| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
35187
   |
Posted - 2015.04.15 07:39:26 -
[1] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Carriers become the only platform able to fit Warfare links
so you're basically suggesting that warfare links become completely irrelevant for most scenarios and almost irrelevant for cap blob warfare? did I get it right?
there's a suggestion from yet another idiot who knows nothing about warfare links.
Critically Preposterous is recruiting! Join the fight!
I am a cat.
|
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
35228
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 10:55:39 -
[2] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:The cancer that is OGB would be reduced to manageable levels, while still giving any fleets deploying them very generous benefits under korrekt risk-reward metrics.
Pls no crying.
a few things are wrong in your post there. first of all:
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:The cancer that is OGB
you seem to have the wrong idea of what off grid boosts are. which, by the way, can be on-grid, it's just that it's better to have them away because then they would not be removed and your fleet doesn't lose them.
secondly:
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:reduced to manageable levels
the "levels" will never be "manageable" because those who can will use so many of them that they'll never be taken out of the picture, while small groups that do exist lose their ability to use warfare links, rendering them with less power, and therefore more vulnerable in situations where they would be able to fight a larger force if they stick to capable ships and appropriate tactics and strategies, something that is made easier with warfare links. they contribute to the fight of the few against the many, who, by the way, use warfare links as well. and with your suggestion such larger groups will be able to use warfare links while the smaller group cannot.
thirdly:
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Pls no crying.
The only one I see crying here is you. it looks to me like all you're saying is "herpderp warfare links derpherp remove them! NERFWARFARELINKS"
Critically Preposterous is recruiting! Join the fight!
I am a cat.
|
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
35228
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 10:58:50 -
[3] - Quote
Gremoxx wrote:Liafcipe9000 wrote:Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Carriers become the only platform able to fit Warfare links so you're basically suggesting that warfare links become completely irrelevant for most scenarios and almost irrelevant for cap blob warfare? did I get it right? there's a suggestion from yet another idiot who knows nothing about warfare links. Warfare links and Capitals needs to be like a chair missing a leg. If you don-Št put the right leg under it, it will wobble and fall.Like Incursions, you need have optimal fleet to gain maximize reward. So if you have too many Capitals and not enough sub-caps in your fleet, then you don-Št gain Max bonuses from Warfare links (could gain negative bonuses). Also, there needs to be direct gain from having Capital in fleet and on the field when they are in Fleet, Wing Command, or Squad positions. Increased fleet size or bonuses to Logistics, drones... range, tracking... !!! ???
do you even know what you're saying? your post makes negative sense and you're just spewing out the ideas of what seems to be a drunken man. there's highdeas dot com for that, go post there.
Critically Preposterous is recruiting! Join the fight!
I am a cat.
|
Liafcipe9000
Critically Preposterous
35228
|
Posted - 2015.04.15 11:01:37 -
[4] - Quote
Smegatron Achasse wrote:Allow supers to dock
WHOA.
WHOA.
whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa.
slow down.
Critically Preposterous is recruiting! Join the fight!
I am a cat.
|
| |
|