| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
6686
   |
Posted - 2015.06.08 19:51:47 -
[31] - Quote
Quote:Shanq Myteia masterminded the whole operation, nine months of sleuthing and spying coming to an electric conclusion as, within minutes, the coveted ship was reduced to smouldering wreckage.
9 months.
For a kill.
Bring back DEEEEP Space!
|
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Origin.
Black Legion.
2312
|
Posted - 2015.06.08 19:58:51 -
[32] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:Here's a question, why do mining links project outside of POS force fields yet combat links do not?
(silence..sound of crickets...) From CCP Fozzie's Fanfest 2014 presentation I linked above: CCP Fozzie wrote:Its always a ship that has kind of languished as its got the bonuses for tractor beams, but then you never put it in a belt, because that would be silly.
Its got the gang link bonuses, but it kind of also needs to be inside a force field, which is why we gave the mining links the exception when we removed all gang links from force fields.
Bottom line for me is that if something is going to exert a beneficial force on either the battlefield or a belt, it should be exposed to risk. Today a warfare link ship cannot exert links outside a forcefield, so then neither should mining links, PERIOD.
If you are going to argue a ship should be able to exert mining links from behind a POS forcefield, then I demand so too should warfare links 'because fairness'.
Again, either mining links must come outside the POS forcefield to work, or you also have to make warfare links work from within one -- you can't give candy to one playstyle while giving the middle finger to another 'because'.
F
Would you like to know more?
|
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
4961
|
Posted - 2015.06.08 20:05:32 -
[33] - Quote
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:Tau Cabalander wrote:Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:Here's a question, why do mining links project outside of POS force fields yet combat links do not?
(silence..sound of crickets...) From CCP Fozzie's Fanfest 2014 presentation I linked above: CCP Fozzie wrote:Its always a ship that has kind of languished as its got the bonuses for tractor beams, but then you never put it in a belt, because that would be silly.
Its got the gang link bonuses, but it kind of also needs to be inside a force field, which is why we gave the mining links the exception when we removed all gang links from force fields. Bottom line for me is that if something is going to exert a beneficial force on either the battlefield or a belt, it should be exposed to risk. Today a warfare link ship cannot exert links outside a forcefield, so then neither should mining links, PERIOD. If you are going to argue a ship should be able to exert mining links from behind a POS forcefield, then I demand so too should warfare links 'because fairness'. Again, either mining links must come outside the POS forcefield to work, or you also have to make warfare links work from within one -- you can't give candy to one playstyle while giving the middle finger to another 'because'. F
You seem to be missing the point: the Rorqual is broken, so CCP made a temporary kludge for mining links until the Rorqual can be fixed. |
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Origin.
Black Legion.
2312
|
Posted - 2015.06.08 20:15:21 -
[34] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:Tau Cabalander wrote:Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:Here's a question, why do mining links project outside of POS force fields yet combat links do not?
(silence..sound of crickets...) From CCP Fozzie's Fanfest 2014 presentation I linked above: CCP Fozzie wrote:Its always a ship that has kind of languished as its got the bonuses for tractor beams, but then you never put it in a belt, because that would be silly.
Its got the gang link bonuses, but it kind of also needs to be inside a force field, which is why we gave the mining links the exception when we removed all gang links from force fields. Bottom line for me is that if something is going to exert a beneficial force on either the battlefield or a belt, it should be exposed to risk. Today a warfare link ship cannot exert links outside a forcefield, so then neither should mining links, PERIOD. If you are going to argue a ship should be able to exert mining links from behind a POS forcefield, then I demand so too should warfare links 'because fairness'. Again, either mining links must come outside the POS forcefield to work, or you also have to make warfare links work from within one -- you can't give candy to one playstyle while giving the middle finger to another 'because'. F You seem to be missing the point: the Rorqual is broken, so CCP made a temporary kludge for mining links until the Rorqual can be fixed.
