Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
5090
|
Posted - 2014.03.19 19:15:00 -
[241] - 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? |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
10447
|
Posted - 2014.03.19 19:15:00 -
[242] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:
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.
Battleships are not ment to be able to used as heavy tackle ships which is what they would be used for if they can lock cruisers in the times you want. There are other ships whose job that is.
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.
Adding a +1 to battleships would play all kinds of hell on the big fleets, they can already avoid long points as it is by fitting a mod in a valuable mid. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
5090
|
Posted - 2014.03.19 19:24:00 -
[243] - 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 -
[244] - 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? |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1888
|
Posted - 2014.03.19 19:35:00 -
[245] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:
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.
Battleships are not ment to be able to used as heavy tackle ships which is what they would be used for if they can lock cruisers in the times you want. There are other ships whose job that is. 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. Adding a +1 to battleships would play all kinds of hell on the big fleets, they can already avoid long points as it is by fitting a mod in a valuable mid. lmao. Yeah because currently BC are used as heavy tackle ships right. You know the last time a command ship tried to tackle me for its gang was... never.... Complete nonsense. We already have heavy tackle and they're HIC's, they lock a hell of a lot faster than a BC and they're better tanks.
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.
I don't care about big fleets. If you're in a big fleet and you're incapable of tackling a battleship you have more to worry about than an extra +1 warp str.
Want to make billions a week solo running combat sites in null sec? -á Read my Exploratation Guide here -> https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=309467 |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
5091
|
Posted - 2014.03.19 19:39:00 -
[246] - 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.
|
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
10448
|
Posted - 2014.03.19 19:42:00 -
[247] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote: lmao. Yeah because currently BC are used as heavy tackle ships right. You know the last time a command ship tried to tackle me for its gang was... never.... Complete nonsense. We already have heavy tackle and they're HIC's, they lock a hell of a lot faster than a BC and they're better tanks.
The HIC is what I was getting on about. In order to catch cruisers before they can warp most of the time you need cruiser locking speeds, this puts BS in the same grouping as the ships built for heavy tackle.
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.
My Harpy fit mega warps slightly faster than the rest of the frigate fleet, No current fleets used by anyone make use of warp speed implants or rigs, with your idea you could get BS to warp as fast as cruisers rather easily and it would be used. Cruiser fleets cant afford to lose a rig as it eats too much into their tank.
Infinity Ziona wrote: I don't care about big fleets. If you're in a big fleet and you're incapable of tackling a battleship you have more to worry about than an extra +1 warp str.
It doesn't matter if you don't care about fleets, This would impact the hundred thousand others who would care about big fleets. This is a fine example of what Jenn just said about you only wanting what is best for you. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
4455
|
Posted - 2014.03.19 19:46:00 -
[248] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote: 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).
Well, keeping on the topic here, how we equip our ships has more to do with "encroaching" on the role of the hull. Like I previously stated, the only real roles to be expected of the ships is in regards to empire-oriented fleet doctrines which are completely blown apart when a capsuleer pilots it. Take any hull and you'll see all kinds of "versions" for it created by the players. When wormholes were introduced the sleepers represented new challenges and in a year there were common wormhole fittings. When Incursion came, many a mission ship was lost that day but in a year specific incursion fittings evolved. Every hull has a PVP and PVe fit.
Does anybody complain when a T1 frigate with no scram bonus is set up for cheap tackle? Drakes: HM drakes tend to be found in missions and HML drakes were, before the nerf, good for the gank. A missile ship with shield bonus can... speed tank?
Does anybody complain when you find a solo corax on a nullsec gate? Dessies are almost cardboard.
What about stealth bombers? Hard to get a solo kill with one - they were designed to be used in groups (considering how bombs resist their own damage types - further implying that you have to use identical hulls of bombers in your bomber groups!) yet there are a lot of solo hunters out there. Are they encroaching?
I used to use a Cyclone for nullsec exploration and got into situations where nobody would expect to survive, and survived (though not always with loot).
