are other options). Good games from real life allows players to adjust in accordance with conditions, this is what I want to incorporate into Eve. I'll spend a few days thinking about this problem also to see if I can incorporate something that fixes it in my set of changes. But could you come with some specific points which are the problems with Titans and supercarriers? Others are welcome to add points also.
Commander Ted Caldari Provisions Caldari State 786	Posted - 2013.07.12 16:03:00 - [48] - Quote If you could use supers without being under threat of being dropped on by someone with MORE supers then I don't think it would be that big of a deal. Make supers use stargates and reduce there align time by a lot. Also make titan jump bridges work backwards, make it so you can use a pos mounted jump bridge to jump to a titan, and let the titan connect to a jump bridge. Now your titan is a mobile beachhaed in enemy space, maybe it could go into an anchored deathstar mode or something. Now you only need a few titans for sov warfare and they act more like your fleets true flagship. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec.
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 1257	Posted - 2013.07.12 19:43:00 - [49] - Quote If you remove the Super part from them they would be ok to keep in game. Basically nerf the EHP down to standard capital levels, remove the invulnerability to E-war, reduce the price and construction time, just all around bring them down to normal capital levels. Ideas for Drone ImprovementTwitter Account-á @Omnathious
Ronny Hugo Dark Fusion Industries Limitless Inc. 5	Posted - 2013.07.12 20:17:00 - [50] - Quote Hm, What we really have is a problem of escalation. All alliances are reluctant to escalate into supers and titans because that's what could be their downfall, losing a bunch of supers. Not because they don't have the resources to replace them, but because they only have as many supers as they have people to babysit them. They can't dock in any stations. So you alone can not have ten and bring them in to a fight one after the other like battleships. Supers require sitting alts and so you only have as many supers as you have alts. And while you have the resources to build ten Titans more right away, you don't have the alts for that. But since you must wait a month for a new Titan if you lose the one you have, you are reluctant to fight with the titan in an even fight. Because the enemy would know you lost your super and however many other supers, and then take advantage of that month taking territory. I think making supers able to dock in particular huge stations would help, then they could have lots of supers and bring them in one after the other like battleships and triage carriers. Then the resources now built up as parts for supers, ready to put them together, would be put together, and we'd have lots of supers that can be brought in one by one to die in a jiffy.

NEONOVUS Saablast Followers 462	Posted - 2013.07.12 20:57:00 - [51] - Quote Add a mobile cyno jammer to titans. Make it similar to the one for FW where it cant be constant thus titans will be committed to fights as there is less fear of "escalation", so then you kill them by having enough on grid to kill them before the cyno jammer finishes. Or for real fun, make the pos fuel idea true but when it runs out boom! the self destruct is activated and you better have some more fuel! Suddenly the proliferation slows as now you have to make sure they are fed, at a rate I would say equal to 100 blocks an hour.
Ronny Hugo Dark Fusion Industries Limitless Inc. 5	Posted - 2013.07.12 21:08:00 - [52] - Quote NEONOVUS (Novus like in that game?) I remind you that ships being destroyed is what makes the economy go, so that's the solution to capitals, make the players destroy more of them by daring to fly them even when its not a sure victory. Cyno jammers would just ensure they'd be even more careful on top of being careful because constructing supercaps take so long (the parts can be stacked mile high and are produced almost continually, but it takes so very long to put the parts together, and when you have the parts together you need someone to sit in it all the time, otherwise anyone could go up to it and take it).
Vendictus Prime Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance 5	Posted - 2013.07.12 23:05:00 - [53] - Quote Honestly, the best argument for removing Supers was the recent grind accomplished by PL, Nulli and NC. after losing their renters sov. Less than 2 days and they ground 200+ systems due to the use of supers. Tiberu Stundrif wrote: If you make them more expensive it will still only be a matter of time before everyone gets them. To be honest, I wouldn't see a problem if they made them 1/4 their current cost and 1/4 the EHP with the same bonuses/damage. This would make them easy to kill but also easy to replace. . I agree that cutting their EHP would be a good start as well as their ecm invulnerability and while I was reading this forum I thought of, what if you limited any Titan and Supers jump ability to only systems you own SOV in as well as a limit on the number in a given system. 1 maybe 2 titans to a system and less than 10 total supers at any given time. With the EHP nerf and ecm vulnerability that makes fleets of subcaps able to kill the bigger ships. The SOV ownership issue would affect low sec, but I really do not see why they need to be there either. You have to own SOV to build them, why not restrict them solely to Null and limit how many can be in any specific location at all times. An invading group would have to establish a beachhead with subcaps if they want to bring in their supers and titans which require them taking control of a specific system with TCU's and or SBU's. Add some more mechanics to also not make the new features to benefit one side or the other. Titans and Supers would then be a limited defenses tool only. These ideas are very very preliminary and are designed to be expanded on and /or reworked from this forums contributors.
Ronny Hugo Dark Fusion Industries Limitless Inc. 5	Posted - 2013.07.12 23:18:00 - [54] - Quote Vendictus Prime wrote: Honestly, the best argument for removing Supers was the recent grind accomplished by PL, Nulli and NC. after losing their renters sov. Less than 2 days and they ground 200+ systems due to the use of supers. Tiberu Stundrif wrote: If you make them more expensive it will still only be a matter of time before everyone gets them. To be honest, I wouldn't see a problem if they made them 1/4 their current cost and 1/4 the EHP with the same bonuses/damage. This would make them easy to kill but also easy to replace. . I agree that cutting their EHP would be a good start as well as their ecm invulnerability and while I was reading this forum I thought of, what if you limited any Titan and Supers jump ability to only systems you own SOV in as well as a limit on the number in a given system. 1 maybe 2 titans to a system and less than 10 total supers at any given time. With the EHP nerf and ecm vulnerability that makes fleets of subcaps able to kill the bigger ships. The SOV ownership issue would affect low sec, but I really do not see why they need to be there either. You have to own SOV to build them, why not restrict them solely to Null and limit how many can be in any specific location at all times. An invading group would have to establish a beachhead with subcaps if they want to bring in their supers and titans which require them taking control of a specific system with TCU's and or SBU's. Add some more mechanics to also not make the new features to benefit one side or the other. Titans and Supers would then be a limited defenses tool only. These ideas are very very preliminary and are designed to be expanded on and /or reworked from this forums contributors. The problem is not killing them, but getting the enemy to commit them to battle when you might win. If you might win, they don't commit them to the battle. Making them easier to kill would just worsen this.
NEONOVUS Saablast Followers 462	Posted - 2013.07.13 02:28:00 - [55] - Quote Ronny Hugo wrote: NEONOVUS (Novus like in that game?) I remind you that ships being destroyed is what makes the economy go, so that's the solution to capitals, make the players destroy more of them by daring to fly them even when its not a sure victory. Cyno jammers would just ensure they'd be even more careful on top of being careful because constructing supercaps take so long (the parts can be stacked mile high and are produced almost continually, but it takes so very long to put the parts together, and when you have the parts together you need someone to sit in it all the time, otherwise anyone could go up to it and take it). cyno jammers cut both ways and prevent all reinforcements. Of course if you happen to have a hic and a fleet.... But yeah the idea is embolden the pilots so they come out more, right now deaths canbe attributed to awoxing and really not much else, there is no screw it send in the supers as with bcs and even t3s instead you have people utterly freaked at the concept of putting them in anything but we win or leave there is no die also what game?
Jinli mei Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 135	Posted - 2013.07.13 04:13:00 - [56] - Quote Vendictus Prime wrote: Honestly, the best argument for removing Supers was the recent grind accomplished by PL, Nulli and NC. after losing their renters sov. Less than 2 days and they ground 200+ systems due to the use of supers. While we're at it, using this example we should make spying and metagaming a bannable offense because it dropped 200+ systems without the use of any ships. (See how silly that sounds?) This entire thread screams "move the goal post closer, I can't win."
Prelate Hucel-Ge Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 25	Posted - 2013.07.13 04:17:00 - [57] - Quote Oh, what's that? You spent how many years hoarding all of that Tech ISK and you still can't achieve supercap superiority over Pandemic Legion and Northern CoalitionDOT in the Fountain War? Too bad, so sad. Maybe you should use your supers once in a while and you wouldn't have people unsubbing their titans/supers due to sheer boredom.
Tiberu Stundrif Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance 55	Posted - 2013.07.13 04:30:00 - [58] - Quote Jinli mei wrote: This entire thread screams "move the goal post closer, I can't win." I'm pretty sure many PL/NCdot super pilots agree with me on this. Removing them from game is really the only option for fixing a game mechanic broken the moment supers were introduced to this game.
Prelate Hucel-Ge Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 25	Posted - 2013.07.13 04:37:00 - [59] - Quote Tiberu Stundrif wrote: Jinli mei wrote: This entire thread screams "move the goal post closer, I can't win." I'm pretty sure many PL/NCdot super pilots agree with me on this. Removing them from game is really the only option for fixing a game mechanic broken the moment supers were introduced to this game. Name three people that actually matter and quote where they said this. :allears:
Tiberu Stundrif Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance 55	Posted - 2013.07.13 04:43:00 - [60] - Quote Prelate Hucel-Ge wrote: Tiberu Stundrif wrote: Jinli mei wrote: This entire thread screams "move the goal post closer, I can't win." I'm pretty sure many PL/NCdot super pilots agree with me on this. Removing them from game is really the only option for fixing a game mechanic broken the moment supers were introduced to this game. Name three people that actually matter and quote where they said this. :allears: Why would I go on a quote-hunt to appease someone who obviously doesn't understand how much supers impact the game in a negative way?



Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

Copyright © 2006-2024, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,05s, ref 20241225/2049
EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP.

bitcoin: 1CHRiBBArqpw5Yz7x5KS2RRtN5ubEn5gF

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.