You're missing the point, rationalizations for an imbalanced 'temporary' (yeah right) hack are meaningless to me, when at the same time warfare links could have been also made to also 'temporarily' work from outside a POS force field. They weren't, so now we have a risk/reward imbalance based on dev exscuses of 'coding is hard?'...
One more time...
Either a) mining links must come outside the POS forcefield to work, or b) warfare links immediately 'temporarily' made to work from within them to restore overall game balance and not give risk-free candy to one playstyle while giving the middle finger to another 'because coding hard'.
p.s.
Don't even think about forcing warfare-links on-grid, without selfsame making mining-links on-grid to work CCP.
p.p.s.
Why is it that 'magically' all these code imbalances seem to keep landing on the benefit-the-carebears side of the equation? Its a mystery to be sure..all rationalizations aside....
WE ARE WATCHING.
F
Would you like to know more?
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
1651
|
Posted - 2015.06.08 23:44:17 -
[35] - Quote
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:... it should be exposed to risk. ... F Besides spending nine months figuring out that you can start a mining fleet, there are other times that Rorquals are at risk.
You might want to figure them out so that you can kill them and say, "Back in my day before the new structures patch ... blah blah... I am awesome ... blah blah ... kill Rorqual ... blah blah ... (link kill mail)" 
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids
.
High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow
Fozzie is treating a symptom.
|
Urziel99
Unified Research Zone
106
|
Posted - 2015.06.09 06:28:41 -
[36] - Quote
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:Urziel99 wrote:Mandar Amelana wrote:So I'm just throwing an idea out there to see where people stand on it. No doubt many of us have read the article about the Rorqual sabotage. I'm basing what I'm about to propose off the following quote from the article: Quote:Rorquals are industrial capital ships, incredibly rare with minimal uses for combatGÇömeaning they are rarely ever vulnerable. After having played this game for nearly four years, that struck me as a little antithetical to what this game is about, or perhaps it is just me. It just seems to me that if losing a ship really only happens from gross negligence or extremely elaborate plots like the one highlighted above, it might be good to talk about alternatives (educate me if I'm completely misunderstanding how often Rorqs actually get downed). So I'm tossing out the following idea, and I encourage you to amend it and flesh it out in whatever direction would make the game better: Whenever a POS is put into reinforced mode, it jettisons all currently free floating ships that are within the bubble. Ships cannot enter the bubble while it is in reinforced mode. Wormholers would never have a chance after a tower was reffed. bad idea. As to the Rorqual. It's primary purpose is to support mining operations with bonuses and mobile compression. only a few are brave/crazy enough to have them in the open, and given their cost and lack of defensive power that is justifiable. Here's a question, why do mining links project outside of POS force fields yet combat links do not? (silence..sound of crickets...) Second question, we seem to always hear about cries of making combat links only work 'on grid' with a pvp fleet. I am sure you also support the selfsame change to mining links, and that mining command ships should also be 'on grid' with mining fleets to work? F
To answer the troll,
Mining links work in a tower because they don't boost combat statistics the way Armor, Siege, Skirmish and Information Links do. When was the last time you ever heard of someone jumping a mining fleet and getting mined to death?
(crickets...............) Right. Moving on.
Mining links can be on grid only when we get viable command ships (IE putting mining foreman bonuses on existing T2 Command Ships) and a faction mindlink from ORE with Siege and Mining Foreman bonuses. That will make the command links consistent with the current iterations that have been given to all other command bonus types in all other respects as well.
Till then. The rorqual can stay in the POS. And you can continue to weep about having to have your neutral booster at risk of getting probed down. |
Iroquoiss Pliskin
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
724
|
Posted - 2015.06.09 11:46:02 -
[37] - Quote
Same goes for Jump Freighter with cynos being deployable at 0 km from stations -> From station invulnerability to Station invulnerability with 250bn in cargo.
You can't even move 3bn in a freighter safely in Hisec without a webber.
All the JFs you see on killboards are either amateurs dieing to station bumps due to amateur cyno placements, or getting ganked in Hisec. Most of the time they are flying empty.
// Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept
//
Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
|
Azarath NazGhoul
The Scope
Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.06.09 12:35:16 -
[38] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:Don't worry about Rorquals, as CCP Fozzie is on the case. "... basically next" as of May 1st, 2014. Any minute now. As for the ones that were destroyed mining, or with only capital tractor beams fitted: CCP Fozzie wrote:... you never put it in a belt, because that would be silly.
Well it could be worse, its just been a year for the Rorq so far, now they need at least another year for combat caps.
As stated they know the need to "look" TM at them.... |
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Origin.
Black Legion.
2313
|
Posted - 2015.06.09 14:54:14 -
[39] - Quote
Urziel99 wrote:
Mining links work in a tower because they don't boost combat statistics the way Armor, Siege, Skirmish and Information Links do. When was the last time you ever heard of someone jumping a mining fleet and getting mined to death?
I will go slow here, because you seem a little confused...
Warfare links boost combat factors for PVP players (i.e. people shooting people).
Mining links boost mining factors for PVE players (i.e. people shooting rocks).
Still with me?
Warfare links today can not project outside a POS forcefield.
Mining links today can project outside a POS forcefield.
Still with me? Am I going slow enough for you?
I have no issue with warfare link ships being exposed to risk (contrary to your troll), what I am saying is both PVP and PVE links should operate the same way re: risk vs reward. PERIOD.
IF mining links are going to be a risk-free boost to PVE players, then selfsame combat links should be a risk-free boost to PVP players. IF however you (rightly) say that PVP links should be exposed to some risk to give their benefit, then I am simply saying SO TOO SHOULD MINING LINKS.
tldr;
Still waiting for you to explain why PVE players should get risk-free links compared to PVP players who today do not, without quoting 'coding is hard' crap from CCP.
Stiiiiiill waiting.
F
Would you like to know more?
|
Ragnar Rancidbreeks
SYNDIC Unlimited
4
|
Posted - 2015.06.09 16:33:51 -
[40] - Quote
2 questions, If I may (which i can't see have been answered above)
1) Why are *carebears* being allowed access to capital ships ? They have no need of the, since they just pootle about the universe, existing to get shot at ?
2) Why is any corporation fielding a Rorqual without giving it adequate protection ? The incident which seems to have started this thread, appears to have occurred because the ship was being flown AFK. Surely that is a situation where one ought not only to lose the ship, but also pay whoever destroyed it for their ammunition. It also raises the question of why an "attacker" can't simply board an AFK ship and fly it away ? |
|
|
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
4973
|
Posted - 2015.06.09 16:39:09 -
[41] - Quote
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:Warfare links boost combat factors for PVP players (i.e. people shooting people).
Mining links boost mining factors for PVE players (i.e. people shooting rocks).
Possibly because a sudden overnight drop in mining yield might not be good for the game overall, because though a Rorqual in a belt is silly, a deployed one is insanity. Only CCP knows their reasoning though. |
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Origin.
Black Legion.
2313
|
Posted - 2015.06.09 17:03:26 -
[42] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:Warfare links boost combat factors for PVP players (i.e. people shooting people).
Mining links boost mining factors for PVE players (i.e. people shooting rocks). [reasons for giving carebears risk-free candy, while sticking it to PVP'ers] ... Only CCP knows their reasoning though.
Indeed, but one hopes the reasoning would be based in fairness and defendable logic across comparative playstyles, not 'coding is hard' rationalizations, or what I suspect is actually a new unspoken subtext of 'lets give carebears more risk-free candy'.
ILLUMINATI CONFIRMED
F
Would you like to know more?
|
Ragnar Rancidbreeks
SYNDIC Unlimited
4
|
Posted - 2015.06.09 17:08:56 -
[43] - Quote
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
Still waiting for you to explain why PVE players should get risk-free links compared to PVP players who today do not, without quoting 'coding is hard' crap from CCP.
Stiiiiiill waiting.
F
Probably because CCP recognise that, without "help" (= unfair advantage) carebears (like me) would no longer play the game.