To make matters more confused, we can rig our ships, further pushing them towards "encroachment".
Jenn aSide wrote: 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.
Why would you fly the Brutix? Maybe because it's cheaper. Maybe you don't have or were not skilled to take advantage of a BS drone capability. Maybe you want to do more hit and run. I can think of many reasons.
But in the spectrum of reasons for ship choices, and the point of this thread, solo PVP is one of the activities where it's being pointed out that battleships are having the hardest time "encroaching' on.
If I recall properly, it was speed-tanking missile ships - drakes for example - that were being granted the title of "solopwnmobile". Bring back DEEEEP Space! |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1888
|
Posted - 2014.03.19 20:03:00 -
[249] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote: lmao. Yeah because currently BC are used as heavy tackle ships right. You know the last time a command ship tried to tackle me for its gang was... never.... Complete nonsense. We already have heavy tackle and they're HIC's, they lock a hell of a lot faster than a BC and they're better tanks.
The HIC is what I was getting on about. In order to catch cruisers before they can warp most of the time you need cruiser locking speeds, this puts BS in the same grouping as the ships built for heavy tackle. 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.
My Harpy fit mega warps slightly faster than the rest of the frigate fleet, No current fleets used by anyone make use of warp speed implants or rigs, with your idea you could get BS to warp as fast as cruisers rather easily and it would be used. Cruiser fleets cant afford to lose a rig as it eats too much into their tank. Infinity Ziona wrote: I don't care about big fleets. If you're in a big fleet and you're incapable of tackling a battleship you have more to worry about than an extra +1 warp str.
It doesn't matter if you don't care about fleets, This would impact the hundred thousand others who would care about big fleets. This is a fine example of what Jenn just said about you only wanting what is best for you. You're not making sense Baltec.
Even if batleships were given 200mm, which is 50mm less than a BC they still would not be used for tackling anything other than caps which they can currently tackle anyway.
A HIC or a T3 is always going to be superior because of their small sig, high speed, high EHP and fast lock times. A BS with a sensor booster even at 200mm will only get 120mm from the sebo to 320mm. Less than a cruiser with no sebo so the argument is fallacy. That's discounting the HIC's infinite point.
There is nothing wrong with battleships being able to warp as fast as the rest of the fleet. They still won't keep up because they have double the align time.
Jenn has no idea what its talking about. Its simply parroting your line which is completely incorrect. Want to make billions a week solo running combat sites in null sec? -á Read my Exploratation Guide here -> https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=309467 |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
10448
|
Posted - 2014.03.19 20:10:00 -
[250] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote: You're not making sense Baltec.
Even if batleships were given 200mm, which is 50mm less than a BC they still would not be used for tackling anything other than caps which they can currently tackle anyway.
A HIC or a T3 is always going to be superior because of their small sig, high speed, high EHP and fast lock times. A BS with a sensor booster even at 200mm will only get 120mm from the sebo to 320mm. Less than a cruiser with no sebo so the argument is fallacy. That's discounting the HIC's infinite point.
There is nothing wrong with battleships being able to warp as fast as the rest of the fleet. They still won't keep up because they have double the align time.
Jenn has no idea what its talking about. Its simply parroting your line which is completely incorrect.
Battleships were already used as heavy tackle in the past, CCP gave us the HICs to fill that role. According to what you want, a BS that will lock a cruiser before it can flee would mean it would need the locking time of a cruiser.
BS are also more than able to keep up with frigate fleets when aligning, I have been doing it for years.
No its not incorrect, give battleships +1 and you will reduce the effectiveness of the enemy spreading points to stop an enemy fleet from warping by at the very least 50%. You comment of you not caring about fleets also provided evidence that Jenns comment on you not caring about others and only yourself was true. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
|
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1889
|
Posted - 2014.03.19 20:20:00 -
[251] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote: You're not making sense Baltec.
Even if batleships were given 200mm, which is 50mm less than a BC they still would not be used for tackling anything other than caps which they can currently tackle anyway.
A HIC or a T3 is always going to be superior because of their small sig, high speed, high EHP and fast lock times. A BS with a sensor booster even at 200mm will only get 120mm from the sebo to 320mm. Less than a cruiser with no sebo so the argument is fallacy. That's discounting the HIC's infinite point.
There is nothing wrong with battleships being able to warp as fast as the rest of the fleet. They still won't keep up because they have double the align time.
Jenn has no idea what its talking about. Its simply parroting your line which is completely incorrect.
Battleships were already used as heavy tackle in the past, CCP gave us the HICs to fill that role. According to what you want, a BS that will lock a cruiser before it can flee would mean it would need the locking time of a cruiser. BS are also more than able to keep up with frigate fleets when aligning, I have been doing it for years. No its not incorrect, give battleships +1 and you will reduce the effectiveness of the enemy spreading points to stop an enemy fleet from warping by at the very least 50%. You comment of you not caring about fleets also provided evidence that Jenns comment on you not caring about others and only yourself was true. Battleships would never be used as heavy tackle with 200mm base scan res because there are better options in the cruiser class with much higher locking times.
200mm is not the locking time of a cruiser. Its less then the locking time of a battlecruiser. You don't need the scan res of a cruiser to lock a cruiser before it can warp out you need the locking time of a battlecruiser which is more than I'm proposing.
I don't care about your fleets because only a very small proportion of people engage in fleet warfare and there are lots of options available for fleets to tackle with. Pretending you couldn't scram a +2 battleship is just terrible. If you guys have trouble putting 3 points on a battleship then its not the game mechanics that are to blame. There are plenty of +3 scrams now and there are long range HICS, Arazu, bubbles, dictors.... Want to make billions a week solo running combat sites in null sec? -á Read my Exploratation Guide here -> https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=309467 |
Marsha Mallow
143
|
Posted - 2014.03.19 20:25:00 -
[252] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote: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. If you want to solo in a BS, here's some suggestions - Officer fit it. Link the fit in local. Howl abuse. Undock, redock, wait until they drift away if it's a blob then pick them off one at a time. Takes skill and patience, and inventive smack. This is why the Mack is so popular, because it's quite literally a whale. You don't actually need to officer fit either, just lie. - Offer 1v1s, promise to bring a BC or lower, take a BS. <- You said you wanted nonconsensual - Use a cloaky scout alt. <- Still solo play unless you use it in the fight - Fit a cloak! It's a terrible thing to do (I used to do it all the time so I could hide from corpies threatening to gank me). As long as you don't die, no one will know >.> - Use a carrier to jump stuff about and bypass bubbles/camps. - Get yourself a titan and bridge yourself onto stuff. - Use bubbles. And maybe a POS. Ohh and bookmarks. And cloaky scouts. You better be noting some of this down. - Dec carebear corps in empire.
There are some unicorn like stories about people roaming in BS for weeks. Thing is most of the time those people are either exceptionally good or using an army of alts, and depending on where you are sometimes its simply hard to catch people on their own who can't call for help. If you refuse to do those things, please don't ask for gameplay buffs. Just don't. Nobody has to solo you either. If you're really annoying, chances are everyone will want to group hug you. It's your own fault.
Your proposal is to overpower solo gameplay just because you can't work any of that out, don't understand how larger groups would abuse it and don't care. Newsflash: if BS are unbalanced other people will use the mechanics to kill you too. - |
baltec1
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
10448
|
Posted - 2014.03.19 20:29:00 -
[253] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote: Battleships would never be used as heavy tackle with 200mm base scan res because there are better options in the cruiser class with much higher locking times.
Cruisers back then would squish very easily, there was no such thing as a heavy cruiser.
Infinity Ziona wrote: 200mm is not the locking time of a cruiser. Its less then the locking time of a battlecruiser. You don't need the scan res of a cruiser to lock a cruiser before it can warp out you need the locking time of a battlecruiser which is more than I'm proposing.
Those times you put down for a cruiser to align and warp are not the times you will find in game.
Infinity Ziona wrote: I don't care about your fleets because only a very small proportion of people engage in fleet warfare and there are lots of options available for fleets to tackle with. Pretending you couldn't scram a +2 battleship is just terrible. If you guys have trouble putting 3 points on a battleship then its not the game mechanics that are to blame. There are plenty of +3 scrams now and there are long range HICS, Arazu, bubbles, dictors....
And this just shows how little you know about fleet fights. Right now its one point per ship, now double the points needed on each ship, now triple it. Your idea would have a massive impact on fleet fights and would make BS fleets much harder to pin down. But you don't care about the group of players who engage in the most PVP by far. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1890
|
Posted - 2014.03.19 20:38:00 -
[254] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote: Battleships would never be used as heavy tackle with 200mm base scan res because there are better options in the cruiser class with much higher locking times.
Cruisers back then would squish very easily, there was no such thing as a heavy cruiser. Infinity Ziona wrote: 200mm is not the locking time of a cruiser. Its less then the locking time of a battlecruiser. You don't need the scan res of a cruiser to lock a cruiser before it can warp out you need the locking time of a battlecruiser which is more than I'm proposing.
Those times you put down for a cruiser to align and warp are not the times you will find in game. Infinity Ziona wrote: I don't care about your fleets because only a very small proportion of people engage in fleet warfare and there are lots of options available for fleets to tackle with. Pretending you couldn't scram a +2 battleship is just terrible. If you guys have trouble putting 3 points on a battleship then its not the game mechanics that are to blame. There are plenty of +3 scrams now and there are long range HICS, Arazu, bubbles, dictors....
And this just shows how little you know about fleet fights. Right now its one point per ship, now double the points needed on each ship, now triple it. Your idea would have a massive impact on fleet fights and would make BS fleets much harder to pin down. But you don't care about the group of players who engage in the most PVP by far. I have no idea what your first comment is about...
The times I put down are spot on.
I don't care about the small amount of people who very rarely get into blobby consensual pvp against each other. This is not a consensual pvp game.
Right now doesn't matter, its been proven time and time again over the years, EVE changes and people have to adapt, I adapted by not using battleships anymore, I'm sure you could adapt too. You may have to use more points... Want to make billions a week solo running combat sites in null sec? -á Read my Exploratation Guide here -> https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=309467 |
Clementina
Coreli Corporation
152
|
Posted - 2014.03.19 21:27:00 -
[255] - Quote
The first use of the phrase "solo pwnmobile" was in 2005 In a response by the developer Oveur to a player requesting cruiser and frigate sized weapons for their battleship. You can see the thread and the response Here.
Basically battleships intentionally have weaknesses to smaller vessels. This has been CCP philosophy for 8.5 years as of this posting. |
Markku Laaksonen
EVE University Ivy League
398
|
Posted - 2014.03.19 21:42:00 -
[256] - Quote
Clementina wrote:The first use of the phrase "solo pwnmobile" was in 2005 In a response by the developer Oveur to a player requesting cruiser and frigate sized weapons for their battleship. You can see the thread and the response Here. Basically battleships intentionally have weaknesses to smaller vessels. This has been CCP philosophy for 8.5 years as of this posting.
Dev post said to fly with a friend. I was supposed to have friends as far back as 2005?! DUST 514 Recruit Code - https://dust514.com/recruit/zluCyb/
EVE Buddy Invite - https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=047203f1-4124-42a1-b36f-39ca8ae5d6e2&action=buddy
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
3212
|
Posted - 2014.03.19 21:50:00 -
[257] - Quote
So... reading the last several pages here. It's good to see you finally admit that you're an EFT warrior, Infinity. It explains so very much. Not posting on my main, and loving it.-á Because free speech.-á
Psychotic Monk for CSM9.
|
Arthur Aihaken
Arsenite
3097
|
Posted - 2014.03.19 22:10:00 -
[258] - Quote
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:The Rapid Launchers were nerfed into oblivion and some potentially interesting fits for BC and BS and new situations around those fits were snatched away, like a hot tub dream ending just at the point something starts to happen. Sadly, yes... Added to this is the fact that none of the battlecruiser and only a handful of battleship hulls bonus rapid light and rapid heavy launchers. I did have an interesting solo skirmish in a Raven not that long ago against a Harbinger, Rupture, Caracal, Jaguar, Dragoon, Corax and Kestrel. I managed to take out the Harbinger, Dragoon and Corax - but it was 7:1. Much fun was had by all - especially me (even though I lost). If I'd had original proposed rapid heavy launchers and some of the changes we're talking about it would've been a lot closer (or I'd have had the option to extricate myself). I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Arthur Aihaken
Arsenite
3097
|
Posted - 2014.03.19 22:13:00 -
[259] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote: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. I couldn't disagree more with everything you've said. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1891
|
Posted - 2014.03.20 10:58:00 -
[260] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Jenn aSide wrote: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. I couldn't disagree more with everything you've said. Yeah I agree with you.
Basically no one has provided a good reason why one class of subcapital out of all the numerous subcapitals in the game should be incapable of engaging in PvP solo or roaming with small gangs.
The arguments put forward, that battleships should only be used or that CCP intended that they only be used for fleet activities has no reasonable explanation and does not gel with the story of battleships in EvE's history.
There is also no explanation of why if "battleships should only be used for fleet work", CCP implemented Marauders and Blops which are primarily used, and used with great effect in solo and small gang pwnage.
The primary question I would ask for those detractors to answer is why battleships should not be used in solo small gang when there are significantly more powerful ships, both generic (T3) and specifically designed for fleet work ships (curse, pilgrim, rapier) that are used on a daily basis for solo and small gang work. Want to make billions a week solo running combat sites in null sec? -á Read my Exploratation Guide here -> https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=309467 |
|
Kyperion
115
|
Posted - 2014.03.20 11:11:00 -
[261] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Jenn aSide wrote: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. I couldn't disagree more with everything you've said. Yeah I agree with you. Basically no one has provided a good reason why one class of subcapital out of all the numerous subcapitals in the game should be incapable of engaging in PvP solo or roaming with small gangs. The arguments put forward, that battleships should only be used or that CCP intended that they only be used for fleet activities has no reasonable explanation and does not gel with the story of battleships in EvE's history. There is also no explanation of why if "battleships should only be used for fleet work", CCP implemented Marauders and Blops which are primarily used, and used with great effect in solo and small gang pwnage. The primary question I would ask for those detractors to answer is why battleships should not be used in solo small gang when there are significantly more powerful ships, both generic (T3) and specifically designed for fleet work ships (curse, pilgrim, rapier) that are used on a daily basis for solo and small gang work.
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. |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1891
|
Posted - 2014.03.20 11:21:00 -
[262] - Quote
Kyperion wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Jenn aSide wrote: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. I couldn't disagree more with everything you've said. Yeah I agree with you. Basically no one has provided a good reason why one class of subcapital out of all the numerous subcapitals in the game should be incapable of engaging in PvP solo or roaming with small gangs. The arguments put forward, that battleships should only be used or that CCP intended that they only be used for fleet activities has no reasonable explanation and does not gel with the story of battleships in EvE's history. There is also no explanation of why if "battleships should only be used for fleet work", CCP implemented Marauders and Blops which are primarily used, and used with great effect in solo and small gang pwnage. The primary question I would ask for those detractors to answer is why battleships should not be used in solo small gang when there are significantly more powerful ships, both generic (T3) and specifically designed for fleet work ships (curse, pilgrim, rapier) that are used on a daily basis for solo and small gang work. 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. Yeah I agree. Cyno gens essentially turn any ship in EvE into a highly agile potentially covert ops carrier but with a potential to hold 250+ ships in its hanger bay and deploy them faster than it takes to warp from a safespot. I miss the fights we used to have in low and null where you were able to engage more often and more confidently the ships in local. There were more and better fights. Want to make billions a week solo running combat sites in null sec? -á Read my Exploratation Guide here -> https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=309467 |
cpt Mark
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2014.03.20 11:22:00 -
[263] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Cruisers yes. That is a common solo PvP class of shop.
Above that less so but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I would say cruiser solo PvP is more common that destroyer solo PvP, but don't have figures to back that up.
get that scam site out your signature
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
3229
|
Posted - 2014.03.20 11:51:00 -
[264] - Quote
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. Not posting on my main, and loving it.-á Because free speech.-á
Psychotic Monk for CSM9.
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari End of Life
703
|
Posted - 2014.03.20 11:54:00 -
[265] - Quote
cpt Mark wrote:get that scam site out your signature
Ho hum. It's not a scam site in my experience. YMMV. eve-bazaar - Discount prices on ships and PLEX. Real savings to drive your ISK further. |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1891
|
Posted - 2014.03.20 12:05:00 -
[266] - 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. Or they could balance cynos.
If anyone suggest a covert ops frigate or cruiser that had a ship hanger capable of holding up to 250 titans + it's pilots cloaked in local which it could deploy instantly on top of a target it would be shot down as game breaking.
That's essentially what a cyno does for a ship, turn it into the most uber carrier in the game for a fuel cost of 500k isk and less CPU and power grid than an improved cloak.
This is why in my area we have had up to 7 cloaking cynos at once in surrounding systems and BLOP's x5 to x7 dropping on stuff as stupid as a cheetah.
There is such a thing as too easy, too imbalanced and totally broken. Want to make billions a week solo running combat sites in null sec? -á Read my Exploratation Guide here -> https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=309467 |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
3229
|
Posted - 2014.03.20 12:12:00 -
[267] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote: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. Or they could balance cynos. If anyone suggest a covert ops frigate or cruiser that had a ship hanger capable of holding up to 250 titans + it's pilots cloaked in local which it could deploy instantly on top of a target it would be shot down as game breaking. That's essentially what a cyno does for a ship, turn it into the most uber carrier in the game for a fuel cost of 500k isk and less CPU and power grid than an improved cloak. This is why in my area we have had up to 7 cloaking cynos at once in surrounding systems and BLOP's x5 to x7 dropping on stuff as stupid as a cheetah. There is such a thing as too easy, too imbalanced and totally broken.
Cynos are fine, you just don't have any friends. That's your only real complaint, that other people have more blues than you.
Grr, Goons.
My point still stands. What you want out of nullsec, is actually wormhole space. Not posting on my main, and loving it.-á Because free speech.-á
Psychotic Monk for CSM9.
|
Agamemna Sheridan
Eversion Industries
3
|
Posted - 2014.03.20 12:38:00 -
[268] - Quote
Dont nail me on this. Im not that mutch pvp experianced.
I find its completely ok for a BS to be unable to kill a frig and for a single frig to be unable to kill a BS.
However, while the frig can evade the BS, the BS can not evade the frig. Even the BS pilot took the risk of taking out a mutch more expensive ship, he can be held down by a single ship worth a fraction of his own.
I think they would need to find a solution for this.
Maybe by splitting up the points/scrams and webs into Small, Medium and Large. Each most effective in their own "weight class" but mutch less effective against larger ships (due to mass) or against smaller ships (due to sig radius). Just like weapons are.
That would also give the oportunity to have individual ranges for the different type ranges like 30km for a BS web, 20km for a cruser Web and 10km for a frig web (just random numbers)
But I cant tell if this would break everything or would actually work.
Just my 2 cents. |
Ralph King-Griffin
Var Foundation inc.
400
|
Posted - 2014.03.20 14:35:00 -
[269] - Quote
been a good read, Imo battleships are fine
and Marauders are Soooooo battleships, the same as strategic cruisers are in fact, as the name implies , cruisers If in doubt...do...excessively. |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
5096
|
Posted - 2014.03.20 15:15:00 -
[270] - 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). |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |