| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Slaveabuser
   |
Posted - 2006.02.08 22:05:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Slaveabuser on 08/02/2006 22:05:07
 Originally by: Sky Hunter
Im not whinin about 'omg i cant kill BS', im just disappointed that Heavy nosferatu is now BS 'top used' module.
Sounds like whining to me. Why would you create such a rubbish thread if it wasnt?
Quote:
1. Increase cycle time of nosfs from 12sec to 24secs.
It will give some recharge time for BCs/T2 BCs/HACs to be able to relay on to at least keep guns running.
2. Inrease power grid usage on named nosfs and on T1 nosf. From 2000 to lets say 2300.
3. Maybe make nosfs speed-up. For example the more time you nosf someone, the more energy you get. For example first cycle gives you only 40 cap, then next cycle gives you 50 and so on. Maybe even make some chance based nosfing but make it so nosf will still drain cap, but drain differnt amounts. For example 100-20-50-60-40-80 or something like this.
Again this is not whine topic. Its juts something i wanna ask if someone else been seeing alot of nosfing on BS lately.
Shhh!I'm busy thinking about complicated things you wont understand. |
Slaveabuser
|
Posted - 2006.02.09 15:23:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Slaveabuser on 09/02/2006 15:24:11
Nerfing large nos against smaller targets is incredible silly.
ITS A FRIGGN MODULE DESIGNED TO SUCK CAP, THE LARGER THE MODULE THE MORE CAP IS SUCKS!
Jesus, Mary and Joseph! So called pvp's are whining more than carebears ever did.
'oh noes my interceptor gets nosses to death by a battleship'
To ******* bad, fly a bigger ship next time.
Shhh!I'm busy thinking about complicated things you wont understand. |
Slaveabuser
|
Posted - 2006.02.09 15:29:00 -
[3]
Originally by: DigitalCommunist
Originally by: Slaveabuser
Edited by: Slaveabuser on 09/02/2006 15:24:11
Nerfing large nos against smaller targets is incredible silly.
ITS A FRIGGN MODULE DESIGNED TO SUCK CAP, THE LARGER THE MODULE THE MORE CAP IS SUCKS!
So? The larger the gun the more damage it deals.
Shouldnt that be obvious? (if you were to follow atleast some form of logic that is)
Shhh!I'm busy thinking about complicated things you wont understand. |
Slaveabuser
|
Posted - 2006.02.09 15:40:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Slaveabuser on 09/02/2006 15:40:53
Originally by: DigitalCommunist
Follow this form of logic: you can't apply the greater damage of bigger guns to everything.
Durr. Welcome to the last 14 pages of this thread. 
So basically what you want is :
Interceptors can orbit battleships without taking any damage because large guns cant track so small targets+ battleship sized nosferatus cant drain smaller ships because of the nerf you are calling for?
Call for a nerf on smartbombs too while youre at it. Its way to easy to kill friagtes with them. 
Shhh!I'm busy thinking about complicated things you wont understand. |
Slaveabuser
|
Posted - 2006.02.09 18:06:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Max Grief
Edited by: Max Grief on 09/02/2006 17:47:43
This is taken from our corp fourms, one of our pilots solution's was to limit Heavy Noss range to 17 km.
This allows tackeling friggets to maintain a 3km buffer on their target to hold them down via 1 point scramblers.
While allowing battleships a viable defence for targets that fly under their guns. Nos ammount remains the same.
What a rubbish idea.
Shhh!I'm busy thinking about complicated things you wont understand. |
Slaveabuser
|
Posted - 2006.02.09 18:54:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Admiral IceBlock
and as for smartbombs
Just for the record, I do hope you realized I was being sarcastic?
Skj°nner?
Shhh!I'm busy thinking about complicated things you wont understand. |
Slaveabuser
|
Posted - 2006.02.09 20:29:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Admiral IceBlock
Originally by: Slaveabuser
Originally by: Admiral IceBlock
and as for smartbombs
Just for the record, I do hope you realized I was being sarcastic?
Skj°nner?
pr°ver bare s fs fram ting ved s vµre crybaby
Bra taktikk, vil bare ikke at du skal misforsts meg :)
Shhh!I'm busy thinking about complicated things you wont understand. |
Slaveabuser
|
Posted - 2006.02.09 22:03:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Slaveabuser on 09/02/2006 22:03:37
Originally by: DigitalCommunist
2. Nosferatu is a weapon.
False!
Its an engineering module. A noseferatu is just as much a weapon as a remote sensor booster.
Quote:
Just because you failed to convince anybody of your stance who wasn't already convinced, it doesn't mean the thread got out of hand. It means you wish it got out of hand, so less people would read it and marvel at the sheer dominance of what an "obnoxiously logical" team Maya and I make (I think I just threw up a little).
To be a perosn that claims to be a 'veteran' in E-on you sure post alot of rubbish.
No pun intended.
Shhh!I'm busy thinking about complicated things you wont understand. |
Slaveabuser
|
Posted - 2006.02.09 22:42:00 -
[9]
Originally by: DigitalCommunist
*arguemment*
Ok, so basically what you want is to make sure a battle ship are unable to kill a frigate sized vessel unless its withing its optimal range?
Shhh!I'm busy thinking about complicated things you wont understand. |
| |
|