|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |

PotatoOverdose
SONS of LEGION RISE of LEGION
270
|
Posted - 2013.09.27 20:16:00 -
[1] - Quote
From a gatecamp perspective, the solution to this has existed for some time in the form of remote sensor boosters. Remote sebo a thrasher, interceptor, or dissolution sequenced Legion/Loki and you can lock anyone before they cloak/warp. This has been done for some time in lowsec, so you don't even have to adapt that much really, just copy what others have been doing for years.
Likewise, they did not remove "splitting a gang," they simply changed it. Now, if an enemy fleet warps to the sun (that is bubbled), the interceptors will be separated from the main fleet, and you can pick them off. |

PotatoOverdose
SONS of LEGION RISE of LEGION
277
|
Posted - 2013.09.27 22:07:00 -
[2] - Quote
Ribeye Jaksom wrote:They were ALREADY nearly impossible to catch WITHOUT bubble immunity. If this change goes through, they will be untouchable. Its ridiculous anyone thinks this is a good idea.
Well now you're just full of ****. Interceptors are the T2 ships that die the most in Eve, and always have been. I suppose none of those dead interceptors were "caught." |

PotatoOverdose
SONS of LEGION RISE of LEGION
277
|
Posted - 2013.09.27 22:15:00 -
[3] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Are you serious? This implementation isn't to create new tactics or "proper operational movement". It is simply a change to make nullsec travel safer. I figured you'd be one of the few to rally against making EvE safer and easier!
It doesn't make it safer though. Cloaky nullified T3's exist that are far safer for travel purposes. Carriers, Blops+Blockade Runners, and Jump Freighters are even safer still as those ships, if only considering moving from point A to point B for logistical purposes need never come on grid with another hostile. Ever. |

PotatoOverdose
SONS of LEGION RISE of LEGION
278
|
Posted - 2013.09.27 23:24:00 -
[4] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Are you serious? This implementation isn't to create new tactics or "proper operational movement". It is simply a change to make nullsec travel safer. I figured you'd be one of the few to rally against making EvE safer and easier!
It doesn't make it safer though. Cloaky nullified T3's exist that are far safer for travel purposes. Carriers, Blops+Blockade Runners, and Jump Freighters are even safer still as those ships, if only considering moving from point A to point B for logistical purposes need never come on grid with another hostile. Ever. I'll grant you that cloaky nullified t3's are the epidomy of "safe travel", right next to jump logistics. However, the former is expensive, not just in isk price, but in ship utility cost too. The later requires teamwork at the minimum, infrastructure at the maximum, and still has some serious drawbacks. The drawback of nullified inties is nothing like that of nullified t3's. Apples and Oranges. Really, as blasphemous as this is, you could do an MWD-Cloak inty and be just as safe as a nullified t3, and safer than a covops. lol at the fit, but I just don't see a good reason to implement nullified ceptors!
Yes, a noobship cyno alt is the epitome of teamwork. Honestly, aside from cost, there's nothing your MWD-Cloaky inty does better than a cloaky nullified T3. And at least cloaky nullified t3's can sorta do something else for the money. A cloaked inty won't be able to tackle for ****.
XavierVE wrote: And unfortunately for me, the absolute final straw for this game. What will happen to your stuff, if you don't mind my asking? |

PotatoOverdose
SONS of LEGION RISE of LEGION
287
|
Posted - 2013.09.29 08:21:00 -
[5] - Quote
QQ we can't make our systems safe with bubbles alone. Cry some more.
For some reason cloaky nullified T3's die to remote seboed camps in lowsec often enough. Maybe because the locals adapted? |

PotatoOverdose
SONS of LEGION RISE of LEGION
287
|
Posted - 2013.09.29 08:27:00 -
[6] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:QQ we can't make our systems safe with bubbles alone. Cry some more.
For some reason cloaky nullified T3's die to remote seboed camps in lowsec often enough. Maybe because the locals adapted? Those T3 pilots are terrible and dont click on their cloak quickly enough or move too soon and cant activate it. There are no true Scotsmen.
Edit: In case you don't get it.
Person A: "No cloaky nullified T3 dies to gatecamps." Person B: "Those cloaky nullified T3's died to a gatecamp." Person A: "Then they weren't good cloaky nullified T3's." |

PotatoOverdose
SONS of LEGION RISE of LEGION
287
|
Posted - 2013.09.29 08:41:00 -
[7] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
Like everything there is always one moron who can mess it up. For example the waterproof Iphone update.
Again, you're just repeating the same exact ad hoc fallacy.
Person A: "No cloaky nullified T3 dies to gatecamps." Person B: "Those cloaky nullified T3's died to a gatecamp." Person A: "Then they were morons." |