The answer is simple -- 24/7 carebear-ageddon. With no carebears, there will be no inequality.
Can I hav my candy now ? |
Urziel99
Unified Research Zone
106
|
Posted - 2015.06.09 18:07:47 -
[44] - Quote
Ragnar Rancidbreeks wrote:2 questions, If I may (which i can't see have been answered above)
1) Why are *carebears* being allowed access to capital ships ? They have no need of the, since they just pootle about the universe, existing to get shot at ?
2) Why is any corporation fielding a Rorqual without giving it adequate protection ? The incident which seems to have started this thread, appears to have occurred because the ship was being flown AFK. Surely that is a situation where one ought not only to lose the ship, but also pay whoever destroyed it for their ammunition. It also raises the question of why an "attacker" can't simply board an AFK ship and fly it away ?
I love the whole self-righteous entitlement thing you've got going on. The only barrier to get any ship is ISK and sp, not some try-hard's worthless opinion.
If someone is dumb enough to lose a capital ship, then by all means do so. But don't come crying for free kills when they take steps to defend themselves. |
Urziel99
Unified Research Zone
106
|
Posted - 2015.06.09 18:10:27 -
[45] - Quote
Ragnar Rancidbreeks wrote:Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
Still waiting for you to explain why PVE players should get risk-free links compared to PVP players who today do not, without quoting 'coding is hard' crap from CCP.
Stiiiiiill waiting.
F
Probably because CCP recognise that, without "help" (= unfair advantage) carebears (like me) would no longer play the game. The answer is simple -- 24/7 carebear-ageddon. With no carebears, there will be no inequality. Can I hav my candy now ?
By your own edict you must now surrender any capital ships you own.
|
Urziel99
Unified Research Zone
106
|
Posted - 2015.06.09 18:16:45 -
[46] - Quote
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:Urziel99 wrote:
Mining links work in a tower because they don't boost combat statistics the way Armor, Siege, Skirmish and Information Links do. When was the last time you ever heard of someone jumping a mining fleet and getting mined to death?
I will go slow here, because you seem a little confused... Warfare links boost combat factors for PVP players (i.e. people shooting people). Mining links boost mining factors for PVE players (i.e. people shooting rocks). Still with me? Warfare links today can not project outside a POS forcefield. Mining links today can project outside a POS forcefield. Still with me? Am I going slow enough for you? I have no issue with warfare link ships being exposed to risk (contrary to your troll), what I am saying is both PVP and PVE links should operate the same way re: risk vs reward. PERIOD. IF mining links are going to be a risk-free boost to PVE players, then selfsame combat links should be a risk-free boost to PVP players. IF however you (rightly) say that PVP links should be exposed to some risk to give their benefit, then I am simply saying SO TOO SHOULD MINING LINKS. tldr; Still waiting for you to explain why PVE players should get risk-free links compared to PVP players who today do not, without quoting 'coding is hard' crap from CCP. Stiiiiiill waiting. F
Then maybe you should read more and sperg less. I already started what needs to happen to make on grid mining boosts a thing. But you aren't interested in getting mining links to a viable place first. You want to try to farm orca and rorqual kills.
|
Ragnar Rancidbreeks
SYNDIC Unlimited
4
|
Posted - 2015.06.09 18:28:17 -
[47] - Quote
Urziel99 wrote:Ragnar Rancidbreeks wrote:Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
Still waiting for you to explain why PVE players should get risk-free links compared to PVP players who today do not, without quoting 'coding is hard' crap from CCP.
Stiiiiiill waiting.
F
Probably because CCP recognise that, without "help" (= unfair advantage) carebears (like me) would no longer play the game. The answer is simple -- 24/7 carebear-ageddon. With no carebears, there will be no inequality. Can I hav my candy now ? By your own edict you must now surrender any capital ships you own.
Hello -- carebear here -- what would I need a capital for, when I can get ganked very easily in my frigate ?
|
Ragnar Rancidbreeks
SYNDIC Unlimited
4
|
Posted - 2015.06.09 18:29:29 -
[48] - Quote
Urziel99 wrote:
If someone is dumb enough to lose a capital ship, then by all means do so. But don't come crying for free kills when they take steps to defend themselves.
