| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 29 post(s) |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers
Against ALL Authorities
62
   |
Posted - 2013.08.07 01:09:00 -
[1] - Quote
Monsieur Leon wrote:Liang Nuren wrote:Lephia DeGrande wrote:
This is a MMORPG, if your able to organize 256 People it should have an advantage for this bunch of Players!
I highly disagree with your opinion, think how long sklling is needed to get, 1 Fleet Commander at V, 5 Wing Commander at V and 25 Squadleaders to V and have Boosters with the skills for Warefare Links... its a !!Year!!
I've got 4 characters with really solid leadership skills and I'm totally ok with CCP deleting all the leadership skills and not even reimbursing me. At the absolute minimum, gang links are far too powerful and even the nerf that is being discussed isn't nearly powerful enough. -Liang I think your full of ****. Put your api info in your next post so we can verify your not lying through your teeth. No one likes getting their skills nerfed. Especially to a group of skills that have only one specific use. Whats the name of your CCP alt?
Calm down compadre, just because someone trained some alts to do a task that has been mostly a hide it in a POS and forget about it job, seeing that character actually having a fun role is great. Your opinion isn't the only one that matters believe it or not. I seem to remember hearing similar rage coming from another nerf not too far back, what was it...Oh yeah, Titans i believe. GODDAMNIT I CAN'T DOOMSDAY SUBCAPS IN LOWSEC AND LOG OFF SAFELY WHENEVER I WANT OMGWTFBBQ!
Just because you trained a long time for it, doesn't mean it's not broken. Sometimes it sucks to lose your power, but it's not gonna suck itself.
Take a chill pill man. lYou're embarrassing yourself.
That aside i think gang links are moving in a good direction, especially with making mindlinks easier to obtain, but don't need to be removed fully. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers
Against ALL Authorities
77
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 07:00:00 -
[2] - Quote
Tobias Hareka wrote:So, command processor using one med slot is unacceptable but if it used one low slot it's ok? Shield superiority!
Damnation. That's all I'm going to say. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers
Against ALL Authorities
77
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 07:40:00 -
[3] - Quote
Tobias Hareka wrote:Rowells wrote:Tobias Hareka wrote:So, command processor using one med slot is unacceptable but if it used one low slot it's ok? Shield superiority! Damnation. That's all I'm going to say. Do you mean something like this? [Damnation, Boost] Command Processor I Command Processor I Command Processor I Command Processor I Command Processor I Command Processor I 10MN Microwarpdrive II Prototype ECCM Radar Sensor Cluster Faint Warp Disruptor I Medium Electrochemical Capacitor Booster I Information Warfare Link - Recon Operation II Information Warfare Link - Electronic Superiority II Skirmish Warfare Link - Interdiction Maneuvers II Skirmish Warfare Link - Rapid Deployment II Armored Warfare Link - Damage Control II Armored Warfare Link - Passive Defense II Armored Warfare Link - Rapid Repair II Medium Trimark Armor Pump I Medium Trimark Armor Pump I since you can't do math very well let me show you something:
6cp + 3 role bonus = 9 - 7 gang links = 2 unused cp
So let's ditch those 2 extra cp and throw on 2 T2 1600mm plates, and what do we get? 100k+ easily.
You have to use every available slot and module to even get a tank like that. And to boot the damnation also has free utility slots. Where shields don't have that luxury (but I'm used to it so that's not what I'm whining about).
Even with only two lows for tank the damnation has better tank than a claymore can dream of and is comparable to a vulture.
TL;DR making cp a low slot mod would not hurt damnation as much as you think. Gallente on the other hand....they need some lovin' |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers
Against ALL Authorities
77
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 08:58:00 -
[4] - Quote
Tobias Hareka wrote:Rowells wrote:TL;DR making cp a low slot mod would not hurt damnation as much as you think. Gallente on the other hand....they need some lovin' But it could cause issues: Sleipnir low dps Nighthawk low dps Absolution low dps + paper thin tank Last but not least: nerf to Gallente tank and dps
Yes they would. But that's a choice you make as booster. Do I need another dps or more boosts? Which is my priority?
And while I've been exclusively talking about the damnation, yes the absolute would be paper thin and yes the gallente would get the short end of the stick (even though I mentioned the gallente CS poor condition). And this is also assuming everyone fits the 6 cp you fitted earlier.
As I said before I was defending my claim on the damnation. That was all. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers
Against ALL Authorities
77
|
Posted - 2013.08.09 09:39:00 -
[5] - Quote
Tobias Hareka wrote:Rowells wrote:As I said before I was defending my claim on the damnation. That was all. Damnation with only two low slots used for tank would still be paper thin compared to Claymore/Vulture. Claymore: 101k Vulture: 114k Damnation: 97k
Seeing as there's only a 4k difference between the claymore and damnation with a 3 slot (4 if you used a damage control) and a 20K difference with the same slot difference as the claymore I would say "paper-thin compared to" isn't exactly a fitting term for such a close comparison.
The second you try to fit the claymore or vulture similar to how you fit the damnation (using current mid-slot cp), it's a much different story. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers
Against ALL Authorities
81
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 00:28:00 -
[6] - Quote
Lephia DeGrande wrote:After 10 Years i dont think we need a "quickfix" anymore, take your time and make it right CCP.
I don't see how this is a "quickfix". This is part of a series of changes. if you read the OP:
CCP Fozzie wrote:"A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step." - Laozi CCP Fozzie wrote:We believe that the package of changes we've put together will be a significant step forward for the game, but it's definitely not the end of iteration on these features. These show that they are indeed taking their time and making the proper steps (hopefully) to pave the way for more features along the way.
My favorite example is the change in obtaining T2 mindlinks. They are making it generally cheaper and easier to get them, which makes it more viable to put a mindlinked clone in the fray without worrying about higher exspenses.
There's no definitive way to just throw a huge feature/balance/change into the game and do it prperly all in one try. In fact that makes it worse in almost every case.
Be patient compadre, good things come to those who wait |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers
Against ALL Authorities
81
|
Posted - 2013.08.10 01:26:00 -
[7] - Quote
Kristen Andelare wrote:Just a word to all you posters who are in favor of getting rid of Off-Grid boosting altogether, and/or inherited flagging for the booster. You are being very short-sighted.
Don't forget the other major users of boosters: Mining fleets with Orcas and Rorquals.
If you eliminate off-grid boosting entirely, the Rorqual is about as useful as a basket of left-handed screwdrivers. No one flies these ships into belts. The Orca will still get used to boost, in highsec only. Sad, sad situation that would be.
CCP Fozzie wrote:Warfare links (other than mining links) can no longer be activated inside a starbase forcefield CCP Fozzie wrote:We do intend to move mining links out of forcefields someday, but we'll want to rebalance the Orca and Rorqual first to make putting them on grid more viable first.
I own both an Orca and a Rorq and I have no problem with bringing them on grid if they are fixed properly. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers
Against ALL Authorities
88
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 00:14:00 -
[8] - Quote
Ubat Batuk wrote:Pure and simple nerf to the good stuff. Not sure what you think you have achieved here...
I am waiting for some proper expansion stuff... waiting for a long while already. Since Dust and WoD, you focus on adjusting configuration stuff, getting people pissed off instead of adding some good stuff.
this is not an expansion. this is an update. hence, the "1.1" in odyssey 1.1.
wait for the winter expansion. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers
Against ALL Authorities
89
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 14:29:00 -
[9] - Quote
mighty1 wrote:Are you smoking crack fossie.....I find this a joke to nerf boosts as I spent a year on a boosting toon for you to change it so if this does go ahead i'l be finding a new game to play and I prolly won't be alone. Instead of trying to ruin every aspect off EVE why don't you ask what we want as we are the players and paying customers.
did you ever consider others might want boosts on grid? or did you really mean,"ask me what i want before you change things I like". And im getting real tired of people whining about how they train for something so it should never be changed or they pay for this game so it should cater to them. If you find you cannot enjoy a game because you can't afk POS a boosting alt then it really sucks to be you. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers
Against ALL Authorities
106
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 05:21:00 -
[10] - Quote
Just some confirmation, are mining foremanmind links also getting the 50-25% chop? |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers
Against ALL Authorities
106
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 06:14:00 -
[11] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Rowells wrote:Just some confirmation, are mining foremanmind links also getting the 50-25% chop? Yes, but the overall performance of mining links will be the same or decimal points better.
how did that work out? something else get changed that i missed? |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers
Against ALL Authorities
110
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 10:55:00 -
[12] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:The more I think about it, the more I agree with the guy who suggested we just get rid of gang links.
They're actually silly and generate unrealistic and indefensible effects.
Arnour does not get harder because people are communicating, engines do no generate more thrust because there are other ships in your fleet.
In a scenario involving on-grid boosting, you could argue that targeting may become more accurate if there is a central command centre co-ordinating the data from the entire fleet's sensor arrays, but none of the command links actually do this (increasing tracking or missile explosion velocity would be a reasonable proxy for this effect).
The information warfare links are probably the only reasonable (in terms of realism) ones available - and they're the last ones I choose in a small fleet, being nowhere near as useful as the ridiculous armour or shield hardening ones.
Having a good human FC (a commander) does already increase a fleet's power many times over.
Bin them and use the SP for something more creative.
It honestly would make more sense if ganglinks increased the effectiveness of offensive weaponry. Better tracking formulas, firing solutions, more prcise missile hits, and coordinated launch/firing times.
Would be the opposite of how links work now and probably bad but it does make more sense.
E: also drones. ESPECIALLY makes sense for drones to have a more centralized, efficient hub |
| |
|