| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1942
   |
Posted - 2015.03.05 06:44:32 -
[1] - Quote
Neyko Turama wrote:
Of course you do. As you and the other CSM are just another expression of this pseudo democratic game CCP is playing. Letting the players think their ideas and or attemps would change ANYTHING. Please CCP shut down this thread or give us any proof you are actually caring about the lamenting in here.
You didn-Št tick me off. You amuse me.
The Laments are just that, Laments.
No matter what decision CCP made people were going to lament over some topic. CCP however have to make the call based on value judgements and balance arguments, not pure emotion.
So don't like it, work out how to refute CCP's case, which from my view is a very strong case. And do so without mixing in other issues which are unrelated to this particular change even if part of capital balance overall. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1949
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 21:46:01 -
[2] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
If you re-read the title, it was 38 "Amarr Militia" bombers. Additionally, if you check the fits (using meta launchers and faction torps) and the toons in question, they weren't "top of the line" bomber pilots and didn't have fantastic DPS. When people generally ping for "need bombers to kill capital", you're not going to go into the specifics of "ok, we only need 8 people", you take whoever joins fleet and undocks in a bomber. And as I mentioned, 1200 DPS Talos fleet is a valid option, and much easier to use than bombers. Or you can just get a Moros or two to mop up the carrier in a matter of seconds.
And if the player opts to sacrifice DPS for tank, then that's his prerogative. You can still force him to de-aggress and dock, which would be considered a "win".
Except for the small fact it isn't a win, it's at best a draw. And a 1200 DPS Talos fleet is not a valid option for a roaming gang. Nor are the Moros. Sure if you are specifically hunting a known skynetter you can do such things, but not if you are a random roaming gang. On the other hand if you are a random roaming gang and the carrier attempts to engage you at say.... the asteroid belt you chased the ratter to, you can tackle the carrier, concentrate on killing it's fighters off and then wear it down slowly. Without needing to play stupid station games. (Especially if the carrier fits for the max DPS/Tracking while on grid, which makes it a 0 tank target).
So the carrier having to be on grid to engage makes a massive difference to the ability of the gang to deal with the carrier compared to it being off grid skynetting. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1984
|
Posted - 2015.03.28 04:18:12 -
[3] - Quote
Antonia Iskarius wrote:
No, it doesn't work that way. We pay for this game, we get to have an opinion on how it works.
So does everyone else though.
And everyone else read the bragging about how broken assisting 50 fighters to an interceptor was even if it had to be on grid.
And the bragging about how the 50km POS bubble was easy to get around also.
And all the other bragging.
And so did CCP, hence why you didn't get assist as a replacement most likely.
Just take your carriers on grid, and launch fighters from 250km at stuff. Is it a nerf, Totally, sometimes nerfs are needed to things. And sometimes Nerfs are needed in one area before buffs can come in another. Because if you do both at once you can't see that the change has had its intended effect. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1986
|
Posted - 2015.03.29 21:36:14 -
[4] - Quote
Please explain why you can't carrier rat anymore? Or you mean you can't keep your carrier safely off grid while gaining more than normal DPS & tracking on fighters from a max DPS/Tracking fit?
Just take it on grid and rat with it. Still works.
CCP have not screwed your playstyle, you don't want to take the risk that should have always come with that play style.
Also your overhead has dropped since you can gate jump the carrier with a scout (Hey you have two accounts even) so moving it around no longer needs cyno's. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1987
|
Posted - 2015.03.30 20:03:47 -
[5] - Quote
Rroff wrote:
People do use fighters outside of skynet style "pvp" - assign and assist no longer work on grid or off grid with fighters which makes them pretty much useless in reality for much of what they were used for outside of skynet.
As I've pointed out though skynet itself is pretty bad when done properly and had to go it doesn't sit right with me though that such a long standing feature that people who use it will mostly be long term players who've spent quite awhile training and so on to use can be casually wiped away with the wave of a hand and a fake feedback thread.
Yes, because anything where the Devs don't agree with you is 'fake'....
Yea right, grow up.
If the entire community had been on board with your POV then you might have some ground to complain, but most people were not in favour of the assign, and a lot also weren't in favour of a simple 'Assist as if drone' mechanic either. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2024
|
Posted - 2015.04.09 23:44:45 -
[6] - Quote
The fact you have to make such a convoluted mechanic simply to even attempt to stop skynetting should be telling you things. Convoluted mechanics are bad. Mechanics that require being exactly x distance from things are also bad due to how fiddly they are, and the fact distance checks are not pretty on run time.
You also aren't considering the possibility that CCP wanted fighter assist for ratting to go as well. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2029
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 10:32:16 -
[7] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:XXXMina wrote:capitals, supers, and titans. you've done enough. 5 capital pilots in 5 accounts This gentlebeing has aptly defined the current tragedy in Eve. Divide 350k by five. http://eve-offline.net/?server=tranquility
Try dividing over 500k by about 2.4 and you get actual players I believe. Since CCP did release numbers saying that was the average number of accounts per person a couple of years back, and with recent changes to multiboxing I don't imagine that number has gone up at all. |
| |
|