| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific
Initiative Mercenaries
5088
   |
Posted - 2014.03.19 13:32:00 -
[1] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Medalyn Isis wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:A fool of myself? When it comes to a test of battleship knowledge between Infinity and some random 2012 FW fweddit scrub, I think most people will listen to Infinity. (except for obvious goonswarm proponents with an axe to grind) The fact that you ask if he has even played the game is amusing in the highest and makes you look a complete fool. I suggest you stick to FW. You missed the part where this is a forum alt. Nice job with my corp history though, I'm totally impressed that you can rightclick my portrait and still miss my sig. I do find it rather amusing that you believe that old IZ has any credibility left in regards to fitting and ship knowledge, though. Especially considering the whole Shield Tanked Proteus episode, and all. Nevermind the literal bevy of other stupid **** he says.
Or (as I linked in a previous thread) a "10 year player" as he claims that very recently had to ask someone what damage type Serpentis did so he could figure out how to tank them lol.
|
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific
Initiative Mercenaries
5089
|
Posted - 2014.03.19 16:08:00 -
[2] - Quote
https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Item_Database:Ships:Battleships:Advanced_Battleships:Marauders
Quote:Marauders are tech II battleships specifically designed to aid in various types of npc-hunting without becoming overpowered in pvp.
http://www.eve-wiki.net/index.php?title=Marauders
Quote:Marauders are Tech 2 Battleships, introduced in the Trinity Expansion.
http://eve.wikia.com/wiki/Trinity (this is a word for word reprint of CCPs Trinity Announcement page)
Quote:Marauders are heavy battleships focusing primarily on attrition and deployment for longer periods of time.
How dare CCP call their Marauders "heavy battleships" when clearly they are not according to our more knowledgeable (and smart, wealthy and very attractive to women) EFT loving forum warriors?
Man, I bet CCP thought they could fool us into thinking Marauders were BS class ships by giving them BATTLESHIP hulls and BATTLESHIP stats and giving pilots bonuses based on the (wait for it.....) racial BATTLESHIP skills.
Next thing they'll say is my Machariel is a battleship...when it's clearly a Carrier sized Cruiser lol.
/Sarcasm |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific
Initiative Mercenaries
5089
|
Posted - 2014.03.19 16:24:00 -
[3] - Quote
Benny Ohu wrote:
we don't like your kind around here
I totally read that in "Deliverance" voice :) . |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific
Initiative Mercenaries
5089
|
Posted - 2014.03.19 18:10:00 -
[4] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:IMO they should be difficult to use but they should not be totally nerfed from the PvP game other than for large Goon fleet fights. Its a waste of a ship that is famous for being a heavyweight fighter and I think a lot of people would get a lot of pleasure from using them if they were viable in PvP. I couldn't agree more. As has been previously discussed: GÇó Give them all a base warp core strength such that they're not at risk of tackle from a single ship, ie: +2-3 GÇó Increase their warp speed (but not warp acceleration speed) to that of a cruiser, ie: 3.0 AU/s GÇó Increase both their sensor strength (higher EW immunity) and scan resolution Sounds good. I have no idea why there is so much resistance to it lol.
Because Battleships were changed for a reason (lol, just like Timers and everything else you think should be changed because you do't personally like it), to kill of the pre-2007 "solopwnmobiles". That's where the term solopwnmobile comes from IMO.
Battleships are perfect for their roles (Core Fleet Combat ships0 without overstepping the roles of smaller ships. As it should be, as CCP made it in 2007 after years of "make it to where you can fly and afford a BS, forget everything else..
The resistance to what you want comes from people not being short sighted and selfish about the needs of the game. Making Battleships in any way better for "solo" work (thus encroaching on smaller ships roles) is bad for the game. Any change to battleship class ships should be aimed at making them better Fleet ships. Period.
The only thing a Battleship should be able to solo is a single other player battleship....or a lvl 4 mission.
|
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific
Initiative Mercenaries
5089
|
Posted - 2014.03.19 18:31:00 -
[5] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Rubbish. You have no idea what you're talking about. Please link the patch notes or dev blog where it says these things.... you can't because they don't exist.
Nor do they need to. It's common sense and can be seen in CCPs design choices (same with carriers when Fighters were changed in 2009).
That's always been you problem. You want something to be a certain way (local, cloaks, timers, Battleships , whatever other personal preference) and ignore every reason why it should not be that way. you can separate your personal wants from the realities of the situation, leading you constantly to argue with people about why things exist the way they do. Baltec (for example) is also a Battleship PVPr and don't seem to have the same problems you seem to with how battleships are.
You want Battleships to be better at soloing because you like to solo and want to do so in battleships. While you are entitled to want whatever you want, his is not a valid reason for change. Wiser people understand that the current battleship class meta is fine and appropriate for a game with multiple ship classes (the developers want to minimize overlap also).
You can keep whining about it (and everything else you cry about constantly, you really should have kept that 2009 promise to biomass), but the truth is that your problem is simply your selfish and narrow perceptions, not any problem with the game or it's balance/mechanics.
|
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific
Initiative Mercenaries
5090
|
Posted - 2014.03.19 19:15:00 -
[6] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:
More nonesense. I interpret "It's common sense and can be seen in CCPs design choices" as "I have no evidence or anything to support my statement of fact".
The rest of your post is just more personal attacks and more rubbish. Next.
This is the traditional Iz cop out and it's pitiful. How about you link some evidence that we can talk about? |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific
Initiative Mercenaries
5090
|
Posted - 2014.03.19 19:24:00 -
[7] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:Whether a ship is called a Battleship or a Proteus, or a Marauder or even an Ibis, its the capability of the ship that is important, not its name. To surmise that the name Battleship implies a certain solopwnmobile ability is really quite silly. Blops and Marauders are T2 equivalents of battleships and they're arguably very overpowered in what they're capable of.
Likewise the Proteus is capable of putting out 700dps covert ops cloaked, has a battleship tank, cruiser sig and speed.
A Stratios can manage 900 dps and its a cruiser.
As you saw in the vid if you watched it a Marauder can take on tens of ships solo and win.
The dev's stopped caring about solopwnmobiles years ago. What I think I and many other people want is not a solopwnmobile battleship but a battleship that can force an engagement, that doesn't have to only engage in consensual pvp. If we wanted consensual pvp we would play alliance wars and all turn up at the allotted hour in our alliance leader approved ships.
Increasing lock times to a level that is still below battlecruisers but allows a battleship to force an engagement would hardly result in a solopwnmobile.
Increasing warp speeds so that battleships could keep up with a gang would hardly result in solopwnmobiles.
Adding +1 warp core strength would hardly result in solopwnmobiles.
Implying that those changes would result in solopwnmobiles simply exposes you as a troll, and a poor one at that.
This is an example of a person not understanding that their idea could be wrong. It's magnified by the fact that the poster doesn't understand that what he wants would actually be bad for the game in general (mainly because it would allow one class of ship to encroach on the teritory of multiple other classes).
There is just no reason for it other than "Infinity ziona wants to be better able to solo in a battleship". it adds nothing to the game while taking away from it .
The an example would be "why would I fly this Brutix when I can just slap a sebo on a mega and lock faster, warp almost as fast AND have more EHP, range and DPS". Because that's what would happen if Infinity Zinoa was a short-sighted Developer instead of just a short sighted forum poster lol.
You can think "trolling" all you like, mainly because that's the fall back of every poster who has a bad idea about something and would rather accuse someone of trolling rather than do any bit of self-examination.
But I'm telling you the truth, what you want for battleships (and basically every other selfish thing you want ) would be bad for the game. Smart people do not and will not support it and I don't think for one second that CCP would be foolish enough to ever implement any of it.
|
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific
Initiative Mercenaries
5090
|
Posted - 2014.03.19 19:33:00 -
[8] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
I can already get a battleship to warp as fast as assualt frigates, make them faster and it will be even easier to out warp the other ships. This means you can land battleship fleets in the same time as cruisers and not sacrifice very much if anything.
This is a very important point. The problem with many Solo pvp posters is that their perspective is so narrow they don't understand (or care about) what the changes they want would do to other aspects of the game/meta.
Battleship class ships (with the possible exception of Marauders) are balanced by CCP with fleet warfare in mind, because they are fleet ships. Changes that would make them viable for Solo/small gang fights would make them overpowered (comepared to small ship fleet compositions) in fleet fights. Why use AHACs (I miss ahac fleets btw) when you could not make an "AbaddonHAC" fleet comp of resist bonused insurable ships that warps almost as fast, has more EHP, range and DPS ect ect? |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific
Initiative Mercenaries
5091
|
Posted - 2014.03.19 19:39:00 -
[9] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:
You cannot get a BS to warp as fast as an assault frigate. Base speed of a battleship is 2au. Base speed of an assault frigate is 5.5. With implants and rigs base speed of a battleship is 5au while the frig is 13au.
LOL, so busy EFT warrioring he doesn't understand that Baltec was talking about getting a BS close to stock AF warp speed, not "13au" lol
Quote:
I don't care about big fleets.
Thank you for demonstrating exactly what I was talking about. A narrow and selfish perspective, one I'm glad this games makers don't share. You want only what you want and screw who it negatively affects.
This is why your ideas always get invalidated when examined by your gaming peers (us). You are you own worst enemy.
|
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific
Initiative Mercenaries
5096
|
Posted - 2014.03.20 15:15:00 -
[10] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Kyperion wrote:
Really the whole game needs a rebalance toward solo and small group (2-4 man) fights. Probably should scale back the ease of escalation a little bit.
The increased subscription numbers alone since the game's launch are a big part of why "small group" fights have died off. Because there literally are more people living in each area now. And since this is a single shard game with hands off player interspersement, that basically means that it's on you to find fights of a size you agree with. Oh, and btw, for anyone who really wants life without cynos, go live in a wormhole, that's what it's for. If you have such an issue with power projection, then that's the space you should be in.
There goes Kaarous again, offering solutions to someone who doesn't want solutuions, but rather wants CCP to manipulte the game in such a way that ensures he wins. Because thats what's at the heart of everything Infiinty Ziona posts, I noticed that the very 1st time he posted about wanting local nerfed because local prevented him from sneaking up on people (his words). |
| |
|