PotatoOverdose
SONS of LEGION RISE of LEGION
288
|
Posted - 2013.09.29 09:01:00 -
[8] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
Still doesnt change the fact that these ships are impossible to catch in most peoples hands. These two subsystems should never have been allowed on the same ship.
I see no facts presented by you at all, only unsupported generalizations and repeated use of fallacies.
Remote sebo'd ships catch nullified T3's regularly, that is fact not in dispute. |

PotatoOverdose
SONS of LEGION RISE of LEGION
288
|
Posted - 2013.09.29 09:12:00 -
[9] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:baltec1 wrote:
Still doesnt change the fact that these ships are impossible to catch in most peoples hands. These two subsystems should never have been allowed on the same ship.
I see no facts presented by you at all, only unsupported generalizations and repeated use of fallacies. Remote sebo'd ships catch nullified T3's, that is fact not in dispute. They only reason sebo ships lock them is because you are preying on highsec bears. They move before the cooldown is finished ontheir cloak or do not hit their cloak quickly enough. As I said, this game should not be balanced around bad players. If it was then things like boomerang would not have been nerfed.
Again, with the same exact ad hoc fallacy. Do you really have no better arguments to present? Person A: "No cloaky nullified T3 dies to gatecamps." Person B: "Those cloaky nullified T3's died to a gatecamp." Person A: "Then they were highsec bears/bad players."
Present facts or quit your moaning. |

PotatoOverdose
SONS of LEGION RISE of LEGION
288
|
Posted - 2013.09.29 09:27:00 -
[10] - Quote
baltec1 wrote: I just described how you are catching them.
There is a reason why just about every gatecamp/roam/fleet ignores T3s that land on a gate or jump through. Why do you think big fleets always sent their T3 bonus ships into system first dispite there being muliple full fleets on the gate?
Its because the enemy couldn't stop them.
Just because your gatecamps ignore T3's does not mean all gatecamps ignore T3's. That's called a fallacy of composition.
Cloaky nullified T3's get caught by remote sebo'd camps. Fact. Refute it without resorting to logical fallacies, please. |
|

PotatoOverdose
SONS of LEGION RISE of LEGION
288
|
Posted - 2013.09.29 09:51:00 -
[11] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote:baltec1 wrote: I just described how you are catching them.
There is a reason why just about every gatecamp/roam/fleet ignores T3s that land on a gate or jump through. Why do you think big fleets always sent their T3 bonus ships into system first dispite there being muliple full fleets on the gate?
Its because the enemy couldn't stop them.
Just because your gatecamps ignore T3's does not mean all gatecamps ignore T3's. That's called a fallacy of composition. Cloaky nullified T3's get caught by remote sebo'd camps. Fact. Refute it without resorting to logical fallacies, please. And I have told you how those sebo camps are doing it. Your entire argument revolves around bad players being terrible at flying T3s therefore its fine. You ignore the fact that these are the only ships that are invincible when flown right and demand I post evidence that is impossible to collect while providing none yourself. This seems to be a new recuring tactic of the bears desperate to keep the game imbalances that benefit them. In every war we have fought in the last year I cannot recall losing a single T3 booster to a camp. No, you have told me that all T3's that get caught are bad, an ad hoc fallacy.
I could just as easily say the pilots you fly with are terrible at gatecamping.
You have provided no facts to support your position whatsoever, only conjecture and opinion. My evidence? All of the t3's that die to remote seboed camps, something that is not in dispute.
All I see in your posts is yet another QQ to get CCP to help you protect your space and your bears. QQ all you want, bubbles alone will not make your systems safe. |

PotatoOverdose
SONS of LEGION RISE of LEGION
288
|
Posted - 2013.09.29 10:06:00 -
[12] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:PotatoOverdose wrote: All I see in your posts is yet another QQ to get CCP to help you protect your space and your bears. QQ all you want, bubbles alone will not make your systems safe.
Fun fact: We benefit from these uncatchable ships and if they get nerfed it would hurt us. Unlike you however we will push to get imbalances fixed even if it hurts us for the greater good of the game. Just like you lot pushed to get bombers nerfed a year or two ago? How'd that work out for ya? 
But I'm sure CCP will see you for the magnanimous pilots you are, and will award you seven guardian-vexors for your service to the public good.
|

PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
657
|
Posted - 2013.11.21 23:41:00 -
[13] - Quote
On the one hand, the interceptor changes are really fun.
On the other hand, a rtarded monkey can now fly across all of null in complete safety in an inty, especially if they fit nanos/inertial stabs/wcs to their inty. Oh and celestial bounces counter the smartbomb argument completely.
Objectively, travel across swathes of null has been dumbed down significantly. But it's fun. The change is probably more good than bad. |
|
|
|