RTFT |
Dersen Lowery
Drinking in Station
1623
|
Posted - 2015.06.09 18:33:30 -
[49] - Quote
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
IF mining links are going to be a risk-free boost to PVE players, then selfsame combat links should be a risk-free boost to PVP players. IF however you (rightly) say that PVP links should be exposed to some risk to give their benefit, then I am simply saying SO TOO SHOULD MINING LINKS.
Show me how fielding a boosting Loki with a tiny signature and a relatively quick align time is even vaguely comparable to fielding a multi-billion ISK capital ship with an instantly-probable signature, the align time of a moon, and a looooong siege cycle, and I'm sure you'll have better luck winning people over to your side.
The problem is that "I have to expose my Loki to some small and easily contained risk, so he should have to put his Rorqual in absolute peril" is a dumb argument.
Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
I voted in CSM X!
|
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Origin.
Black Legion.
2313
|
Posted - 2015.06.09 19:20:35 -
[50] - Quote
Dersen Lowery wrote:Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
IF mining links are going to be a risk-free boost to PVE players, then selfsame combat links should be a risk-free boost to PVP players. IF however you (rightly) say that PVP links should be exposed to some risk to give their benefit, then I am simply saying SO TOO SHOULD MINING LINKS.
Show me how fielding a boosting Loki with a tiny signature and a relatively quick align time is even vaguely comparable to fielding a multi-billion ISK capital ship with an instantly-probable signature, the align time of a moon, and a looooong siege cycle, and I'm sure you'll have better luck winning people over to your side. The problem is that "I have to expose my Loki to some small and easily contained risk, so he should have to put his Rorqual in absolute peril" is a dumb argument.
So then the rorqual (and Orca because we aren't just talking about rorqual's here..) by your logic should then have ZERO peril while also still being able to project mining links out safely behind a force field?
Hate to break it too you but warefare link ships get probed down and murdered all the time, *if* the player isn't on the ball and paying attention; you know, that whole risk vs active participation thing?
Problem is fricken carebears always want 100% safety with NO active participation in making it so.
Boosting Orca's and Rorqual's behind POS forcefields are an abomination to the risk v reward core of EvE online, and this must be addressed immediately. Mining links should no longer work from behind a forcefield, just like warfare links.
PERIOD.
F
Would you like to know more?
|
|
|
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
4973
|
Posted - 2015.06.09 19:27:38 -
[51] - Quote
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:Dersen Lowery wrote:Show me how fielding a boosting Loki with a tiny signature and a relatively quick align time is even vaguely comparable to fielding a multi-billion ISK capital ship with an instantly-probable signature, the align time of a moon, and a looooong siege cycle, and I'm sure you'll have better luck winning people over to your side.
The problem is that "I have to expose my Loki to some small and easily contained risk, so he should have to put his Rorqual in absolute peril" is a dumb argument. So then the rorqual (and Orca because we aren't just talking about rorqual's here..) by your logic should then have ZERO peril while also still being able to project mining links out safely behind a force field?
Wow, that's quite a ridiculous jump in logic. How about just an equitable amount of risk?
That's CCP's goal, for what they've told us. WIP.
CCP Fozzie wrote:So the goal here will be to make a ship that is the kind of thing you want to put into a belt, with extremely strong defensive bonuses, and the ability to not only protect itself but its friends, and the ability to provide also a strong benefit to your mining fleet. Get these things out where they're in a bit of some danger, but also where that danger is manageable, where it is actually sane to put them into that danger.
The Orca is only affected as a (unfortunate) side-effect. |
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Origin.
Black Legion.
2313
|
Posted - 2015.06.09 19:36:07 -
[52] - Quote
Urziel99 wrote:
Then maybe you should read more and sperg less. I already started what needs to happen to make on grid mining boosts a thing. But you aren't interested in getting mining links to a viable place first. You want to try to farm orca and rorqual kills.
Pffft.
Rather than wait and 'believe' that a full balanced approach of equal risk v reward is rolled out SOONtm for all links, the immediate step to restore parity is to just turn off mining links RIGHT DAMNED NOW, and stop them from working in 100% safety from behind a POS forcefield. Now. Done.
THEN we can talk for days about whatever other mystical ideas you have.
F
Would you like to know more?
|
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Origin.
Black Legion.
2313
|
Posted - 2015.06.09 19:44:26 -
[53] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:So the goal here will be to make a ship that is the kind of thing you want to put into a belt, with extremely strong defensive bonuses, and the ability to not only protect itself but its friends, and the ability to provide also a strong benefit to your mining fleet. Get these things out where they're in a bit of some danger, but also where that danger is manageable, where it is actually sane to put them into that danger.
Dear Fozzie,
- Turn off mining-link ability to work from behind a POS forcefield. Do it naow.
- Create a cruiser-class mining link command ship, with comparable sig and maneuverability to PVP command/T3 link ships. Have it's link effectiveness much less than an Orca or Rorqual's capital ship boosts though.
- Ask carebears to then choose between capital and cruiser mining link ships, and provide any requisite military support to keep what they choose alive.
p.s.
If you make warfare links go 'on grid' in the future, you damned well better ensure mining links have the same requirement. PVP'ers are people too.
F
Would you like to know more?
|
Urziel99
Unified Research Zone
107
|
Posted - 2015.06.09 19:53:56 -
[54] - Quote
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:Urziel99 wrote:
Then maybe you should read more and sperg less. I already started what needs to happen to make on grid mining boosts a thing. But you aren't interested in getting mining links to a viable place first. You want to try to farm orca and rorqual kills.
Pffft. Rather than wait and 'believe' that a full balanced approach of equal risk v reward is rolled out SOONtm for all links, the immediate step to restore parity is to just turn off mining links RIGHT DAMNED NOW, and stop them from working in 100% safety from behind a POS forcefield. Now. Done. THEN we can talk for days about whatever other mystical ideas you have. F
Just as soon as you start paying 3 bill for your boosting ships.
P.S. Most Orcas in highsec boost from the belt and haul for their gang. They are the best ship for the job in that space. Freighters are too slow and can't fit tractor beams.
Do continue to cry and shake your fists and scream "unfair!" It might get Fozzie to pick up the pace. (Ok, not really) |
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Origin.
Black Legion.
2318
|
Posted - 2015.06.09 20:06:36 -
[55] - Quote
Urziel99 wrote:Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:Urziel99 wrote:
Then maybe you should read more and sperg less. I already started what needs to happen to make on grid mining boosts a thing. But you aren't interested in getting mining links to a viable place first. You want to try to farm orca and rorqual kills.
Pffft. Rather than wait and 'believe' that a full balanced approach of equal risk v reward is rolled out SOONtm for all links, the immediate step to restore parity is to just turn off mining links RIGHT DAMNED NOW, and stop them from working in 100% safety from behind a POS forcefield. Now. Done. THEN we can talk for days about whatever other mystical ideas you have. F Just as soon as you start paying 3 bill for your boosting ships. P.S. Most Orcas in highsec boost from the belt and haul for their gang. They are the best ship for the job in that space. Freighters are too slow and can't fit tractor beams. Do continue to cry and shake your fists and scream "unfair!" It might get Fozzie to pick up the pace. (Ok, not really)
First, I am ok with a new cruiser-class mining link ship. Provided it has way reduced link power compared to the capital ships (Orca, Rorqual), its cargo is also cruiser sized, and its cost is comparable to a PVP command or T3 link ship. (i.e. not cheap)
Secondly, when a PVP crew does field a Titan or Dreads, they typically have to keep them protected with a subcap fleet. Why are we saying a PVE crew however fielding a mining capital ship shouldn't have to protect it with a subcap fleet? Again, if the cruiser-class mining link ship isn't 'enough' for the little bears, then they need to ante up and protect their capital mining ships just like everyone else...
Not get continued 100% safety behind a POS forcefield because of a lame 'spensive' argument'.
F
Would you like to know more?
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
13375
|
Posted - 2015.06.09 20:09:39 -
[56] - Quote
Urziel99 wrote:
Just as soon as you start paying 3 bill for your boosting ships.
Wait, can Titans DD out of a Pos shield? No?
Then you shouldn't be able to boost out of one.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
1355
|
Posted - 2015.06.09 20:20:04 -
[57] - Quote
Might be something to do with mining boosters being capitals...imagine if only caps could combat boost  |
Dersen Lowery
Drinking in Station
1624
|
Posted - 2015.06.09 20:46:51 -
[58] - Quote
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:Hate to break it too you but warfare link ships get probed down and murdered all the time, *if* the player isn't on the ball and paying attention; you know, that whole risk vs active participation thing?
So in other words, if the link ship is probed down and murdered then it's the controlling player's fault, which means that it's possible to mitigate that risk. If a Rorqual's probed down and murdered, it was in space, where it's a sitting duck.
So you agree with me. Good! Progress.
You even say that CCP should introduce a cruiser-sized booster for mining fleets as a fix for moving mining boosts out of POS shields. That will result in the immediate replacement of Rorquals with this smaller, cheaper, more survivable booster, of course, with Rorquals becoming hangar queens until CCP decides to do something with them. Which, if you've spent all the time training into a Rorqual and if you've laid out billions of ISK to acquire one, is a bit of a bitter pill, isn't it?
The fact is that all you will accomplish by forcing mining boosts into space, this hypothetical subcap booster aside, is effectively confining them to Orca boosts in high sec--because what the game really needs is more reasons for people to mine in high sec, right? Your mythical Rorqual defense fleet will never happen because mining defense fleets are terrible gameplay and so hardly anyone bothers. The nearest thing you'll ever see is a fleet of battle Skiffs with strip miners and a couple of alts in Scimitars, and even then only if the danger outweighs the loss in profit from not having the fleet and the alts in max-yield Hulks.
You are right that CCP can't push mining links out of POS shields until they offer a mining booster that more closely resembles existing combat boosters. But that's not enough either. They really need to figure out what to do with the Rorqual.
Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
I voted in CSM X!
|
Urziel99
Unified Research Zone
107
|
Posted - 2015.06.09 20:50:47 -
[59] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Urziel99 wrote:
Just as soon as you start paying 3 bill for your boosting ships.
Wait, can Titans DD out of a Pos shield? No? Then you shouldn't be able to boost out of one.
Titans need a target lock DD someone so no they can't be in a tower.
The titans do have a unique boosting ability outside of warfare links but I don't know if it works inside a tower's shield.
As for feyd. If any boosting ship is made it must be equal to those of their appropriate class counterparts. IE 3% just like the orca and the other command ships. No penalties because of your obvious biases. If/when the rorqual gets it's rebalance and it's defense is viable you might get a shot at padding your killboard. Not one second before. |
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec
CODE.
13375
|
Posted - 2015.06.09 20:56:52 -
[60] - Quote
Urziel99 wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Urziel99 wrote:
Just as soon as you start paying 3 bill for your boosting ships.
Wait, can Titans DD out of a Pos shield? No? Then you shouldn't be able to boost out of one. Titans need a target lock DD someone so no they can't be in a tower. The titans do have a unique boosting ability outside of warfare links but I don't know if it works inside a tower's shield. As for feyd. If any boosting ship is made it must be equal to those of their appropriate class counterparts. IE 3% just like the orca and the other command ships. No penalties because of your obvious biases. If/when the rorqual gets it's rebalance and it's defense is viable you might get a shot at padding your killboard. Not one second before.
IMO, if it has a mechanical, measurable effect on ships, it should have to be on grid to do it. None of this Pos shield ****, for mining boosts or normal boosts. If you want to boost your fleet, be on grid.
Solves this discussion, and several others.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
Best Meltdown Ever.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |